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
4526022
label
Colgate University, Hamilton, NY, April 9, 1967
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526022
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Colgate University, Hamilton, NY, April 9, 1967
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Ethics
Federal budget
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526022
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1967-04-30
month
4
year
1967
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-04-01
month
4
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
bb4b7979e73eb43d
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D22, folder "Colgate University, Hamilton, NY,
April 9, 1967" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 D22 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
AN ADDRESS BY HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH., AT COLGATE UNIVERSITY
8 P.M., SUNDAY, APRIL 9, 1967 --
Ladies and gentlemen: I come to you tonight as the leader of the opposition
in one House of the Congress. My task, as I see it, is to sketch for you an
outline of the Opposition Role. What should the role of the opposition be / and
how should we go about fulfilling it?
Many Americans don't realize it, but the present two-party system in
American politics goes back 112 years. Tonight I am going to concern myself
primarily with the current situation because there is so much to be said
about the problems now facing this Nation.
Bluntly put and viewed in purely political terms, the mission of the
minority party is to become the majority. That is / the Outs are constantly
striving to become the Ins. That's what Republicans are working for right now--
to become the In-Group. Not because we samply want power the Democrato
now have There but is far nather more to because the role of we the behive opposition bun than philosphy a drive is better for for America of
power, of course. We in the opposition must seek to serve the American people;
our had capacity to
we must offer them a better course than that of the other party. We must offer
is
superior
them a New Direction in government and persuade the voters that this New Direction
will lead the Nation in the paths of peace and prosperity.
If I did not sincerely believe that the Republican Party had sounder solutions to
offer the American people I would not be standing before you at this moment.
The role of the opposition in Congress is critical at this time. The
Nation is at a crossroads in economic affairs and the Vietnam War.
The record the Republican Party makes in the 90th Congress is extremely
important in terms of the 1968 election. It will be the record that the next
Republican presidential candidate will run on.
Some Americans believe the role of the opposition should be solely to oppose.
In my view, it goes far beyond that. Certainly we should oppose when we believe
that the majority party is mistaken in its programs and concepts. But we also
CERALD FORD L BRARY
must propose. We must offer the people a choice, tell them how we would run
the Nation's affairs if given the opportunity.
Let me put it this way- Where the administration is clearly wrong -No
On they hand admit problems
Constructive atternative
2/
It is only some 15 months before the two major political parties meet in
convention to name their presidential candidates. Already the issues of the
1968 campaign are taking shape. It will be an historic campaign--a campaign
which will shape the destiny of America far into the future.
In recent years, national elections in the United States have been decided
on the basis of two broad issues--peace and prosperity.
I submit that in the 1968 election the issue of peace will involve far
more than the Vietnam War, other possible wars of liberation, the future of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization and a possible detente with the Communist
bloc nations of Europe.
That issue will transcend the usual concerns of foreign conflict and alliances
to enwrap itself in an overriding issue of national morality.
This morality issue has a number of offshoots or related issues.
One of these is the Ethics in Congress Issue, as exemplified by the Powell
and Dodd cases. The one case involves alleged misuse of public funds; the other,
alleged misuse of campaign funds. They are different cases, yet related.
The thrust of both the Powell and the Dodd cases is that they point up the
need for a Code of Official Conduct in Congress.
Let me say at this point that the House of Representatives is well on
its way toward establishing a Select Committee on Official Conduct--and it was
primarily Republican pressure that brought it about. We called for establishment
of an ethics watchdog committee in our Republican State of the Union Message on
January 19, and the House Republican Policy Committee promptly endorsed it. This
relates to the Powell case.
Republicans have been pressing since last year for an Election Reform Law.
At this point, I am forced to say that our insistence on Election Law Reform
on the Democrate Unknowhip
has been vocal and persistent, unlike that of President Johnson. We are determined
to clean up campaign fund-raising and destroy all the evils that spring from such
organizations as the Thousand-Dollar President's Club.
GERALO, FORD VIBRARY
31
It is interesting to recall that President Johnson took Senator Dodd with
him when he flew to the Democratic convention in 1964--to mislead the press into
thinking he had tapped Dodd and not Hubert Humphrey as his running mate.
