Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "4525963",
    "label": "American Heritage Foundation's Northeastern Regional Vote Workshop, Philadelphia, PA, July 11, 1966",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525963"
}

{
    "id": "4525963",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525963",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "American Heritage Foundation's Northeastern Regional Vote Workshop, Philadelphia, PA, July 11, 1966",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525963",
    "collections": [
        "Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers",
        "Speeches"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Campaign debates",
        "Political affairs",
        "Political parties"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4525963.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4525963.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4525963.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525963",
    "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"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4525963.pdf",
    "mediaId": "53a72b1f5bb25708",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box D20, folder \"American Heritage Foundation's\nNortheastern Regional Vote Workshop, Philadelphia, PA, July 11, 1966\" of the Ford\nCongressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential\nLibrary.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box D20 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential-Library\nAn Address by the Honorable Gerald R. Ford before\nAmerican Heritage Foundation's Northeastern\nRegional Vote Workshop, Philadelphia, Bellevue-\nStratford Hotel, on Monday, July 11, 1966.\nSALUTE TO OUR TWO-PARTY SYSTEM\nWhen those who are deep in the political battle--like Mr. Bailey and me--are\ninvited to give non-partisan talks, we are forced to make some major readjustments\nthe\ncontent of our remarks.\nBalley and I have to make such readjustments not only because of the\nnature of this audience but also because of the place selected for this conference.\nWe are eeting in the City of Brotherly Love. We shouldn't forget that this\nevening.\nAmong other things, we have to write a new speech. That basic talk for\npartisan gatherings which we give over and over again has to be scrapped. Even\nthe jokes have to go because partisan political humor just doesn't seem funny to\nthose\noutside the ranks of party faithful.\nTonight we salute the two-party system, the political system that our nation\nhas had most from its beginnings. As the representative of what is temporarily\nthe minority party, I want to thank the American Heritage Foundation for the\nvaluable work which it has done for many years to give life and meaning to that\nsystem. I congratulate the Foundation on the inauguration of these Regional Vote\nWorkshops, and I wish you success in your 1966 Nonpartisan Register and Vote\nDaign.\nThe work that the Foundation is doing looks to nurturing in the hearts of\nal zens the ideals of democratic government. Unless these ideals flourish\nthere, constitution, no law, certainly no political party or its leadership\nan maintain the health of our political system.\nIn\n96\nthe Democrats alleged a \"missile gap.\" Republicans from General\nEisenhowe on down denied the charge. In 1966 the Republicans contend there is\na White House 'credibility gap.\" John Bailey will protest vehemently. But both\nof us will likely agree there is a \"commitment gap\" on the part of too many\nAmericans. What we need is a commitment to broad, staunch, and constructive\nsupport for the two-party system.\nSeveral centuries ago, the Italian poet Dante put it this way: \"The hottest\nhell are reserved for those who, in 8 period of noral crisis, maintain\nMy plea is that all Americans discard political neutrality\nFORD\nattle to preserve the two-party system.\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\nBest Possible Scan from Poor Quality Original\n-2-\nAMERICAN HERITAGE WORKSHOP\nWhat is called for, I sincerely believe, is a decision by more and more\nAmericans to renounce political neutrality during elections and to bring their\nentire individual effort to bear on behalf of candidates who meet their rigid\nspecifications of honor and outlook.\nAs individuals, you have the responsibility and duty to become actively\nengaged in partisan politics. I am not here as a recruiter for the Republican\nParty although I will be glad to take applications at the door. What I am\nsaying is that you cannot, as individuals, expect to achieve concrete political\nresults if you are unwilling to join and work for the party of your choice. It\nis only within a party that you can help to determine party policy, help select\ncandidates for party nomination and work for their eventual election. It is only\nwithin a political party that you can till and fertilize the soil which will\nproduce the kind of legislators who will, for example, get some of our basic\nproblems, state and national, out of petty politics. Many like myself in the\npolitical arena are disappointed that more of our highly motivated citizens are\nnot working as actively as they should be in a political party.\nWhat the Foundation is siming at is the broadest type of citizen participation\nin the political process. It is a goal that deserves the unstinting support of\nboth great American political parties.\nThe political party is the agency, and really the only agency, through\nwhich citizens can fully and effectively participate in the political process.\nWhere there is freedom, there will be more than a single political party,\nfor free men will not all think alike.\nIt may seem strange that the founding fathers viewed the growth of parties\nwith alarm. They made no provision for them in the Constitution. George Washington\nwarned his countrymen against them in his Farewell Address. Our forefathers'\napprehension was not without reason. Political wars in the England of their time\nwere characterized by bitter party strife and divisive partisanship.