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
4525963
label
American Heritage Foundation's Northeastern Regional Vote Workshop, Philadelphia, PA, July 11, 1966
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525963
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
American Heritage Foundation's Northeastern Regional Vote Workshop, Philadelphia, PA, July 11, 1966
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Campaign debates
Political affairs
Political parties
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525963
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1966-07-31
month
7
year
1966
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1966-07-01
month
7
year
1966
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
53a72b1f5bb25708
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D20, folder "American Heritage Foundation's
Northeastern Regional Vote Workshop, Philadelphia, PA, July 11, 1966" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 D20 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential-Library
An Address by the Honorable Gerald R. Ford before
American Heritage Foundation's Northeastern
Regional Vote Workshop, Philadelphia, Bellevue-
Stratford Hotel, on Monday, July 11, 1966.
SALUTE TO OUR TWO-PARTY SYSTEM
When those who are deep in the political battle--like Mr. Bailey and me--are
invited to give non-partisan talks, we are forced to make some major readjustments
the
content of our remarks.
Balley and I have to make such readjustments not only because of the
nature of this audience but also because of the place selected for this conference.
We are eeting in the City of Brotherly Love. We shouldn't forget that this
evening.
Among other things, we have to write a new speech. That basic talk for
partisan gatherings which we give over and over again has to be scrapped. Even
the jokes have to go because partisan political humor just doesn't seem funny to
those
outside the ranks of party faithful.
Tonight we salute the two-party system, the political system that our nation
has had most from its beginnings. As the representative of what is temporarily
the minority party, I want to thank the American Heritage Foundation for the
valuable work which it has done for many years to give life and meaning to that
system. I congratulate the Foundation on the inauguration of these Regional Vote
Workshops, and I wish you success in your 1966 Nonpartisan Register and Vote
Daign.
The work that the Foundation is doing looks to nurturing in the hearts of
al zens the ideals of democratic government. Unless these ideals flourish
there, constitution, no law, certainly no political party or its leadership
an maintain the health of our political system.
In
96
the Democrats alleged a "missile gap." Republicans from General
Eisenhowe on down denied the charge. In 1966 the Republicans contend there is
a White House 'credibility gap." John Bailey will protest vehemently. But both
of us will likely agree there is a "commitment gap" on the part of too many
Americans. What we need is a commitment to broad, staunch, and constructive
support for the two-party system.
Several centuries ago, the Italian poet Dante put it this way: "The hottest
hell are reserved for those who, in 8 period of noral crisis, maintain
My plea is that all Americans discard political neutrality
FORD
attle to preserve the two-party system.
GERALD
LIBRARY
Best Possible Scan from Poor Quality Original
-2-
AMERICAN HERITAGE WORKSHOP
What is called for, I sincerely believe, is a decision by more and more
Americans to renounce political neutrality during elections and to bring their
entire individual effort to bear on behalf of candidates who meet their rigid
specifications of honor and outlook.
As individuals, you have the responsibility and duty to become actively
engaged in partisan politics. I am not here as a recruiter for the Republican
Party although I will be glad to take applications at the door. What I am
saying is that you cannot, as individuals, expect to achieve concrete political
results if you are unwilling to join and work for the party of your choice. It
is only within a party that you can help to determine party policy, help select
candidates for party nomination and work for their eventual election. It is only
within a political party that you can till and fertilize the soil which will
produce the kind of legislators who will, for example, get some of our basic
problems, state and national, out of petty politics. Many like myself in the
political arena are disappointed that more of our highly motivated citizens are
not working as actively as they should be in a political party.
What the Foundation is siming at is the broadest type of citizen participation
in the political process. It is a goal that deserves the unstinting support of
both great American political parties.
The political party is the agency, and really the only agency, through
which citizens can fully and effectively participate in the political process.
Where there is freedom, there will be more than a single political party,
for free men will not all think alike.
It may seem strange that the founding fathers viewed the growth of parties
with alarm. They made no provision for them in the Constitution. George Washington
warned his countrymen against them in his Farewell Address. Our forefathers'
apprehension was not without reason. Political wars in the England of their time
were characterized by bitter party strife and divisive partisanship.
It was Thomas Jefferson who started our two-party system. You might say that
as vice-president he was the first minority leader on Capitol Hill.
Jefferson thereby added to the constitutional checks and balances another
safeguard in our experiment in democratic government. It has saved the nation
from the oppression which so often characterizes those countries where a single
political party dominates every aspect of political life and, unchecked, stifles
all dissent. And it has saved the nation from the anarchy and chaos which so
often characterizes those countries where every conceivable faction organizes
inself into an ndependent political party.
(More)
-3-
AMERICAN HERITAGE WORKSHOP
Elihu Root called the two-party system a sign of political maturity. The
two-party system guarantees a wide appeal to the electorate and it increases the
chances for coherence and stability in government. It avoids the irresponsibility
of factionalism which, at best, operates to allow popular control in a one-party
state. More important than these theoretical considerations is the fact that the
two-party system, in the context of America, her institutions and traditions, has
met the test of history. It works. It is an important part of that complex set
of balances and mechanisms that have made the American experiment in democratic
government the world's greatest success story.
Under Jefferson's innovation, America has prospered, maintaining always her
commitment to both majority rule and freedom of dissent. Many countries, particu-
larly in Latin America, have copied our Constitution. And in many cases they have
met with repeated failure. One of the keys to understanding why is their inability
to develop a two-party system.
A goal of this Northeastern Regional Vote Workshop is to consider ways to
sharpen the cutting edges of our two-party system. The problem was never stated
better than it was some forty years ago by the prominent British writer,
Mr. J. A. Spender. The problem, he said, "is to convince our fellow countrymen
that to have political convictions, to join a party, to work for it, and to support
it out of their purses, so far as means allow, are among duties of all citizens,
and cannot be neglected without serious harm to the country." This is one of the
great unsolved problems of democracy. Until we solve it, our two-party system
and the very quality of our government will be defective.