Republicans are determined to close the Ethics Gap. We are also bent
on winning the war against crime.
Why are we today plagued with a crime wave that rises and swells until a
complete breakdown of law and order is threatened?
I believe it is because the so-called Great Society is a permissive society
which encourages disrespect for law and order. We are reaping the whirlwind--
the fruit of years of permissiveness in the family, inadequate discipline in the
public schools, a shortage of dedicated teachers, evolution of the attitude that
an American need only obey those laws he deems morally justified, and glorification
9
of violence and rebellion.
While this may seem unrelated to the composition of the Congress and the
occupant of the White House, it is definitely intertwined. It is part of the
moral fabric of the country, that intangible called atmosphere.
It enters into the difference in approach by the two parties to the overall
issue of crime. I am not going to discuss the crime issue in detail here except
to emphasize that the war against crime must be fought on many fronts and with
a multitude of weapons. We in the Congress must help local communities expand
and improve their police forces and we must make the latest and best information
on crime detection tactics and techniques available to them. We must also
strengthen our probationary and rehabilitation systems to prevent as best as we
can the pattern of the criminal repeater.
Beyond that let us discard the idea that it is subversive to criticize the
Supreme Court. Let us examine court decisions on questioning of suspects and
permissibility of voluntary confessions as courtroom evidence and draw a line
which helps our law enforcement officials without interfering with the constitutional
rights of individual citizens.
FORD
And let us outlaw all wiretapping and eavesdropping by unauthorized citizens
LIBRARI
4/
but make this tool available to law enforcers under court order as they make war
on organized crime. The constitutional right of privacy is a priceless right,
but so too is the right of an American citizen to be protected against professional
criminals. Law enforcement agencies must have more power if they are to deal
effectively with organized crime.
We have talked of the two major parties in their approaches to the Ethics
Gap in Congress and the Morality Gap that divides the Nation. Let us speak
now of Vietnam.
What is the role of the opposition on Vietnam? With few exceptions, Re-
publicans support the President in his present course-his view that only
unrelenting military pressure will cause the enemy to talk peace. Meantime,
Republicans are deeply disturbed about the split in the Democratic Party over
the bombing of North Vietnam, the proposals that there be a unilateral halt in
the bombing. I cannot see how any member of Congress who has seen photos of men
and supplies moving from North to South Vietnam during the Tet New Year's truce
can possibly favor an unconditional unilateral halt in the bombing. I am convinced
that those New Year's reinforcements resulted in hundreds of American and South
cassalthes
Vietnamese deaths.
I do not contend that criticism of American policy in Vietnam should be
silenced. But, I do maintain that a political party divided against itself can-
not lead this nation effectively in war, or lead us to peace. Such dissension
makes it more difficult to obtain the peace that all Americans want. The
President himself has said that criticism of the doves in his own party encourages
Hanoi to keep on fighting.
Amid all this domestic turmoil, the Opposition Party has maintained a re-
sponsible position. We have criticized the President but only to push for an
early end to the war with an honorable conclusion. We have chafed at gradualism,
but we have not sought military victory or unconditional surrender of the inly.
champsoned total
There is good reason to wonder whether the President would pursue a course
of gradualism in the Vietnam War if he had it all to do over again. It is as
5/
easy to see as deBergerac's nose that the enemy has more time to build up strength
and to plan courtermoves when his adversary turns up the screws only a fraction
at a time. No major power has ever before fought a war with such self-imposed
limitations.
I believe the way to a settlement in Vietnam is to maintain steady pressure
on Ho Chi Minh while a government with a popular support emerges in South
Vietnam. The solution in Vietnam must be essentially political. No rule imposed
by the military can result in a stable government or a semblance of peace in
Vietnam.
The best hope for peace and stability in South Vietnam is the evolving popular
government. We can only "win" there through land reform and democracy-building.
Necessary military action must be supported by effective political and economic
measure aimed at the creation of a genuine non-Communist political base. We must
identify ourselves with the advocates of civilian rule in South Vietnam, as
symbolized by the new constitution.
In foreign and domestic policy, the role of the opposition in Congress is
essentially that of watchdog. We owe it to the American people to keep tabs on
the other party and to blow the whistle on mistakes or malfeasance.