\nIt was Thomas Jefferson who started our two-party system. You might say that\nas vice-president he was the first minority leader on Capitol Hill.\nJefferson thereby added to the constitutional checks and balances another\nsafeguard in our experiment in democratic government. It has saved the nation\nfrom the oppression which so often characterizes those countries where a single\npolitical party dominates every aspect of political life and, unchecked, stifles\nall dissent. And it has saved the nation from the anarchy and chaos which so\noften characterizes those countries where every conceivable faction organizes\ninself into an ndependent political party.\n(More)\n-3-\nAMERICAN HERITAGE WORKSHOP\nElihu Root called the two-party system a sign of political maturity. The\ntwo-party system guarantees a wide appeal to the electorate and it increases the\nchances for coherence and stability in government. It avoids the irresponsibility\nof factionalism which, at best, operates to allow popular control in a one-party\nstate. More important than these theoretical considerations is the fact that the\ntwo-party system, in the context of America, her institutions and traditions, has\nmet the test of history. It works. It is an important part of that complex set\nof balances and mechanisms that have made the American experiment in democratic\ngovernment the world's greatest success story.\nUnder Jefferson's innovation, America has prospered, maintaining always her\ncommitment to both majority rule and freedom of dissent. Many countries, particu-\nlarly in Latin America, have copied our Constitution. And in many cases they have\nmet with repeated failure. One of the keys to understanding why is their inability\nto develop a two-party system.\nA goal of this Northeastern Regional Vote Workshop is to consider ways to\nsharpen the cutting edges of our two-party system. The problem was never stated\nbetter than it was some forty years ago by the prominent British writer,\nMr. J. A. Spender. The problem, he said, \"is to convince our fellow countrymen\nthat to have political convictions, to join a party, to work for it, and to support\nit out of their purses, so far as means allow, are among duties of all citizens,\nand cannot be neglected without serious harm to the country.\" This is one of the\ngreat unsolved problems of democracy. Until we solve it, our two-party system\nand the very quality of our government will be defective.\nThe indices of citizen involvement in politics do not tell an encouraging\nstory in the United States. The percentage of citizens of voting age who have\nvoted in recent presidential elections has hovered about the level of 60 per cent.\nIn off-year Congressional elections, it has been running between 45 and 49 per cent.\nIn local elections a turnout of 30 to 40 per cent is common. These levels of\nvoter participation do not compare favorably with those of advanced nations with\na democratic form of government in other parts of the world.\nWith less than two-thirds of the potential electorate actually voting, how\nmany less ever actively work for a political party or for candidates for office?\nAnd of those who work--performing the important role of informing their fellow\ncitizens--how many less ever make a financial contribution? The number gets smaller\nand snaller, and diminishing with it is the effectiveness of our two-party system.\n(More)\n-4-\nAMERICAN HERITAGE WORKSHOP\nParticularly acute is the need for an adequate financial foundation, one\nconsistent with democratic principles. Herbert Alexander, Staff Director of\nPresident Kennedy's Commission on Campaign costs, has put the costs of 1964\ncampaigns at 200 million dollars. Such expenditures are not unjustifiably large\nin campaigns directed toward a potential electorate of more than 100 million who\nare asked to vote for at least 200,000 offices of some significance.\nOnly about 10 per cent of adult Americans ever contribute to election\ncampaigns. This figure is significantly higher than it was fifty or even twenty-\nfive years ago, but it is still far too low. It is not healthy for the costs of\ndemocracy to be met by 80 few. The day when political parties can sit back and\ndependon large contributors must end. Our election costs must be covered without\njeopardizing our public morals. Our goal should be securing ever more contributors\nto our political parties on a regular year-round basis. The wider the base of\nparty funds, the less suspicion there can be of improper influence. There is a\njob to be done. Recent data from the University of Michigan Survey Research\nCenter shows that less than half of those interviewed had ever heard of efforts\nto raise money for campaign expenses. Eighty-five had never been asked to\ncontribute. Only one out of fifty had ever participated in a campaign fund-raising\ndrive. When asked if they would contribute if approached, P. fourth said yes,\nwhile 58 per cent replied no.\nOur failure here is deplorable--and even more so because we raise annually\nthroughout the country large sums for welfare and other community needs. Is the\nwell-being of our political system any less important? With hard work and\norganization, and with the help of groups like the American Heritage Foundation,\nour political parties can meet this test. My own party has made strides in this\ndirection. Since 1963 a substantial portion of the operating budget of the\nRepublican National Committee has been met by annual ten-dollar sustaining\nmemberships. In 1964, through the extensive use of direct mail and television\nappeals, 72 per cent of the contributions for the Republican presidential campaign\ncame in sums less than 500 dollars. Only 30 per cent of the contributions to the\nDemocrats came in these smaller sums. But establishing the measuring rod at\n500 dollars is still setting it awfully high. There is much more that both\nparties can do and must do to interest the individual citizen of limited means\nin investing in our political process. Until we do--until the costs of democracy\nare apportioned democratically--our two-party system will not be doing the best\njob it can.