The indices of citizen involvement in politics do not tell an encouraging
story in the United States. The percentage of citizens of voting age who have
voted in recent presidential elections has hovered about the level of 60 per cent.
In off-year Congressional elections, it has been running between 45 and 49 per cent.
In local elections a turnout of 30 to 40 per cent is common. These levels of
voter participation do not compare favorably with those of advanced nations with
a democratic form of government in other parts of the world.
With less than two-thirds of the potential electorate actually voting, how
many less ever actively work for a political party or for candidates for office?
And of those who work--performing the important role of informing their fellow
citizens--how many less ever make a financial contribution? The number gets smaller
and snaller, and diminishing with it is the effectiveness of our two-party system.
(More)
-4-
AMERICAN HERITAGE WORKSHOP
Particularly acute is the need for an adequate financial foundation, one
consistent with democratic principles. Herbert Alexander, Staff Director of
President Kennedy's Commission on Campaign costs, has put the costs of 1964
campaigns at 200 million dollars. Such expenditures are not unjustifiably large
in campaigns directed toward a potential electorate of more than 100 million who
are asked to vote for at least 200,000 offices of some significance.
Only about 10 per cent of adult Americans ever contribute to election
campaigns. This figure is significantly higher than it was fifty or even twenty-
five years ago, but it is still far too low. It is not healthy for the costs of
democracy to be met by 80 few. The day when political parties can sit back and
dependon large contributors must end. Our election costs must be covered without
jeopardizing our public morals. Our goal should be securing ever more contributors
to our political parties on a regular year-round basis. The wider the base of
party funds, the less suspicion there can be of improper influence. There is a
job to be done. Recent data from the University of Michigan Survey Research
Center shows that less than half of those interviewed had ever heard of efforts
to raise money for campaign expenses. Eighty-five had never been asked to
contribute. Only one out of fifty had ever participated in a campaign fund-raising
drive. When asked if they would contribute if approached, P. fourth said yes,
while 58 per cent replied no.
Our failure here is deplorable--and even more so because we raise annually
throughout the country large sums for welfare and other community needs. Is the
well-being of our political system any less important? With hard work and
organization, and with the help of groups like the American Heritage Foundation,
our political parties can meet this test. My own party has made strides in this
direction. Since 1963 a substantial portion of the operating budget of the
Republican National Committee has been met by annual ten-dollar sustaining
memberships. In 1964, through the extensive use of direct mail and television
appeals, 72 per cent of the contributions for the Republican presidential campaign
came in sums less than 500 dollars. Only 30 per cent of the contributions to the
Democrats came in these smaller sums. But establishing the measuring rod at
500 dollars is still setting it awfully high. There is much more that both
parties can do and must do to interest the individual citizen of limited means
in investing in our political process. Until we do--until the costs of democracy
are apportioned democratically--our two-party system will not be doing the best
job it can.
(More)
-5-
AMERICAN HERITAGE WORKSHOP
In the field of legislation there is also much that can be done. Efforts
here are generally aimed at restraining abuses in raising and spending campaign
funds.
I suggest that it is time to emphasize the need for adequate financing of
par PS and candidates through mass contributions of small amounts. The present
methods of tund-raising too often shut out of elective office men and women who
ack substantial personal funds or lack personal access to great wealth.
There are other steps that can be taken to lighten the burden of campaign
COS s--n tably modifying the restrictions of Section 315 of the Federal Communica-
'tons A t--the equal time provision--which operates to prevent television and
radio stations from providing free time to candidates for office.
Those who discuss the inadequate participation of citizens in the political
process generally center their fire on the citizen. He is denounced by critics
as apathetic, uninformed, and uninterested.
I feel that the indictment must be extended to cover politicians and perhaps
others in un society. If the citizen is uninterested, is this lack of interest
due to some degreee to the failure of politicians to offer something that will
arouse h:s interest? If he is uninformed, is it because much political oratory
is not really informative? Some will contend--perhaps it's an alibi--that they
just can't get the facts from any source.
There 5 need for drastic reform of campaign procedures that go back to the
hoise-an huggy era. Something in this direction is being done by the Republican
National mmittee On the suggestion of President Eisenhower, Chairman Bliss
has mission at work studying the quadrennial national convention with a
streamlining this venerable but soporific institution.
This is a start, but much more is needed if campaigns are better to serve
the surp se of spreading information and capturing public interest
In 1968 I hope that televised debates between presidential candidates, so
successful in attracting public interest in the 1960 campaign, will be conducted
again. I see little merit in the argument that any incumbent president should
not engage in debate with his opponent. I believe President Kennedy would have
debated his R publican challenger in 1964 had he lived to run for reelection--and
the voters would have been the beneficieries.
If, however, the candidates t.hemselves are unwilling to engage in debate, they
could designate 50
participate in join televised appearances on their behalf.
(More)
-6-
AMERICAN HERITAGE WORKSHOP
Debate between the parties should be practiced far more widely than it is
at present. Although I attach special importance to debate in presidential
campaigns, there should be a running debate between party spokesmen at all
political levels at all times. There are ( always important issues. There are
always differences of opinion on some of them. The parties would be strengthened,
the public would be better informed, and policy decisions would be made more
wisely if we argued out things before the public.
To talk of the two-party system is to invite attention to the woes of the
minority party. I shall refrain from inflicting on you any long list of complaints,
but I do want to express one fear which, if justified, should be of concern to all
regardless of party.
It is not easy for the minority to make its voice heard. In this age of
mass communication, the Office of the President dominates the American political
scene. The eyes of the nation and the world are fixed upon it. And rightly so.
Its power is awesome, as is the responsibility which confronts the man who possesses
it. It is power to do enormous good. But the great power to do good is, at its
root, simply great power. Free men must be able to check it and challenge it,
lest it consume them.