The best vehicle for political watchdog activity is present in the British
system--an investigative committee run by the minority. Republicans have urged
such a committee be established in the U.S. House of Representatives but we
are not holding our breaths while it happens.
How many Americans think about the fact that the Federal government is
deeply in deficit and has been for six full fiscal years? How many know that
interest on the Federal debt now runs $14 billion a year, the second largest single
item in the Federal budget? How many Americans realize that the deficit in the
fiscal 1968 budget probably will run to $15 billion or more and that if the
present economic downturn deepens into a recession the deficit will be even more
mountainous?
The huge deficits we now are facing point up the choice the opposition
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
6/
party offers the voters as we approach 1968.
at home
Republicans believe in progress at a pace the people can afford. We
believe that if Federal spending runs wild, thisweakens the foundations of our
economy. The President is asking for higher taxes. We believe non-essential
Federal spending should be cut.
A basic difference between the two parties is that the Democratic Party
a that lig month
prescribes a Federal pill for every ill. The Republican Party would shift more
a
problem-solving responsibility to state and local governments and to the private
sector.
The Republican Party is concerned that the other party's philosophy of "tax
and tax, spend and spend" destroys individual incentive by siphoning off too much
of the people's income in higher taxes.
While the Democratic Party advances proposals that rely primarily on Federal
money, Federal power and Federal control, the Republican Party proposes Federal tax-
sharing to aid the cities and states, tax credits as incentives for a massive nation-
wide cleanup of our air and water, tax credits for tuition and other colleges expenses
to
/make this a nation of college students, tax credits to industry to launch a nationwide
on-the-job training program as an assault on hard-core unemployment.
Incentives, not red tape and excessive Federal power. That's the way of the
opposition party. We believe there should be large-scale business involvement
in the solving of our social ills.
At the outset I spoke of a morality issue that will transcend all else in 1968.
In the final analysis, this translates itself into a question of confidence
in the present Administration. Noted news commentator, Walter Lippmann, is among
those who point to a credibility gap in the country today. Lippmann says it is
"the result of a deliberate policy of artificial manipulation of official news."
As a consequence, Lippmann says the public simply refuses to accept at face value
what the Federal government says and does.
Is it any wonder that our young people today ask
Who and what can we
believe?
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
71
This--the Credibility Gap--poses an intolerable situation, whatever its cause.
I believe it springs from this Administration's search for consensus, its abhorrence
of dissent, its attempt to foist a kind of absolutism on the American people...a
kind of benevolent despotism.
At a recent press conference, President Johnson spoke of the Republican
opposition in the same breath with his adversaries overseas Naturally I really do not
believe the Loyal Opposition is in that The formidable, catizing
A
I ask only that the American people give the Loyal Opposition a hearing--
and then act on the evidence.
As Edmund Burke said: "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win
in the world is for enough good men to do nothing."
If, as the figures indicate, a majority of the registered voters are Democrats,
then let them ponder the words of a Democratic President, Woodrow Wilson, who
told the American people: "Liberty cannot exist where government takes care of
the people, but it can only thrive where the people take care of the government."
This I ask--that the voters of this Nation be attentive to their first and
foremost tank-to see that government in America is the servant and not the master
of the people.
##########
GERALO FORD LIBRARY
AN ADDRESS BY HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH., AT COLGATE UNIVERSITY
8 P.M. SUNDAY, APRIL 9, 1967--
5 copies
Ladies and gentlemen: I come to you tonight as the leader of the
opposition in one House of the Congress. My task, as I see it, is to sketch for
you an outline of the NK Opposition Role. What should the role of the opposition
be and how should we govabout/it? fulfiling
present
Many Americans don't realize it, but the two-party system in American politics
Tonight
primarily
goes back 112 years. I am going to concern myself swith the presents current
situation because there is so much to be said about the problems now facing this
Nation.
Bluntly put and viewed in purely political terms, the mission of the minority
party is to become the majority. That is, the Outs are constantly striving to become
the Ins. That's what Republicans are working for right now--to become the
In-group.