\n(More)\n-5-\nAMERICAN HERITAGE WORKSHOP\nIn the field of legislation there is also much that can be done. Efforts\nhere are generally aimed at restraining abuses in raising and spending campaign\nfunds.\nI suggest that it is time to emphasize the need for adequate financing of\npar PS and candidates through mass contributions of small amounts. The present\nmethods of tund-raising too often shut out of elective office men and women who\nack substantial personal funds or lack personal access to great wealth.\nThere are other steps that can be taken to lighten the burden of campaign\nCOS s--n tably modifying the restrictions of Section 315 of the Federal Communica-\n'tons A t--the equal time provision--which operates to prevent television and\nradio stations from providing free time to candidates for office.\nThose who discuss the inadequate participation of citizens in the political\nprocess generally center their fire on the citizen. He is denounced by critics\nas apathetic, uninformed, and uninterested.\nI feel that the indictment must be extended to cover politicians and perhaps\nothers in un society. If the citizen is uninterested, is this lack of interest\ndue to some degreee to the failure of politicians to offer something that will\narouse h:s interest? If he is uninformed, is it because much political oratory\nis not really informative? Some will contend--perhaps it's an alibi--that they\njust can't get the facts from any source.\nThere 5 need for drastic reform of campaign procedures that go back to the\nhoise-an huggy era. Something in this direction is being done by the Republican\nNational mmittee On the suggestion of President Eisenhower, Chairman Bliss\nhas mission at work studying the quadrennial national convention with a\nstreamlining this venerable but soporific institution.\nThis is a start, but much more is needed if campaigns are better to serve\nthe surp se of spreading information and capturing public interest\nIn 1968 I hope that televised debates between presidential candidates, so\nsuccessful in attracting public interest in the 1960 campaign, will be conducted\nagain. I see little merit in the argument that any incumbent president should\nnot engage in debate with his opponent. I believe President Kennedy would have\ndebated his R publican challenger in 1964 had he lived to run for reelection--and\nthe voters would have been the beneficieries.\nIf, however, the candidates t.hemselves are unwilling to engage in debate, they\ncould designate 50\nparticipate in join televised appearances on their behalf.\n(More)\n-6-\nAMERICAN HERITAGE WORKSHOP\nDebate between the parties should be practiced far more widely than it is\nat present. Although I attach special importance to debate in presidential\ncampaigns, there should be a running debate between party spokesmen at all\npolitical levels at all times. There are ( always important issues. There are\nalways differences of opinion on some of them. The parties would be strengthened,\nthe public would be better informed, and policy decisions would be made more\nwisely if we argued out things before the public.\nTo talk of the two-party system is to invite attention to the woes of the\nminority party. I shall refrain from inflicting on you any long list of complaints,\nbut I do want to express one fear which, if justified, should be of concern to all\nregardless of party.\nIt is not easy for the minority to make its voice heard. In this age of\nmass communication, the Office of the President dominates the American political\nscene. The eyes of the nation and the world are fixed upon it. And rightly so.\nIts power is awesome, as is the responsibility which confronts the man who possesses\nit. It is power to do enormous good. But the great power to do good is, at its\nroot, simply great power. Free men must be able to check it and challenge it,\nlest it consume them.\nIf free men cannot check and challenge it, then we do have one-party rule.\nIf it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to do so, then we have begun a\njourney down a dangerous road.\nWe seek in our political life the attainment of justice and the containment\nof power. The two-party system plays a vital role in the struggle to achieve these\ngoals. By providing debate and discussion it helps us travel a much surer course\ntoward justice for all our citizens.\nThe minority must be able to get its views out to the people. I hope that\nthe minority State of the Union Message, first delivered this year, will become\na permanent institution--given time and prominence corresponding to that of the\nPresident.\nAlthough I speak tonight for the minority, the Republicans, I do not believe\nthat those in the minority can or should sit back and bide their time. There\nare some, a very few fortunately, who argue that the minority should await a\nnational disaster at home or abroad and then move in, pick up the pieces and\nbuild from the shambles. This I contend is neither the tradition nor the heritage\nof the Republican Party in the 1960's. This was not the role of the Republican\nParty under Lincoln or Eisenhower. It was not the role of the Democrats in their\n(More)\n-7-\nAMERICAN HERITAGE WORKSHOP\ndark days in the minority in the 1920's. We must by the competence of our candidates,\nby the record of legislators and administrators and by the philosophy that we\nespouse earn the respect of our fellow citizens.