If free men cannot check and challenge it, then we do have one-party rule.
If it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to do so, then we have begun a
journey down a dangerous road.
We seek in our political life the attainment of justice and the containment
of power. The two-party system plays a vital role in the struggle to achieve these
goals. By providing debate and discussion it helps us travel a much surer course
toward justice for all our citizens.
The minority must be able to get its views out to the people. I hope that
the minority State of the Union Message, first delivered this year, will become
a permanent institution--given time and prominence corresponding to that of the
President.
Although I speak tonight for the minority, the Republicans, I do not believe
that those in the minority can or should sit back and bide their time. There
are some, a very few fortunately, who argue that the minority should await a
national disaster at home or abroad and then move in, pick up the pieces and
build from the shambles. This I contend is neither the tradition nor the heritage
of the Republican Party in the 1960's. This was not the role of the Republican
Party under Lincoln or Eisenhower. It was not the role of the Democrats in their
(More)
-7-
AMERICAN HERITAGE WORKSHOP
dark days in the minority in the 1920's. We must by the competence of our candidates,
by the record of legislators and administrators and by the philosophy that we
espouse earn the respect of our fellow citizens.
My suggestions only touch the surface. In the final analysis the future of
our two-party system depends on the courage and conviction of all Americans-of
whatever political stripe--and their commitment to the values of majority rule
and freedom of dissent.
These values are the heritage of all Americans. They are values that will
be preserved only through strengthening the two-party system.
###
Paul Butter
Inc. of Virgani Isle
2
Landslike margin 73/64
SPEECH BEFORE AMER. HERITAGE FOUNDATION'S NORTHEASTERN
REGIONAL VOTE WORKSHOP, PHILADELPHIA
JULY 11, 1966
SALUTE TO OUR TWO-PARTY SYSTEM
WHEN THOSE WHO ARE DEEP IN THE POLITICAL BATTLE--LIKE
MR. BAILEY AND ME--ARE INVITED TO GIVE NON-PARTISAN TALKS,
WE ARE FORCED TO MAKE SOME MAJOR READJUSTMENTS IN THE
CONTENT OF OUR REMARKS.
MR. BAILEY AND I HAVE TO MAKE SUCH READJUSTMENTS NOT
ONLY BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THIS AUDIENCE BUT ALSO BECAUSE
OF THE PLACE SELECTED FOR THIS CONFERENCE. WE ARE MEETING
IN THE CITY OF BROTHERLY LOVE. WE SHOULDN'T FORGET THAT
THIS EVENING.
GERALD 198817 FORD
AMONG OTHER THINGS, WE HAVE TO WRITE A NEW SPEECH.
-2-
THAT BASIC TALK FOR PARTISAN GATHERINGS WHICH WE GIVE OVER
AND OVER AGAIN HAS TO BE SCRAPPED. EVEN THE JOKES HAVE TO
GO BECAUSE PARTISAN POLITICAL HUMOR JUST DOESN'T SEEM
FUNNY TO THOSE OUTSIDE THE RANKS OF PARTY FAITHFUL.
TONIGHT WE SALUTE THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM, THE POLITICAL
SYSTEM THAT OUR NATION HAS HAD ALMOST FROM ITS BEGINNINGS.
AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT IS TEMPORARILY THE MINORITY
PARTY, I WANT TO THANK THE AMERICAN HERITAGE FOUNDATION
FOR THE VALUABLE WORK WHICH IT HAS DONE FOR MANY YEARS TO
GIVE LIFE AND MEANING TO THAT SYSTEM. I CONGRATULATE THE
FOUNDATION ON THE INAUGURATION OF THESE REGIONAL VOTE
WORKSHOPS, AND I WISH YOU SUCCESS IN YOUR 1966 NONPARTISAN
REGISTER AND VOTE CAMPAIGN.
THE WORK THAT THE FOUNDATION IS DOING LOOKS TO NURTURING
-3-
IN THE HEARTS OF ALL CITIZENS THE IDEALS OF DEMOCRATIC
GOVERNMENT. UNLESS THESE IDEALS FLOURISH THERE
NO
CONSTITUTION, NO LAW, CERTAINLY NO POLITICAL PARTY OR
ITS LEADERSHIP CAN MAINTAIN THE HEALTH OF OUR POLITICAL
SYSTEM.
IN 1960 THE DEMOCRATS ALLEGED A "MISSILE GAP."
REPUBLICANS FROM GENERAL EISENHOWER ON DOWN DENIED THE
CHARGE. IN 1966 THE REPUBLICANS CONTEND THERE IS A WHITE
HOUSE "CREDIBILITY GAP." JOHN BAILEY WILL PROTEST
VEHEMENTLY. BUT BOTH OF US WILL LIKELY AGREE THERE IS A
"COMMITMENT GAP" ON THE PART OF TOO MANY AMERICANS. WHAT
WE NEED IS A COMMITMENT TO BROAD, STAUNCH, AND CONSTRUCTIVE
SUPPORT FOR THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM.
GERALD FORD VIBRARY
-4-
SEVERAL CENTURIES AGO, THE ITALIAN POET DANTE PUT IT
THIS WAY: "THE HOTTEST PLACES IN HELL ARE RESERVED FOR
THOSE WHO, IN A PERIOD OF MORAL CRISIS, MAINTAIN THEIR
NEUTRALITY." MY PLEA IS THAT ALL AMERICANS DISCARD
POLITICAL NEUTRALITY AND ENLIST IN THE BATTLE TO PRESERVE
THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM.