There is far more to the role of the opposition than a simple drive
for power, of course. We in the opposition must seek to serve the American people; we
better
must offer them a course than that of the other party. We must offer them
a New Direction in government and persuade the voters that this New Direction will
lead the Nation in the paths of peace and prosperity.
If I did not believe that the
Republican Party had sounder solutions to offer the American people I would not be
standing before you at this moment.
inCongress
The role of the opposition is critical
at
this
time.
The
Nation is at a crossroads in
economic affairs and the
Vietnam
War.
The record the Republican Party makes in the 90th Congress
is
extremely important in terms of the 1968 election. It will be the record that the next
Republican presidential candidate will run on.
Some Americans believe the role of the opposition should solely to oppose. In my view,
it goes far beyond that. Certainly we should oppose when we believe that the majority
party is mistaken in its programs and concepts. But we also must propose. We must
offer the people a choice, tell them how we would run the Nation's affairs if given
the opportunity.
inconvention
It is only some 15 months before the two major political parties meet to name
FORD
their presidential candidates. Already the issues of the 1968 campaign are taking
GERALD
shape. It will be an historic campaign--a campaign which will decide the of
shapethe endesting
America far into the future.
2/
In recent years, national elections in the United States have been decided
on the basis of two broad issues-peace and prosperity.
I submit that in the 1968 election the issue of
peace will involve far more than the Vie tnam War, other possible wars of liberation,
the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and a possible detente with the
Communist bloc nations of Europe.
That issue will transcend the usual
concerns of foreign conflict and alliances to enwrap itself in an overriding issue
of national morality.
This morality issue has a number of offshoots or related issues.
One of these is the Ethics in Congress Issue, as exemplified by the Powell and
alleged
Dodd cases. The one case # involves misuse of public funds; the other
alleged misuse of campaign funds. They are different cases, and yet
related.
The thrust of both the Powell and the Dodd cases is that they point up the
need for a Code of Officital Conduct in Congress.
Let me say ** at this point that the House of Representatives is well on its
primarily
way toward establishing a Select Committee on Official Conduct--and it was Reptublican
it
an
pressure that brought about. We called for establishment of
ethics watchdog
committee in our Republican State of the Union Message on Jan. 19, and the House
Republican Policy Committee promptly endorsed it. This relates to the Powell case.
n-watchdog
committes
the
House-on
Republicans have been pressing since last year for an Election Reform Law.
A at this point I am forced to say that our insistence on Election Law Reform has been
unlike
vocal and persistent that of the President Johnson. We are determined
to eximinate clean up campaign fund-raising and destroy all the evils
that
spring from such organizations as the Exeximentax Thousand-Dollar President's Club.
Stisinteristing Emight recall
took
with him
menthion here that Presideint mislead Johnson usuixSen. Dodd when he flew
to the Democratic convention in 1964--to leist the pre SS into thinking he had
tapped Dodd and not Hubert Humphrey as his running mate.
Republicans are determined to close the Ethics Gap. We are also bent on
winning the war against crime.
GERALD FORD LIBRART
swells
Why are we today plagued with a crime wave that
rise
and
until a complete - breakdown of law and order is threatened?
3/
I believe it is because the so-called Great Society is a permissive society
which encourages disrespect for law and order. We are reaping the whirlwind--
fruit
the
of years of permissivene SS in the family,
inadequate
discipline inthetschools, anAmerican and a shortage of dedicated those teachers
evolution of the attitude that needs only obey this laws este deems morally
and
justified, and time glorification of
violence rebellion
While this may seem unrelated to the composition of the Congress and the
occupant of the White House, it is definitely intertwined. It is part of the
moral fabric of the country, that intangible called atmosphere.
It enters into the difference in approach by the two parties to
the overall issue of crime. I am not going to discuss the crime issue in detail here
except to emphasize that the war against crime must be fought on many fronts
and with a multitude of weapons. We in the federal Congress Government must help local
communities expand and improve their police forces and we must make the latest and
best information on crime detection tactics and techniques available to them.
We must also strengthen our I probationary and rehabilitation systems to prevent
as best we can the pattern of the repeated criminal crimes. repeater.