\nMy suggestions only touch the surface. In the final analysis the future of\nour two-party system depends on the courage and conviction of all Americans-of\nwhatever political stripe--and their commitment to the values of majority rule\nand freedom of dissent.\nThese values are the heritage of all Americans. They are values that will\nbe preserved only through strengthening the two-party system.\n###\nPaul Butter\nInc. of Virgani Isle\n2\nLandslike margin 73/64\nSPEECH BEFORE AMER. HERITAGE FOUNDATION'S NORTHEASTERN\nREGIONAL VOTE WORKSHOP, PHILADELPHIA\nJULY 11, 1966\nSALUTE TO OUR TWO-PARTY SYSTEM\nWHEN THOSE WHO ARE DEEP IN THE POLITICAL BATTLE--LIKE\nMR. BAILEY AND ME--ARE INVITED TO GIVE NON-PARTISAN TALKS,\nWE ARE FORCED TO MAKE SOME MAJOR READJUSTMENTS IN THE\nCONTENT OF OUR REMARKS.\nMR. BAILEY AND I HAVE TO MAKE SUCH READJUSTMENTS NOT\nONLY BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THIS AUDIENCE BUT ALSO BECAUSE\nOF THE PLACE SELECTED FOR THIS CONFERENCE. WE ARE MEETING\nIN THE CITY OF BROTHERLY LOVE. WE SHOULDN'T FORGET THAT\nTHIS EVENING.\nGERALD 198817 FORD\nAMONG OTHER THINGS, WE HAVE TO WRITE A NEW SPEECH.\n-2-\nTHAT BASIC TALK FOR PARTISAN GATHERINGS WHICH WE GIVE OVER\nAND OVER AGAIN HAS TO BE SCRAPPED. EVEN THE JOKES HAVE TO\nGO BECAUSE PARTISAN POLITICAL HUMOR JUST DOESN'T SEEM\nFUNNY TO THOSE OUTSIDE THE RANKS OF PARTY FAITHFUL.\nTONIGHT WE SALUTE THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM, THE POLITICAL\nSYSTEM THAT OUR NATION HAS HAD ALMOST FROM ITS BEGINNINGS.\nAS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT IS TEMPORARILY THE MINORITY\nPARTY, I WANT TO THANK THE AMERICAN HERITAGE FOUNDATION\nFOR THE VALUABLE WORK WHICH IT HAS DONE FOR MANY YEARS TO\nGIVE LIFE AND MEANING TO THAT SYSTEM. I CONGRATULATE THE\nFOUNDATION ON THE INAUGURATION OF THESE REGIONAL VOTE\nWORKSHOPS, AND I WISH YOU SUCCESS IN YOUR 1966 NONPARTISAN\nREGISTER AND VOTE CAMPAIGN.\nTHE WORK THAT THE FOUNDATION IS DOING LOOKS TO NURTURING\n-3-\nIN THE HEARTS OF ALL CITIZENS THE IDEALS OF DEMOCRATIC\nGOVERNMENT. UNLESS THESE IDEALS FLOURISH THERE\nNO\nCONSTITUTION, NO LAW, CERTAINLY NO POLITICAL PARTY OR\nITS LEADERSHIP CAN MAINTAIN THE HEALTH OF OUR POLITICAL\nSYSTEM.\nIN 1960 THE DEMOCRATS ALLEGED A \"MISSILE GAP.\"\nREPUBLICANS FROM GENERAL EISENHOWER ON DOWN DENIED THE\nCHARGE. IN 1966 THE REPUBLICANS CONTEND THERE IS A WHITE\nHOUSE \"CREDIBILITY GAP.\" JOHN BAILEY WILL PROTEST\nVEHEMENTLY. BUT BOTH OF US WILL LIKELY AGREE THERE IS A\n\"COMMITMENT GAP\" ON THE PART OF TOO MANY AMERICANS. WHAT\nWE NEED IS A COMMITMENT TO BROAD, STAUNCH, AND CONSTRUCTIVE\nSUPPORT FOR THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM.\nGERALD FORD VIBRARY\n-4-\nSEVERAL CENTURIES AGO, THE ITALIAN POET DANTE PUT IT\nTHIS WAY: \"THE HOTTEST PLACES IN HELL ARE RESERVED FOR\nTHOSE WHO, IN A PERIOD OF MORAL CRISIS, MAINTAIN THEIR\nNEUTRALITY.\" MY PLEA IS THAT ALL AMERICANS DISCARD\nPOLITICAL NEUTRALITY AND ENLIST IN THE BATTLE TO PRESERVE\nTHE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM.\nWHAT IS CALLED FOR, I SINCERELY BELIEVE, IS A DECISION\nBY MORE AND MORE AMERICANS TO RENOUNCE POLITICAL NEUTRALITY\nDURING ELECTIONS AND TO BRING THEIR ENTIRE INDIVIDUAL EFFORT\nTO BEAR ON BEHALF OF CANDIDATES WHO MEET THEIR RIGID\nSPECIFICATIONS OF HONOR AND OUTLOOK dwithin The framework The two system party\nAS INDIVIDUALS, YOU HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY AND DUTY\nTO BECOME ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN PARTISAN POLITICS. I AM NOT\nGERALD\nHERE AS A RECRUITER FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ALTHOUGH I WILL\n-5-\nBE GLAD TO TAKE APPLICATIONS AT THE DOOR. WHAT I AM SAYING\nIS THAT YOU CANNOT, AS INDIVIDUALS, EXPECT TO ACHIEVE\nCONCRETE POLITICAL RESULTS IF YOU ARE UNWILLING TO JOIN\nAND WORK FOR THE PARTY OF YOUR CHOICE. IT IS ONLY WITHIN\nA PARTY THAT YOU CAN HELP TO DETERMINE PARTY POLICY, HELP\nSELECT CANDIDATES FOR PARTY NOMINATION AND WORK FOR THEIR\nEVENTUAL ELECTION. IT IS ONLY WITHIN A POLITICAL PARTY\nTHAT YOU CAN TILL AND FERTILIZE THE SOIL WHICH WILL PRODUCE\nTHE KIND OF LEGISLATORS WHO WILL, FOR EXAMPLE, GET SOME OF\nOUR BASIC PROBLEMS, STATE AND NATIONAL, OUT OF PETTY POLITICS\nMANY LIKE MYSELF IN THE POLITICAL ARENA ARE DISAPPOINTED\nTHAT MORE OF OUR HIGHLY MOTIVATED CITIZENS ARE NOT WORKING\nAS ACTIVELY AS THEY SHOULD BE IN A POLITICAL PARTY.\nWHAT THE FOUNDATION IS AIMING AT IS THE BROADEST TYPE\nLIBRARY\n-6-\nOF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS. IT IS\nA GOAL THAT DESERVES THE UNSTINTING SUPPORT OF BOTH GREAT\nAMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES.\nTHE POLITICAL PARTY IS THE AGENCY, AND REALLY THE ONLY\nAGENCY, THROUGH WHICH CITIZENS CAN FULLY AND EFFECTIVELY\nPARTICIPATE IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS.\nWHERE THERE IS FREEDOM, THERE WILL BE MORE THAN A\nSINGLE POLITICAL PARTY, FOR FREE MEN WILL NOT ALL THINK ALIKE.\nIT MAY SEEM STRANGE THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS VIEWED\nTHE GROWTH OF PARTIES WITH ALARM. THEY MADE NO PROVISION\nFOR THEM IN THE CONSTITUTION. GEORGE WASHINGTON WARNED HIS\nCOUNTRYMEN AGAINST THEM IN HIS FAREWELL ADDRESS. OUR\nFORD\nGERALD\nFOREFATHERS' APPREHENSION WAS NOT WITHOUT REASON. POLITICAL\n181\n-7-\nWARS IN THE ENGLAND OF THEIR TIME WERE CHARACTERIZED BY\nBITTER PARTY STRIFE AND DIVISIVE PARTISANSHIP.\nIT WAS THOMAS JEFFERSON WHO STARTED OUR TWO-PARTY\nSYSTEM. YOU MIGHT SAY THAT AS VICE-PRESIDENT HE WAS THE\nFIRST MINORITY LEADER ON CAPITOL HILL.\nJEFFERSON THEREBY ADDED TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHECKS\nAND BALANCES ANOTHER SAFEGUARD IN OUR EXPERIMENT IN\nDEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT. IT HAS SAVED THE NATION FROM THE\nOPPRESSION WHICH SO OFTEN CHARACTERIZES THOSE COUNTRIES\nWHERE A SINGLE POLITICAL PARTY DOMINATES EVERY ASPECT OF\nPOLITICAL LIFE AND, UNCHECKED, STIFLES ALL DISSENT. AND\nIT HAS SAVED THE NATION FROM THE ANARCHY AND CHAOS WHICH\nGERALD\nSO OFTEN CHARACTERIZES THOSE COUNTRIES WHERE EVERY CONCE IVABLE\nFACTION ORGANIZES ITSELF INTO AN INDEPENDENT POLITICAL PARTY.