WHAT IS CALLED FOR, I SINCERELY BELIEVE, IS A DECISION
BY MORE AND MORE AMERICANS TO RENOUNCE POLITICAL NEUTRALITY
DURING ELECTIONS AND TO BRING THEIR ENTIRE INDIVIDUAL EFFORT
TO BEAR ON BEHALF OF CANDIDATES WHO MEET THEIR RIGID
SPECIFICATIONS OF HONOR AND OUTLOOK dwithin The framework The two system party
AS INDIVIDUALS, YOU HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY AND DUTY
TO BECOME ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN PARTISAN POLITICS. I AM NOT
GERALD
HERE AS A RECRUITER FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ALTHOUGH I WILL
-5-
BE GLAD TO TAKE APPLICATIONS AT THE DOOR. WHAT I AM SAYING
IS THAT YOU CANNOT, AS INDIVIDUALS, EXPECT TO ACHIEVE
CONCRETE POLITICAL RESULTS IF YOU ARE UNWILLING TO JOIN
AND WORK FOR THE PARTY OF YOUR CHOICE. IT IS ONLY WITHIN
A PARTY THAT YOU CAN HELP TO DETERMINE PARTY POLICY, HELP
SELECT CANDIDATES FOR PARTY NOMINATION AND WORK FOR THEIR
EVENTUAL ELECTION. IT IS ONLY WITHIN A POLITICAL PARTY
THAT YOU CAN TILL AND FERTILIZE THE SOIL WHICH WILL PRODUCE
THE KIND OF LEGISLATORS WHO WILL, FOR EXAMPLE, GET SOME OF
OUR BASIC PROBLEMS, STATE AND NATIONAL, OUT OF PETTY POLITICS
MANY LIKE MYSELF IN THE POLITICAL ARENA ARE DISAPPOINTED
THAT MORE OF OUR HIGHLY MOTIVATED CITIZENS ARE NOT WORKING
AS ACTIVELY AS THEY SHOULD BE IN A POLITICAL PARTY.
WHAT THE FOUNDATION IS AIMING AT IS THE BROADEST TYPE
LIBRARY
-6-
OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS. IT IS
A GOAL THAT DESERVES THE UNSTINTING SUPPORT OF BOTH GREAT
AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES.
THE POLITICAL PARTY IS THE AGENCY, AND REALLY THE ONLY
AGENCY, THROUGH WHICH CITIZENS CAN FULLY AND EFFECTIVELY
PARTICIPATE IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS.
WHERE THERE IS FREEDOM, THERE WILL BE MORE THAN A
SINGLE POLITICAL PARTY, FOR FREE MEN WILL NOT ALL THINK ALIKE.
IT MAY SEEM STRANGE THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS VIEWED
THE GROWTH OF PARTIES WITH ALARM. THEY MADE NO PROVISION
FOR THEM IN THE CONSTITUTION. GEORGE WASHINGTON WARNED HIS
COUNTRYMEN AGAINST THEM IN HIS FAREWELL ADDRESS. OUR
FORD
GERALD
FOREFATHERS' APPREHENSION WAS NOT WITHOUT REASON. POLITICAL
181
-7-
WARS IN THE ENGLAND OF THEIR TIME WERE CHARACTERIZED BY
BITTER PARTY STRIFE AND DIVISIVE PARTISANSHIP.
IT WAS THOMAS JEFFERSON WHO STARTED OUR TWO-PARTY
SYSTEM. YOU MIGHT SAY THAT AS VICE-PRESIDENT HE WAS THE
FIRST MINORITY LEADER ON CAPITOL HILL.
JEFFERSON THEREBY ADDED TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHECKS
AND BALANCES ANOTHER SAFEGUARD IN OUR EXPERIMENT IN
DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT. IT HAS SAVED THE NATION FROM THE
OPPRESSION WHICH SO OFTEN CHARACTERIZES THOSE COUNTRIES
WHERE A SINGLE POLITICAL PARTY DOMINATES EVERY ASPECT OF
POLITICAL LIFE AND, UNCHECKED, STIFLES ALL DISSENT. AND
IT HAS SAVED THE NATION FROM THE ANARCHY AND CHAOS WHICH
GERALD
SO OFTEN CHARACTERIZES THOSE COUNTRIES WHERE EVERY CONCE IVABLE
FACTION ORGANIZES ITSELF INTO AN INDEPENDENT POLITICAL PARTY.
-8-
ELIHU ROOT CALLED THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM A SIGN OF
POLITICAL MATURITY. THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM GUARANTEES A
WIDE APPEAL TO THE ELECTORATE AND IT INCREASES THE CHANCES
FOR COHERENCE AND STABILITY IN GOVERNMENT. IT AVOIDS THE
IRRESPONSIBILITY OF FACTIONALISM WHICH, AT BEST, OPERATES
TO ALLOW POPULAR CONTROL IN A ONE-PARTY STATE. MORE
IMPORTANT THAN THESE THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS IS THE
FACT THAT THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM, IN THE CONTEXT OF AMERICA,
HER INSTITUTIONS AND TRADITIONS, HAS MET THE TEST OF HISTORY.
IT WORKS. IT IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THAT COMPLEX SET OF
BALANCES AND MECHANISMS THAT HAVE MADE THE AMERICAN
EXPERIMENT IN DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT THE WORLD'S GREATEST
SUCCESS STORY.
GERALD LIQUARY
UNDER JEFFERSON'S INNOVATION, AMERICA HAS PROSPERED,
-9-
MAINTAINING ALWAYS HER COMMITMENT TO BOTH MAJORITY RULE
AND FREEDOM OF DISSENT. MANY COUNTRIES, PARTICULARLY IN
LATIN AMERICA, HAVE COPIED OUR CONSTITUTION. AND IN MANY
CASES THEY HAVE MET WITH REPEATED FAILURE. ONE OF THE KEYS
TO UNDERSTANDING WHY IS THEIR INABILITY TO DEVELOP A
TWO-PARTY SYSTEM.