Beyond that let us discard the idea that it is subversive to
criticize the Supreme Court. Let us examine court - decisions on questioning of
suspects and permissibility (confe a helps our law
voluntary of ssions courtroom draw line evidence which
enforcement officials without interfering with the constitutional
rights of individual citizens.
And let us outlaw all wiretapping and evesdropping by unauthorized
citiZens but make this tool available to law enforcers under court order
to
as they make war on organized crime. Them constitutional right of
privacy is a pricele professional SS right, but so too is the right of an American citizen to
be protected against criminals. Law enforcement agencies must have more power if they
are to deal effectively with organized crime.
We have talked of the two major parties in their approaches to the Ethics
Gap in Congress and the Morality Gap that divides the Nation. Let us speak now of
Vietnam.
FORD
What is the role of
GERALD
LIBR
the opposition on Vietnam? With few exceptions,
Republicans support the President in his present course-his view that only
unrelenting
military pressure will cause the enemy to talk peace. Meantime, Republicans are
deeply disturbed about the split in the Democratic Party over the bombing of North
Vietnam, the proposals that there be a unilateral halt in the bombing.
I
cannot see how any member of Congress who has seen photos of men and supplies moving
Vutnam
from North unitate to South during the Tet New Year's truce can possibley favor an
halt in the bombing. I am convinced that those New Year's
reinforcements resulted in hundreds of American and South Vietnamese deaths.
I do not contend that criticism of American policy in Vietnam should be
silenced. But I do maintain that a political party divided against itself
cannot lead this nation effectively in
war, or lead us to peace. Such
dissension makes it more difficult to obtain the peace that all Americans want. The
President himself has said that detend encourages Hanoi to keep on
of the dones in ti own party
fighting.
has maintained a responsible position.
Amid all this domestic but turmoil, the Opposition Party
We
have
criticized the President only to pushi for an early end to the war with
an honorable conclusion. We have chafed at gradualism but we have not sought
military victory or unconditional surrender. There is good reason to wonder
whether the President would pursue a course of gradualism in the V ietnam War if he had
it all to do over again. It is as easy to see as deBergerac's nose that the
build up strength
enemy has more time to and to plan countermoves when his adversary
turns up the screws only a
fraction
at
a
time.
No
major
power
has ever fought before a War with such self-imposed limitations.
I believe the way to a settlement in Vietnam is to maintain steady pressure on
Ho Chi Minh while a government with popular support emerges in South Vietnam. The
solution in Vietnam must be essentially political. No
rule
imposed
by the military can result in a stable government or a semblance of peace in Vietnam.
fest.
The hope for peace and stability in South Vietnam is the evolving popular
government. We can only "win" there through land reform and democracy-building.
Necessary military action must be supported by effective political and economic measures,
aimedat K the creation of a genuine non-Communist political base. We must identify ourselves with
the advocates of civirlian rule in South Vietnam, as sumbolized by the new compstitution.
In foreign and domestic policy, the role of the opposition Congre is essentially that
in
of watchdog. We owe it to the American people to keep tabs on the other
party
and to blow the whistle on mistakes or malfeastance.
IBRARY
5/
The best vehicle for political watchdog activity is
present
in
the
British system--an investigative committee run by the minority. Republicans
have urged such a committee be establishedh in the U.S. House of Representatives but we
are not holding our breaths while it happens.
Consequently, we can only point to X majority party blunders or omissions
as we
uncover them with the meager investigative
and research
resources we possess.
We raise questions and hope that the American people will answer them with an
affirmative vote for the Republican Party in 1968.
Why are American high school students lagging behind
Japan and four other nations in their knowledge of mathematics? What
are we doing to improve our schools besides pumping billions of defederal dollars into
them--in many cases, for projects of dubious or marginal value? Why are educators
in large numbers protesting to Congre SS about federal red tape in
connection with dollar grants and about federal interference in operation of local schools?
Why should this become a muota society? Does anybody really believe that the
University of Michigan discriminates against Negroes as a matter of official
policy? Why then should the federal government tell the university that its
federal research contracts will be withdrawn unless the university hires more Negroes
for campus jobss and recruits more Negro faculty members and students? Is ours to
become a coerced Society?
How serious pollution? How many Americans
is the Johnson about air
realize that the city of Washington is the fourth dirtiest city in the Nation
and that one third of the pollution emanates from Federal Government heating plants?