\n-8-\nELIHU ROOT CALLED THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM A SIGN OF\nPOLITICAL MATURITY. THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM GUARANTEES A\nWIDE APPEAL TO THE ELECTORATE AND IT INCREASES THE CHANCES\nFOR COHERENCE AND STABILITY IN GOVERNMENT. IT AVOIDS THE\nIRRESPONSIBILITY OF FACTIONALISM WHICH, AT BEST, OPERATES\nTO ALLOW POPULAR CONTROL IN A ONE-PARTY STATE. MORE\nIMPORTANT THAN THESE THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS IS THE\nFACT THAT THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM, IN THE CONTEXT OF AMERICA,\nHER INSTITUTIONS AND TRADITIONS, HAS MET THE TEST OF HISTORY.\nIT WORKS. IT IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THAT COMPLEX SET OF\nBALANCES AND MECHANISMS THAT HAVE MADE THE AMERICAN\nEXPERIMENT IN DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT THE WORLD'S GREATEST\nSUCCESS STORY.\nGERALD LIQUARY\nUNDER JEFFERSON'S INNOVATION, AMERICA HAS PROSPERED,\n-9-\nMAINTAINING ALWAYS HER COMMITMENT TO BOTH MAJORITY RULE\nAND FREEDOM OF DISSENT. MANY COUNTRIES, PARTICULARLY IN\nLATIN AMERICA, HAVE COPIED OUR CONSTITUTION. AND IN MANY\nCASES THEY HAVE MET WITH REPEATED FAILURE. ONE OF THE KEYS\nTO UNDERSTANDING WHY IS THEIR INABILITY TO DEVELOP A\nTWO-PARTY SYSTEM.\nA GOAL OF THIS NORTHEASTERN REGIONAL VOTE WORKSHOP IS\nTO CONSIDER WAYS TO SHARPEN THE CUTTING EDGES OF OUR\nTWO-PARTY SYSTEM. THE PROBLEM WAS NEVER STATED BETTER THAN\nIT WAS SOME YEARS AGO BY THE PROMINENT BRITISH WRITER,\nMR. J. A. SPENDER. THE PROBLEM, HE SAID, \"IS TO CONVINCE\nOUR FELLOW COUNTRYMEN THAT TO HAVE POLITICAL CONVICTIONS,\nTO JOIN A PARTY, TO WORK FOR IT, AND TO SUPPORT IT OUT OF\nTHEIR PURSES, SO FAR AS MEANS ALLOW, ARE AMONG DUTIES OF\n-10-\nALL CITIZENS, AND CANNOT BE NEGLECTED WITHOUT SERIOUS\nHARM TO THE COUNTRY.\" THIS IS ONE OF THE GREAT UNSOLVED\nPROBLEMS OF DEMOCRACY. UNTIL WE SOLVE IT, OUR TWO-PARTY\nSYSTEM AND THE VERY QUALITY OF OUR GOVERNMENT WILL BE\nDEFECTIVE.\nTHE INDICES OF CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN POLITICS DO NOT\nTELL AN ENCOURAGING STORY IN THE UNITED STATES. THE\nPERCENTAGE OF CITIZENS OF VOTING AGE WHO HAVE VOTED IN\nRECENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS HAS HOVERED ABOUT THE LEVEL\nOF 60 PER CENT. IN OFF-YEAR CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS, IT\nHAS BEEN RUNNING BETWEEN 45 AND 49 PER CENT. IN LOCAL\nELECTIONS A TURNOUT OF 30 TO 40 PER CENT IS COMMON. THESE\nLEVELS OF VOTER PARTICIPATION DO NOT COMPARE FAVORABLY\nWITH THOSE OF ADVANCED NATIONS WITH A DEMOCRATIC FORM OF\nGOVERNMENT IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD.\n-11-\nWITH LESS THAN TWO-THIRDS OF THE POTENTIAL ELECTORATE\nACTUALLY VOTING, HOW MANY LESS EVER ACTIVELY WORK FOR A\nPOLITICAL PARTY OR FOR CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE? AND OF THOSE\nWHO WORK--PERFORMING THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF INFORMING THEIR\nFELLOW CITIZENS--HOW MANY LESS EVER MAKE A FINANCIAL\nCONTRIBUTION? THE NUMBER GETS SMALLER AND SMALLER, AND\nDIMINISHING WITH IT IS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR TWO-PARTY\nSYSTEM.\nPARTICULARLY ACUTE IS THE NEED FOR AN ADEQUATE FINANCIAL\nFOUNDATION, ONE CONSISTENT WITH DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES.\nHERBERT ALEXANDER, STAFF DIRECTOR OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S\nTHE\nCOMMISSION ON CAMPAIGN COSTS, HAS PUT THE COSTS OF 1964\nCAMPAIGNS AT 200 MILLION DOLLARS. SUCH EXPENDITURES ARE\nNOT UNJUSTIFIABLY LARGE IN CAMPAIGNS DIRECTED TOWARD A\nGERALD\n-12-\nPOTENTIAL ELECTORATE OF MORE THAN 100 MILLION WHO ARE\nASKED TO VOTE FOR AT LEAST 200,000 OFFICES OF SOME\nSIGNIFICANCE.\nONLY ABOUT 10 PER CENT OF ADULT AMERICANS EVER CONTRIBUTE\nTO ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. THIS FIGURE IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER\nTHAN IT WAS FIFTY OR EVEN TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO, BUT IT IS\nSTILL FAR TOO LOW. IT IS NOT HEALTHY FOR THE COSTS OF\nDEMOCRACY TO BE MET BY SO FEW. THE DAY WHEN POLITICAL\nPARTIES CAN SIT BACK AND DEPEND ON LARGE CONTRIBUTORS MUST\nEND. OUR ELECTION COSTS MUST BE COVERED WITHOUT JEOPARDIZING\nOUR PUBLIC MORALS. OUR GOAL SHOULD BE SECURING EVER MORE\nCONTRIBUTORS TO OUR POLITICAL PARTIES ON A REGULAR YEAR-\nROUND BASIS. THE WIDER THE BASE OF PARTY FUNDS, THE LESS\nSUSPICION THERE CAN BE OF IMPROPER INFLUENCE. THERE IS A\n-13-\nJOB TO BE DONE. RECENT DATA FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN\nSURVEY RESEARCH CENTER SHOWS THAT LESS THAN HALF OF THOSE\nINTERVIEWED HAD EVER HEARD OF EFFORTS TO RAISE MONEY FOR\nCAMPAIGN EXPENSES. EIGHTY-FIVE PER CENT HAD NEVER BEEN\nASKED TO CONTRIBUTE. ONLY ONE OUT OF FIFTY HAD EVER\nPARTICIPATED IN A CAMPAIGN FUND-RAISING DRIVE. WHEN ASKED\nIF THEY WOULD CONTRIBUTE IF APPROACHED, A FOURTH SAID YES,\nWHILE 58 PER CENT REPLIED NO.\nOUR FAILURE HERE IS DEPLORABLE--AND EVEN MORE SO BECAUSE\nWE RAISE ANNUALLY THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY LARGE SUMS FOR\nWELFARE AND OTHER COMMUNITY NEEDS. IS THE WELL-BEING OF\nOUR POLITICAL SYSTEM ANY LESS IMPORTANT? WITH HARD WORK\nAND ORGANIZATION, AND WITH THE HELP OF GROUPS LIKE THE\nAMERICAN HERITAGE FOUNDATION, OUR POLITICAL PARTIES CAN\nGERALD LIBRARY\n-14-\nMEET THIS TEST. MY OWN PARTY HAS MADE STRIDES IN THIS\nDIRECTION. SINCE 1963 A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE\nOPERATING BUDGET OF THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE HAS\nBEEN MET BY ANNUAL TEN-DOLLAR SUSTAINING MEMBERSHIPS.