A GOAL OF THIS NORTHEASTERN REGIONAL VOTE WORKSHOP IS
TO CONSIDER WAYS TO SHARPEN THE CUTTING EDGES OF OUR
TWO-PARTY SYSTEM. THE PROBLEM WAS NEVER STATED BETTER THAN
IT WAS SOME YEARS AGO BY THE PROMINENT BRITISH WRITER,
MR. J. A. SPENDER. THE PROBLEM, HE SAID, "IS TO CONVINCE
OUR FELLOW COUNTRYMEN THAT TO HAVE POLITICAL CONVICTIONS,
TO JOIN A PARTY, TO WORK FOR IT, AND TO SUPPORT IT OUT OF
THEIR PURSES, SO FAR AS MEANS ALLOW, ARE AMONG DUTIES OF
-10-
ALL CITIZENS, AND CANNOT BE NEGLECTED WITHOUT SERIOUS
HARM TO THE COUNTRY." THIS IS ONE OF THE GREAT UNSOLVED
PROBLEMS OF DEMOCRACY. UNTIL WE SOLVE IT, OUR TWO-PARTY
SYSTEM AND THE VERY QUALITY OF OUR GOVERNMENT WILL BE
DEFECTIVE.
THE INDICES OF CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN POLITICS DO NOT
TELL AN ENCOURAGING STORY IN THE UNITED STATES. THE
PERCENTAGE OF CITIZENS OF VOTING AGE WHO HAVE VOTED IN
RECENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS HAS HOVERED ABOUT THE LEVEL
OF 60 PER CENT. IN OFF-YEAR CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS, IT
HAS BEEN RUNNING BETWEEN 45 AND 49 PER CENT. IN LOCAL
ELECTIONS A TURNOUT OF 30 TO 40 PER CENT IS COMMON. THESE
LEVELS OF VOTER PARTICIPATION DO NOT COMPARE FAVORABLY
WITH THOSE OF ADVANCED NATIONS WITH A DEMOCRATIC FORM OF
GOVERNMENT IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD.
-11-
WITH LESS THAN TWO-THIRDS OF THE POTENTIAL ELECTORATE
ACTUALLY VOTING, HOW MANY LESS EVER ACTIVELY WORK FOR A
POLITICAL PARTY OR FOR CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE? AND OF THOSE
WHO WORK--PERFORMING THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF INFORMING THEIR
FELLOW CITIZENS--HOW MANY LESS EVER MAKE A FINANCIAL
CONTRIBUTION? THE NUMBER GETS SMALLER AND SMALLER, AND
DIMINISHING WITH IT IS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR TWO-PARTY
SYSTEM.
PARTICULARLY ACUTE IS THE NEED FOR AN ADEQUATE FINANCIAL
FOUNDATION, ONE CONSISTENT WITH DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES.
HERBERT ALEXANDER, STAFF DIRECTOR OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S
THE
COMMISSION ON CAMPAIGN COSTS, HAS PUT THE COSTS OF 1964
CAMPAIGNS AT 200 MILLION DOLLARS. SUCH EXPENDITURES ARE
NOT UNJUSTIFIABLY LARGE IN CAMPAIGNS DIRECTED TOWARD A
GERALD
-12-
POTENTIAL ELECTORATE OF MORE THAN 100 MILLION WHO ARE
ASKED TO VOTE FOR AT LEAST 200,000 OFFICES OF SOME
SIGNIFICANCE.
ONLY ABOUT 10 PER CENT OF ADULT AMERICANS EVER CONTRIBUTE
TO ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. THIS FIGURE IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER
THAN IT WAS FIFTY OR EVEN TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO, BUT IT IS
STILL FAR TOO LOW. IT IS NOT HEALTHY FOR THE COSTS OF
DEMOCRACY TO BE MET BY SO FEW. THE DAY WHEN POLITICAL
PARTIES CAN SIT BACK AND DEPEND ON LARGE CONTRIBUTORS MUST
END. OUR ELECTION COSTS MUST BE COVERED WITHOUT JEOPARDIZING
OUR PUBLIC MORALS. OUR GOAL SHOULD BE SECURING EVER MORE
CONTRIBUTORS TO OUR POLITICAL PARTIES ON A REGULAR YEAR-
ROUND BASIS. THE WIDER THE BASE OF PARTY FUNDS, THE LESS
SUSPICION THERE CAN BE OF IMPROPER INFLUENCE. THERE IS A
-13-
JOB TO BE DONE. RECENT DATA FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER SHOWS THAT LESS THAN HALF OF THOSE
INTERVIEWED HAD EVER HEARD OF EFFORTS TO RAISE MONEY FOR
CAMPAIGN EXPENSES. EIGHTY-FIVE PER CENT HAD NEVER BEEN
ASKED TO CONTRIBUTE. ONLY ONE OUT OF FIFTY HAD EVER
PARTICIPATED IN A CAMPAIGN FUND-RAISING DRIVE. WHEN ASKED
IF THEY WOULD CONTRIBUTE IF APPROACHED, A FOURTH SAID YES,
WHILE 58 PER CENT REPLIED NO.
OUR FAILURE HERE IS DEPLORABLE--AND EVEN MORE SO BECAUSE
WE RAISE ANNUALLY THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY LARGE SUMS FOR
WELFARE AND OTHER COMMUNITY NEEDS. IS THE WELL-BEING OF
OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM ANY LESS IMPORTANT? WITH HARD WORK
AND ORGANIZATION, AND WITH THE HELP OF GROUPS LIKE THE
AMERICAN HERITAGE FOUNDATION, OUR POLITICAL PARTIES CAN
GERALD LIBRARY
-14-
MEET THIS TEST. MY OWN PARTY HAS MADE STRIDES IN THIS
DIRECTION. SINCE 1963 A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE
OPERATING BUDGET OF THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE HAS
BEEN MET BY ANNUAL TEN-DOLLAR SUSTAINING MEMBERSHIPS.