\nIN 1964, THROUGH THE EXTENSIVE USE OF DIRECT MAIL AND\nTELEVISION APPEALS, 72 PER CENT OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR\nTHE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN CAME IN SUMS LESS\nTHAN 500 DOLLARS. ONLY 30 PER CENT OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS\nTO THE DEMOCRATS CAME IN THESE SMALLER SUMS. BUT ESTABLISHING\nTHE MEASURING ROD AT 500 DOLLARS IS STILL SETTING IT\nAWFULLY HIGH. THERE IS MUCH MORE THAT BOTH PARTIES CAN AND\nMUST DO TO INTEREST THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN OF LIMITED MEANS\nIN INVESTING IN OUR POLITICAL PROCESS. UNTIL WE DO--UNTIL\nTHE COSTS OF DEMOCRACY ARE APPORTIONED DEMOCRATICALLY--OUR\nTWO-PARTY SYSTEM WILL NOT BE DOING THE BEST JOB IT CAN.\n-15-\nIN THE FIELD OF LEGISLATION THERE IS ALSO MUCH THAT\nCAN BE DONE. EFFORTS HERE ARE GENERALLY AIMED AT RESTRAINING\nABUSES IN RAISING AND SPENDING CAMPAIGN FUNDS.\nI SUGGEST THAT IT IS TIME TO EMPHASIZE THE NEED FOR\nADEQUATE FINANCING OF PARTIES AND CANDIDATES THROUGH MASS\nCONTRIBUTIONS OF SMALL AMOUNTS. THE PRESENT METHODS OF\nFUND RAISING TOO OFTEN SHUT OUT OF ELECTIVE OFFICE MEN\nAND WOMEN WHO LACK SUBSTANTIAL PERSONAL FUNDS OR LACK\nPERSONAL ACCESS TO GREAT WEALTH.\nTHERE ARE OTHER STEPS THAT CAN BE TAKEN TO LIGHTEN THE\nBURDEN OF CAMPAIGN COSTS--NOTABLY MODIFYING THE RESTRICTIONS\nOF SECTION 315 OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT--THE EQUAL\nTIME PROVISION--WHICH OPERATES TO PREVENT TELEVISION AND\nRADIO STATIONS FROM PROVIDING FREE TIME TO CANDIDATES FOR\nOFFICE.\n-16-\nTHOSE WHO DISCUSS THE INADEQUATE PARTICIPATION OF\nCITIZENS IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS GENERALLY CENTER THEIR\nFIRE ON THE CITIZEN. HE IS DENOUNCED BY CRITICS AS\nAPATHETIC, UNINFORMED, AND UNINTERESTED.\nI FEEL THAT THE INDICTMENT MUST BE EXTENDED TO COVER\nPOLITICIANS AND PERHAPS OTHERS IN OUR SOCIETY. IF THE\nCITIZEN IS UNINTERESTED, IS THIS LACK OF INTEREST DUE TO\nSOME DEGREE TO THE FAILURE OF POLITICIANS TO OFFER\nSOMETHING THAT WILL AROUSE HIS INTEREST? IF HE IS\nUNINFORMED, IS IT BECAUSE MUCH POLITICAL ORATORY IS NOT\nREALLY INFORMATIVE? SOME WILL CONTEND--PERHAPS AN ALIBI--\nTHAT THEY JUST CAN'T FIND THE FACTS FROM ANY SOURCE.\nTHERE IS NEED FOR DRASTIC REFORM OF CAMPAIGN PROCEDURES\nTHAT GO BACK TO THE HORSE-AND-BUGGY ERA. SOMETHING IN\n-17-\nTHIS DIRECTION IS BEING DONE BY THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL\nCOMMITTEE. ON THE SUGGESTION OF PRESIDENT EISENHOWER,\nCHAIRMAN BLISS HAS A COMMISSION AT WORK STUDYING THE\nQUADRENNIAL NATIONAL CONVENTION WITH A VIEW TO STREAMLINING\nTHIS VENERABLE BUT SOPORIFIC INSTITUTION.\nTHIS IS A START, BUT MUCH MORE IS NEEDED IF CAMPAIGNS\nARE BETTER TO SERVE THE PURPOSE OF SPREADING INFORMATION\nAND CAPTURING PUBLIC INTEREST.\nIN 1968 I HOPE THAT TELEVISED DEBATES BETWEEN\nPRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES, SO SUCCESSFUL IN ATTRACTING PUBLIC\nINTEREST IN THE 1960 CAMPAIGN, WILL BE CONDUCTED AGAIN.\nFORD\nI SEE LITTLE MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT THAT ANY INCUMBENT\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\nPRESIDENT SHOULD NOT ENGAGE IN DEBATE WITH HIS OPPONENT.\n-18-\nPRESIDENT KENNEDY WOULD HAVE DEBATED HIS REPUBLICAN\nCHALLENGER IN 1964 HAD HE LIVED TO RUN FOR REELECTION--\nAND THE VOTERS WOULD HAVE BEEN THE BENEFICIARIES.\nIF, HOWEVER, THE CANDIDATES THEMSELVES ARE UNWILLING\nTO ENGAGE IN DEBATE, THEY COULD DESIGNATE SPOKESMEN TO\nPARTICIPATE IN JOINT TELEVISED APPEARANCES ON THEIR BEHALF.\nDEBATE BETWEEN THE PARTIES SHOULD BE PRACTICED FAR MORE\nWIDELY THAN IT IS AT PRESENT. ALTHOUGH I ATTACH SPECIAL\nIMPORTANCE TO DEBATE IN PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS, THERE SHOULD\nBE A RUNNING DEBATE BETWEEN PARTY SPOKESMEN AT ALL POLITICAL\nLEVELS AT ALL TIMES. THERE ARE ALWAYS IMPORTANT ISSUES.\nTHERE ARE ALWAYS DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ON SOME OF THEM.\nTHE PARTIES WOULD BE STRENGTHENED, THE PUBLIC WOULD BE\nBETTER INFORMED, AND POLICY DECISIONS WOULD BE MADE MORE\n-19-\nWISELY IF WE ARGUED OUT THINGS BEFORE THE PUBLIC.\nTO TALK OF THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM IS TO INVITE ATTENTION\nTO THE WOES OF THE MINORITY PARTY. I SHALL REFRAIN FROM\nINFLICTING ON YOU ANY LONG LIST OF COMPLAINTS, BUT I DO\nWANT TO EXPRESS ONE FEAR WHICH, IF JUSTIFIED, SHOULD BE\nOF CONCERN TO ALL REGARDLESS OF PARTY.\nIT IS NOT EASY FOR THE MINORITY TO MAKE ITS VOICE HEARD.\nIN THIS AGE OF MASS COMMUNICATION, THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nDOMINATES THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCENE. THE EYES OF THE\nNATION AND THE WORLD ARE FIXED UPON IT. AND RIGHTLY SO.\nITS POWER IS AWESOME, AS IS THE RESPONSIBILITY WHICH\nCONFRONTS THE MAN WHO POSSESSES IT. IT IS POWER TO DO\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nENORMOUS GOOD. BUT THE GREAT POWER TO DO GOOD IS, AT ITS\nROOT, SIMPLY GREAT POWER. FREE MEN MUST BE ABLE TO CHECK\nLT AND CHALLENGE IT, LEST IT CONSUME THEM.\n-20-\nIF FREE MEN CANNOT CHECK AND CHALLENGE IT, THEN WE DO\nHAVE ONE-PARTY RULE. IF IT IS BECOMING INCREASINGLY\nDIFFICULT FOR THEM TO DO so, THEN WE HAVE BEGUN A JOURNEY\nDOWN A DANGEROUS ROAD.\nWE SEEK IN OUR POLITICAL LIFE THE ATTAINMENT OF JUSTICE\nAND THE CONTAINMENT OF POWER. THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM PLAYS\nA VITAL ROLE IN THE STRUGGLE TO ACHIEVE THESE GOALS. BY\nPROVIDING DEBATE AND DISCUSSION IT HELPS US TRAVEL A MUCH\nSURER COURSE TOWARD JUSTICE FOR ALL OUR CITIZENS.\nTHE MINORITY MUST BE ABLE TO GET ITS VIEWS OUT TO THE\nPEOPLE. I HOPE THAT THE MINORITY STATE OF THE UNION\nMESSAGE, FIRST DELIVERED THIS YEAR, WILL BECOME A PERMANENT\nINSTITUTION--GIVEN TIME AND PROMINENCE CORRESPONDING TO\nTHAT OF THE PRESIDENT.\n-21-\nALTHOUGH I SPEAK TONIGHT FOR THE MINORITY, THE\nREPUBLICANS, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THOSE IN THE MINORITY\nCAN OR SHOULD SIT BACK AND BIDE THEIR TIME. THERE ARE\nSOME, A VERY FEW FORTUNATELY, WHO ARGUE THAT THE MINORITY\nSHOULD AWAIT A NATIONAL DISASTER AT HOME OR ABROAD AND THEN\nMOVE IN, PICK UP THE PIECES AND BUILD FROM THE SHAMBLES.\nTHIS I CONTEND IS NEITHER THE TRADITION NOR THE HERITAGE\nOF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN THE 1960'S. THIS WAS NOT THE\nROLE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY UNDER LINCOLN OR EISENHOWER.\nIT WAS NOT THE ROLE OF THE DEMOCRATS IN THEIR DARK DAYS IN\nTHE MINORITY IN THE 1920'S. WE MUST BY THE COMPETENCE OF\nOUR CANDIDATES, BY THE RECORD OF LEGISLATORS AND\nADMINISTRATORS, AND BY THE PHILOSOPHY THAT WE ESPOUSE EARN\nTHE RESPECT OF OUR FELLOW CITIZENS.\n-22-\nMY SUGGESTIONS ONLY TOUCH THE SURFACE. IN THE FINAL\nANALYSIS THE FUTURE OF OUR TWO-PARTY SYSTEM DEPENDS ON\nTHE COURAGE AND CONVICTION OF ALL AMERICANS--OF WHATEVER\nPOLITICAL STRIPE--AND THEIR COMMITMENT TO THE VALUES OF\nMAJORITY RULE AND FREEDOM OF DISSENT.\nTHESE VALUES ARE THE HERITAGE OF ALL AMERICANS. THEY\nARE VALUES THAT WILL BE PRESERVED ONLY THROUGH STRENGTHENING\nTHE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM.\n----THANK YOU----\n--END--\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\nNEWS\nCONGRESSMAN\nGERALD R. FORD\nHOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER\nRELEASE\nFOR RELEASE AT 6 P.M.\nMONDAY, JULY 11, 1966\nSPEECH EXCERPTS--AMERICAN HERITAGE FOUNDATION WORKSHOP, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.\nThere is a \"commitment gap\" on the part of too many Americans. What we need is a\ncommitment to broad, staunch, and constructive support for the two-party system.\nWhat is called for, I believe, is a decision by more and more Americans to\nrenounce political neutrality during elections and to bring their entire individual\neffort to bear on behalf of candidates who meet their rigid specifications of honor\nand outlook.\nIndividual Americans have the responsibility and the duty to become actively\nengaged in partisan politics. It is only within a party that they can help to\ndetermine party policy, help select candidates for party nomination and work for\ntheir eventual election. It is only within a political party that they can till and\nfertilize the soil which will produce the kind of legislators who will, for example,\nget some of our basic problems, state and national, out of petty politics.\nThe political party is the agency, and really the only agency, through which\ncitizens can fully and effectively participate in the political process.\nThe two-party system guarantees a wide appeal to the electorate, and it increases\nthe chances for coherence and stability in government. It is an important part of\nthat complex set of balances and mechanisms which have made the American experiment\nin democratic government the world's greatest success story.\nUntil we solve the problem of getting Americans to join a political party, to\nwork for it and to support it with their contributions, our two-party system and the\nvery quality of our government will be defective.\nIt is time to emphasize the need for adequate financing of parties and candidates\nthrough mass contributions of small amounts. The present methods of fund-raising\ntoo often shut out of elective office men and women who lack substantial personal\nfunds or lack personal access to great wealth.\nThere are other steps that can be taken to lighten the burden of campaign costs--\nnotably modifying the restrictions of Section 315 of the Federal Communications Act,\nthe Equal Time provision, which operates to prevent television and radio stations\nfrom providing free time to candidates for office.\nThere is need for drastic reform of campaign procedures that go back to the\nhorse-and-buggy era. Something in this direction is being done by the Republican\n(MORE)\n-2-\nNational Committee. On the suggestion of President Eisenhower, Chairman Ray C. Bliss\nhas a commission at work studying the quadrennial national convention with a view to\nstreamlining this venerable but soporific institution.\nIn 1968 I hope that televised debates between presidential candidates, as\nsuccessful in attracting public interest in the 1960 campaign, will be conducted\nagain. I see little merit in the argument that any incumbent president should not\nengage in debate with his opponent. I believe President Kennedy would have debated\nhis Republican challenger in 1964 had he lived to run for reelection--and the voters\nwould have been the beneficiaries.\nThere should be a running debate between party spokesmen at all political levels\nat all times. There are always important issues. There are always differences of\nopinion on some of them. The parties would be strengthened, the public would be\nbetter informed, and policy decisions would be made more wisely if we argued out things\nbefore the public.\nIt is not easy for the minority to make its voice heard. In this age of mass\ncommunication, the Office of the President dominates the American political scene.\nIts power is awesome, as is the responsibility which confronts the man who possesses\nit. It is power to do enormous good. But the great power to do good is, at its root,\nsimply great power. Free men must be able to check it and challenge it, lest it\nconsume them.\nIf free men cannot check and challenge it, then we have one-party rule.\nWe seek in our political life the attainment of justice and the containment of\npower. The two-party system plays a vital role in the struggle to achieve these\ngoals. By providing debate and discussion it helps us travel a much surer course\ntoward justice for all our citizens.\nThe minority must get its views out to the people. I hope that the minority State\nof the Union Message, first delivered this year, will become a permanent institution--\ngiven time and prominence corresponding to that of the President.\nI do not believe that those in the minority can or should sit back and bide their\ntime\nawait a national disaster at home or abroad and then move in to pick up the\npieces and build from the shambles. We must by the competence of our candidates, by\nthe record of our legislators and administrators and by the philosophy we espouse\nearn the respect of our fellow citizens.