IN 1964, THROUGH THE EXTENSIVE USE OF DIRECT MAIL AND
TELEVISION APPEALS, 72 PER CENT OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR
THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN CAME IN SUMS LESS
THAN 500 DOLLARS. ONLY 30 PER CENT OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS
TO THE DEMOCRATS CAME IN THESE SMALLER SUMS. BUT ESTABLISHING
THE MEASURING ROD AT 500 DOLLARS IS STILL SETTING IT
AWFULLY HIGH. THERE IS MUCH MORE THAT BOTH PARTIES CAN AND
MUST DO TO INTEREST THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN OF LIMITED MEANS
IN INVESTING IN OUR POLITICAL PROCESS. UNTIL WE DO--UNTIL
THE COSTS OF DEMOCRACY ARE APPORTIONED DEMOCRATICALLY--OUR
TWO-PARTY SYSTEM WILL NOT BE DOING THE BEST JOB IT CAN.
-15-
IN THE FIELD OF LEGISLATION THERE IS ALSO MUCH THAT
CAN BE DONE. EFFORTS HERE ARE GENERALLY AIMED AT RESTRAINING
ABUSES IN RAISING AND SPENDING CAMPAIGN FUNDS.
I SUGGEST THAT IT IS TIME TO EMPHASIZE THE NEED FOR
ADEQUATE FINANCING OF PARTIES AND CANDIDATES THROUGH MASS
CONTRIBUTIONS OF SMALL AMOUNTS. THE PRESENT METHODS OF
FUND RAISING TOO OFTEN SHUT OUT OF ELECTIVE OFFICE MEN
AND WOMEN WHO LACK SUBSTANTIAL PERSONAL FUNDS OR LACK
PERSONAL ACCESS TO GREAT WEALTH.
THERE ARE OTHER STEPS THAT CAN BE TAKEN TO LIGHTEN THE
BURDEN OF CAMPAIGN COSTS--NOTABLY MODIFYING THE RESTRICTIONS
OF SECTION 315 OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT--THE EQUAL
TIME PROVISION--WHICH OPERATES TO PREVENT TELEVISION AND
RADIO STATIONS FROM PROVIDING FREE TIME TO CANDIDATES FOR
OFFICE.
-16-
THOSE WHO DISCUSS THE INADEQUATE PARTICIPATION OF
CITIZENS IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS GENERALLY CENTER THEIR
FIRE ON THE CITIZEN. HE IS DENOUNCED BY CRITICS AS
APATHETIC, UNINFORMED, AND UNINTERESTED.
I FEEL THAT THE INDICTMENT MUST BE EXTENDED TO COVER
POLITICIANS AND PERHAPS OTHERS IN OUR SOCIETY. IF THE
CITIZEN IS UNINTERESTED, IS THIS LACK OF INTEREST DUE TO
SOME DEGREE TO THE FAILURE OF POLITICIANS TO OFFER
SOMETHING THAT WILL AROUSE HIS INTEREST? IF HE IS
UNINFORMED, IS IT BECAUSE MUCH POLITICAL ORATORY IS NOT
REALLY INFORMATIVE? SOME WILL CONTEND--PERHAPS AN ALIBI--
THAT THEY JUST CAN'T FIND THE FACTS FROM ANY SOURCE.
THERE IS NEED FOR DRASTIC REFORM OF CAMPAIGN PROCEDURES
THAT GO BACK TO THE HORSE-AND-BUGGY ERA. SOMETHING IN
-17-
THIS DIRECTION IS BEING DONE BY THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL
COMMITTEE. ON THE SUGGESTION OF PRESIDENT EISENHOWER,
CHAIRMAN BLISS HAS A COMMISSION AT WORK STUDYING THE
QUADRENNIAL NATIONAL CONVENTION WITH A VIEW TO STREAMLINING
THIS VENERABLE BUT SOPORIFIC INSTITUTION.
THIS IS A START, BUT MUCH MORE IS NEEDED IF CAMPAIGNS
ARE BETTER TO SERVE THE PURPOSE OF SPREADING INFORMATION
AND CAPTURING PUBLIC INTEREST.
IN 1968 I HOPE THAT TELEVISED DEBATES BETWEEN
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES, SO SUCCESSFUL IN ATTRACTING PUBLIC
INTEREST IN THE 1960 CAMPAIGN, WILL BE CONDUCTED AGAIN.
FORD
I SEE LITTLE MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT THAT ANY INCUMBENT
GERALD
LIBRARY
PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT ENGAGE IN DEBATE WITH HIS OPPONENT.
-18-
PRESIDENT KENNEDY WOULD HAVE DEBATED HIS REPUBLICAN
CHALLENGER IN 1964 HAD HE LIVED TO RUN FOR REELECTION--
AND THE VOTERS WOULD HAVE BEEN THE BENEFICIARIES.
IF, HOWEVER, THE CANDIDATES THEMSELVES ARE UNWILLING
TO ENGAGE IN DEBATE, THEY COULD DESIGNATE SPOKESMEN TO
PARTICIPATE IN JOINT TELEVISED APPEARANCES ON THEIR BEHALF.
DEBATE BETWEEN THE PARTIES SHOULD BE PRACTICED FAR MORE
WIDELY THAN IT IS AT PRESENT. ALTHOUGH I ATTACH SPECIAL
IMPORTANCE TO DEBATE IN PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS, THERE SHOULD
BE A RUNNING DEBATE BETWEEN PARTY SPOKESMEN AT ALL POLITICAL
LEVELS AT ALL TIMES. THERE ARE ALWAYS IMPORTANT ISSUES.
THERE ARE ALWAYS DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ON SOME OF THEM.
THE PARTIES WOULD BE STRENGTHENED, THE PUBLIC WOULD BE
BETTER INFORMED, AND POLICY DECISIONS WOULD BE MADE MORE
-19-
WISELY IF WE ARGUED OUT THINGS BEFORE THE PUBLIC.
TO TALK OF THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM IS TO INVITE ATTENTION
TO THE WOES OF THE MINORITY PARTY. I SHALL REFRAIN FROM
INFLICTING ON YOU ANY LONG LIST OF COMPLAINTS, BUT I DO
WANT TO EXPRESS ONE FEAR WHICH, IF JUSTIFIED, SHOULD BE
OF CONCERN TO ALL REGARDLESS OF PARTY.
IT IS NOT EASY FOR THE MINORITY TO MAKE ITS VOICE HEARD.
IN THIS AGE OF MASS COMMUNICATION, THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
DOMINATES THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCENE. THE EYES OF THE
NATION AND THE WORLD ARE FIXED UPON IT. AND RIGHTLY SO.
ITS POWER IS AWESOME, AS IS THE RESPONSIBILITY WHICH
CONFRONTS THE MAN WHO POSSESSES IT. IT IS POWER TO DO
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
ENORMOUS GOOD. BUT THE GREAT POWER TO DO GOOD IS, AT ITS
ROOT, SIMPLY GREAT POWER. FREE MEN MUST BE ABLE TO CHECK
LT AND CHALLENGE IT, LEST IT CONSUME THEM.
-20-
IF FREE MEN CANNOT CHECK AND CHALLENGE IT, THEN WE DO
HAVE ONE-PARTY RULE. IF IT IS BECOMING INCREASINGLY
DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO DO so, THEN WE HAVE BEGUN A JOURNEY
DOWN A DANGEROUS ROAD.
WE SEEK IN OUR POLITICAL LIFE THE ATTAINMENT OF JUSTICE
AND THE CONTAINMENT OF POWER. THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM PLAYS
A VITAL ROLE IN THE STRUGGLE TO ACHIEVE THESE GOALS. BY
PROVIDING DEBATE AND DISCUSSION IT HELPS US TRAVEL A MUCH
SURER COURSE TOWARD JUSTICE FOR ALL OUR CITIZENS.
THE MINORITY MUST BE ABLE TO GET ITS VIEWS OUT TO THE
PEOPLE. I HOPE THAT THE MINORITY STATE OF THE UNION
MESSAGE, FIRST DELIVERED THIS YEAR, WILL BECOME A PERMANENT
INSTITUTION--GIVEN TIME AND PROMINENCE CORRESPONDING TO
THAT OF THE PRESIDENT.
-21-
ALTHOUGH I SPEAK TONIGHT FOR THE MINORITY, THE
REPUBLICANS, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THOSE IN THE MINORITY
CAN OR SHOULD SIT BACK AND BIDE THEIR TIME. THERE ARE
SOME, A VERY FEW FORTUNATELY, WHO ARGUE THAT THE MINORITY
SHOULD AWAIT A NATIONAL DISASTER AT HOME OR ABROAD AND THEN
MOVE IN, PICK UP THE PIECES AND BUILD FROM THE SHAMBLES.
THIS I CONTEND IS NEITHER THE TRADITION NOR THE HERITAGE
OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN THE 1960'S. THIS WAS NOT THE
ROLE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY UNDER LINCOLN OR EISENHOWER.
IT WAS NOT THE ROLE OF THE DEMOCRATS IN THEIR DARK DAYS IN
THE MINORITY IN THE 1920'S. WE MUST BY THE COMPETENCE OF
OUR CANDIDATES, BY THE RECORD OF LEGISLATORS AND
ADMINISTRATORS, AND BY THE PHILOSOPHY THAT WE ESPOUSE EARN
THE RESPECT OF OUR FELLOW CITIZENS.
-22-
MY SUGGESTIONS ONLY TOUCH THE SURFACE. IN THE FINAL
ANALYSIS THE FUTURE OF OUR TWO-PARTY SYSTEM DEPENDS ON
THE COURAGE AND CONVICTION OF ALL AMERICANS--OF WHATEVER
POLITICAL STRIPE--AND THEIR COMMITMENT TO THE VALUES OF
MAJORITY RULE AND FREEDOM OF DISSENT.
THESE VALUES ARE THE HERITAGE OF ALL AMERICANS. THEY
ARE VALUES THAT WILL BE PRESERVED ONLY THROUGH STRENGTHENING
THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM.
----THANK YOU----
--END--
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE AT 6 P.M.
MONDAY, JULY 11, 1966
SPEECH EXCERPTS--AMERICAN HERITAGE FOUNDATION WORKSHOP, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.
There is a "commitment gap" on the part of too many Americans. What we need is a
commitment to broad, staunch, and constructive support for the two-party system.
What is called for, I believe, is a decision by more and more Americans to
renounce political neutrality during elections and to bring their entire individual
effort to bear on behalf of candidates who meet their rigid specifications of honor
and outlook.
Individual Americans have the responsibility and the duty to become actively
engaged in partisan politics. It is only within a party that they can help to
determine party policy, help select candidates for party nomination and work for
their eventual election. It is only within a political party that they can till and
fertilize the soil which will produce the kind of legislators who will, for example,
get some of our basic problems, state and national, out of petty politics.
The political party is the agency, and really the only agency, through which
citizens can fully and effectively participate in the political process.
The two-party system guarantees a wide appeal to the electorate, and it increases
the chances for coherence and stability in government. It is an important part of
that complex set of balances and mechanisms which have made the American experiment
in democratic government the world's greatest success story.
Until we solve the problem of getting Americans to join a political party, to
work for it and to support it with their contributions, our two-party system and the
very quality of our government will be defective.
It is time to emphasize the need for adequate financing of parties and candidates
through mass contributions of small amounts. The present methods of fund-raising
too often shut out of elective office men and women who lack substantial personal
funds or lack personal access to great wealth.
There are other steps that can be taken to lighten the burden of campaign costs--
notably modifying the restrictions of Section 315 of the Federal Communications Act,
the Equal Time provision, which operates to prevent television and radio stations
from providing free time to candidates for office.