\nIn the final analysis, the future of our two-party system depends on the courage\nand conviction of all Americans-of whatever political stripe--and their commitment\nto the values of majority rule and the freedom of dissent. These values are the\nheritage of all Americans. They are values that can be preserved only by strengthening\nthe two-party system.\n###\nNEWS\nCONGRESSMAN\nGERALD R. FORD\nHOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER\nRELEASE\nFOR RELEASE AT 6 P.M.\nMONDAY, JULY 11, 1966\nSPEECH EXCERPTS--AMERICAN HERITAGE FOUNDATION WORKSHOP, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.\nThere is a \"commitment gap\" on the part of too many Americans. What we need is a\ncommitment to broad, staunch, and constructive support for the two-party system.\nWhat is called for, I believe, is a decision by more and more Americans to\nrenounce political neutrality during elections and to bring their entire individual\neffort to bear on behalf of candidates who meet their rigid specifications of honor\nand outlook.\nIndividual Americans have the responsibility and the duty to become actively\nengaged in partisan politics. It is only within a party that they can help to\ndetermine party policy, help select candidates for party nomination and work for\ntheir eventual election. It is only within a political party that they can till and\nfertilize the soil which will produce the kind of legislators who will, for example,\nget some of our basic problems, state and national, out of petty politics.\nThe political party is the agency, and really the only agency, through which\ncitizens can fully and effectively participate in the political process.\nThe two-party system guarantees a wide appeal to the electorate, and it increases\nthe chances for coherence and stability in government. It is an important part of\nthat complex set of balances and mechanisms which have made the American experiment\nin democratic government the world's greatest success story.\nUntil we solve the problem of getting Americans to join a political party, to\nwork for it and to support it with their contributions, our two-party system and the\nvery quality of our government will be defective.\nIt is time to emphasize the need for adequate financing of parties and candidates\nthrough mass contributions of small amounts. The present methods of fund-raising\ntoo often shut out of elective office men and women who lack substantial personal\nfunds or lack personal access to great wealth.\nThere are other steps that can be taken to lighten the burden of campaign costs--\nnotably modifying the restrictions of Section 315 of the Federal Communications Act,\nthe Equal Time provision, which operates to prevent television and radio stations\nfrom providing free time to candidates for office.\nThere is need for drastic reform of campaign procedures that go back to the\nhorse-and-buggy era. Something in this direction is being done by the Republican\n(MORE)\n-2-\nNational Committee. On the suggestion of President Eisenhower, Chairman Ray C. Bliss\nhas a commission at work studying the quadrennial national convention with a view to\nstreamlining this venerable but soporific institution.\nIn 1968 I hope that televised debates between presidential candidates, as\nsuccessful in attracting public interest in the 1960 campaign, will be conducted\nagain. I see little merit in the argument that any incumbent president should not\nengage in debate with his opponent. I believe President Kennedy would have debated\nhis Republican challenger in 1964 had he lived to run for reelection--and the voters\nwould have been the beneficiaries.\nThere should be a running debate between party spokesmen at all political levels\nat all times. There are always important issues. There are always differences of\nopinion on some of them. The parties would be strengthened, the public would be\nbetter informed, and policy decisions would be made more wisely if we argued out things\nbefore the public.\nIt is not easy for the minority to make its voice heard. In this age of mass\ncommunication, the Office of the President dominates the American political scene.\nIts power is awesome, as is the responsibility which confronts the man who possesses\nit. It is power to do enormous good. But the great power to do good is, at its root,\nsimply great power. Free men must be able to check it and challenge it, lest it\nconsume them.\nIf free men cannot check and challenge it, then we have one-party rule.\nWe seek in our political life the attainment of justice and the containment of\npower. The two-party system plays a vital role in the struggle to achieve these\ngoals. By providing debate and discussion it helps us travel a much surer course\ntoward justice for all our citizens.\nThe minority must get its views out to the people. I hope that the minority State\nof the Union Message, first delivered this year, will become a permanent institution--\ngiven time and prominence corresponding to that of the President.\nI do not believe that those in the minority can or should sit back and bide their\ntime\nawait a national disaster at home or abroad and then move in to pick up the\npieces and build from the shambles. We must by the competence of our candidates, by\nthe record of our legislators and administrators and by the philosophy we espouse\nearn the respect of our fellow citizens.\nIn the final analysis, the future of our two-party system depends on the courage\nand conviction of all Americans--of whatever political stripe--and their commitment\nto the values of majority rule and the freedom of dissent. These values are the\nheritage of all Americans. They are values that can be preserved only by strengthening\nthe two-party system.\n# # #"
}