There is need for drastic reform of campaign procedures that go back to the
horse-and-buggy era. Something in this direction is being done by the Republican
(MORE)
-2-
National Committee. On the suggestion of President Eisenhower, Chairman Ray C. Bliss
has a commission at work studying the quadrennial national convention with a view to
streamlining this venerable but soporific institution.
In 1968 I hope that televised debates between presidential candidates, as
successful in attracting public interest in the 1960 campaign, will be conducted
again. I see little merit in the argument that any incumbent president should not
engage in debate with his opponent. I believe President Kennedy would have debated
his Republican challenger in 1964 had he lived to run for reelection--and the voters
would have been the beneficiaries.
There should be a running debate between party spokesmen at all political levels
at all times. There are always important issues. There are always differences of
opinion on some of them. The parties would be strengthened, the public would be
better informed, and policy decisions would be made more wisely if we argued out things
before the public.
It is not easy for the minority to make its voice heard. In this age of mass
communication, the Office of the President dominates the American political scene.
Its power is awesome, as is the responsibility which confronts the man who possesses
it. It is power to do enormous good. But the great power to do good is, at its root,
simply great power. Free men must be able to check it and challenge it, lest it
consume them.
If free men cannot check and challenge it, then we have one-party rule.
We seek in our political life the attainment of justice and the containment of
power. The two-party system plays a vital role in the struggle to achieve these
goals. By providing debate and discussion it helps us travel a much surer course
toward justice for all our citizens.
The minority must get its views out to the people. I hope that the minority State
of the Union Message, first delivered this year, will become a permanent institution--
given time and prominence corresponding to that of the President.
I do not believe that those in the minority can or should sit back and bide their
time
await a national disaster at home or abroad and then move in to pick up the
pieces and build from the shambles. We must by the competence of our candidates, by
the record of our legislators and administrators and by the philosophy we espouse
earn the respect of our fellow citizens.
In the final analysis, the future of our two-party system depends on the courage
and conviction of all Americans-of whatever political stripe--and their commitment
to the values of majority rule and the freedom of dissent. These values are the
heritage of all Americans. They are values that can be preserved only by strengthening
the two-party system.
###
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE AT 6 P.M.
MONDAY, JULY 11, 1966
SPEECH EXCERPTS--AMERICAN HERITAGE FOUNDATION WORKSHOP, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.
There is a "commitment gap" on the part of too many Americans. What we need is a
commitment to broad, staunch, and constructive support for the two-party system.
What is called for, I believe, is a decision by more and more Americans to
renounce political neutrality during elections and to bring their entire individual
effort to bear on behalf of candidates who meet their rigid specifications of honor
and outlook.
Individual Americans have the responsibility and the duty to become actively
engaged in partisan politics. It is only within a party that they can help to
determine party policy, help select candidates for party nomination and work for
their eventual election. It is only within a political party that they can till and
fertilize the soil which will produce the kind of legislators who will, for example,
get some of our basic problems, state and national, out of petty politics.
The political party is the agency, and really the only agency, through which
citizens can fully and effectively participate in the political process.
The two-party system guarantees a wide appeal to the electorate, and it increases
the chances for coherence and stability in government. It is an important part of
that complex set of balances and mechanisms which have made the American experiment
in democratic government the world's greatest success story.
Until we solve the problem of getting Americans to join a political party, to
work for it and to support it with their contributions, our two-party system and the
very quality of our government will be defective.
It is time to emphasize the need for adequate financing of parties and candidates
through mass contributions of small amounts. The present methods of fund-raising
too often shut out of elective office men and women who lack substantial personal
funds or lack personal access to great wealth.
There are other steps that can be taken to lighten the burden of campaign costs--
notably modifying the restrictions of Section 315 of the Federal Communications Act,
the Equal Time provision, which operates to prevent television and radio stations
from providing free time to candidates for office.
There is need for drastic reform of campaign procedures that go back to the
horse-and-buggy era. Something in this direction is being done by the Republican
(MORE)
-2-
National Committee. On the suggestion of President Eisenhower, Chairman Ray C. Bliss
has a commission at work studying the quadrennial national convention with a view to
streamlining this venerable but soporific institution.
In 1968 I hope that televised debates between presidential candidates, as
successful in attracting public interest in the 1960 campaign, will be conducted
again. I see little merit in the argument that any incumbent president should not
engage in debate with his opponent. I believe President Kennedy would have debated
his Republican challenger in 1964 had he lived to run for reelection--and the voters
would have been the beneficiaries.
There should be a running debate between party spokesmen at all political levels
at all times. There are always important issues. There are always differences of
opinion on some of them. The parties would be strengthened, the public would be
better informed, and policy decisions would be made more wisely if we argued out things
before the public.
It is not easy for the minority to make its voice heard. In this age of mass
communication, the Office of the President dominates the American political scene.
Its power is awesome, as is the responsibility which confronts the man who possesses
it. It is power to do enormous good. But the great power to do good is, at its root,
simply great power. Free men must be able to check it and challenge it, lest it
consume them.
If free men cannot check and challenge it, then we have one-party rule.
We seek in our political life the attainment of justice and the containment of
power. The two-party system plays a vital role in the struggle to achieve these
goals. By providing debate and discussion it helps us travel a much surer course
toward justice for all our citizens.
The minority must get its views out to the people. I hope that the minority State
of the Union Message, first delivered this year, will become a permanent institution--
given time and prominence corresponding to that of the President.
I do not believe that those in the minority can or should sit back and bide their
time
await a national disaster at home or abroad and then move in to pick up the
pieces and build from the shambles. We must by the competence of our candidates, by
the record of our legislators and administrators and by the philosophy we espouse
earn the respect of our fellow citizens.
In the final analysis, the future of our two-party system depends on the courage
and conviction of all Americans--of whatever political stripe--and their commitment
to the values of majority rule and the freedom of dissent. These values are the
heritage of all Americans. They are values that can be preserved only by strengthening
the two-party system.
# # #