Is it not a full and - complete partnership of government and busine SS that we
need to lick water and air pollution and not just government swinging a big stick at
industry?
How many Americans realize that the United States including in pulling its
NATO installations out of France left behind almost # $1 billion worth of
facilities for which the French probably won't pay us a cent? Did you know that
these facilities include entire towns-with hospitals, schools, libraries, housing,
swimming pools and bowling alleys, to be taken over by the French?
FORD
How many Americans think about the fact that the Federal Government is deeply
intereston
in deficit and has been for six full fiscal years? How many know that the federal
LIBRARY
debt now
runs $14 billion a year, the second largest single item in the
6/
federal budget? How many Americans realize that deficit in the the fiscal 1968 budget probably
will run to $15 billion or more and that if the present economic downturn deepens
into a recession the deficit will be even more mountainous?
The huge deficits we now are facing point up the choice the opposition party
offers the voters as we approach 1968.
Republicans believe in progress at a pace the people can
afford.
We
believe that if federal spending runs wild, this weakens the foundations of our
non-essential
economy. The President is asking for higher taxes. We believe federal spending
should be cut.
a basic difference
between the two parties is that the
Democratic
Party
prescribes
problem-solving
a federal pill for every ill. The Republican Party M. would shift more
responsibility to state and local governments and to the private sector.
If
The Republican Party
is concerned that the other party's philosophy offtax and
destroys
tax, spend and spend"
individual incentive by siphoning
off too much of the people's income in higher taxes.
While the Democratic Party
advances proposals that rely primarily on
federal money, federal; power and federal control, the Republican Party
proposes federal ttax-sharing to aid the cities and states, tax credits as incentives
for tuition and other college
expenses
for a massive nationwide cleanup of our air and water, tax credits to make this a
nation of college students, tax credits to industry to launch a nationwide
on-the-job training program as an assault on hard-core unemployment.
If
excessive
Incentives, not red tape and federal power. That's the way of the opposition party.
We IN believe there should be largescale business involvement in the solving of our
social ills.
morality
Insurance the outset I spoke of a NEW issue that tax will transcend all else
in 1968.
a
In the final analysis, this translates itself into
questions
confidence in the present administration
Noted
bocute
news commentator Walter Lippmann is among t hose who
a
credibility gap in the country today... the result of a deliberate policy
Lippmann Says its
of artificial manipulation of official news."
as public Vippmann says, the publis simply refuses
to accept at face value what the Federal Government says and does.
Is it any wonder that our young people today ask.. Who and what can we believe?
7/
THERE
This--the Credibility Gap---- an intolerable situation,
whatever its
cause.
I believe it springs from this Administration's search for
consensus, its abhorrence of dissent, its attempt to foist a kind of absolutism
on the American people...a kind of benevolent despotism.
At a recent press conference, President Johnson spoke of the Republican
opposition in the same breath with his adversaries overseas. I really do not
believe the Loyal Opposition is that formidable.
I
ask only that the American people give the Loyal Opposition a
hearing--and then act on the evidence.
As Edmund Burke said: "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win
in the world is for enough good men to do nothing."
If, as the figures indicate, a majority of the registered voters are
Democrats, then let them ponder the words of a Democratic president. Woodrow Wilson
told the American people: "Liberty cannot exist where government takes
care of the people, but it can only thrive where the people take care of the
government."
the voters ofthis Nation
This I ask-that the be attentive to their first and foremost
to see
task that government in America
the servant and not the master of the people.
FORD & LIBRARY GLRALD
AN ADDRESS BY HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH,, AT COLGATE UNIVERSITY
8 P.M., SUNDAY, APRIL 9, 1967 --
Ladies and gentlemen: I come to you tonight as the leader of the opposition
in one House of the Congress. My task, as I see it, is to sketch for you an
outline of the Opposition Role. What should the role of the opposition be and
how should we go about fulfilling it?
Many Americans don't realize it, but the present two-party system in
American politics goes back 112 years. Tonight I am going to concern myself
primarily with the current situation because there is so much to be said
about the problems now facing this Nation.
Bluntly put and viewed in purely political terms, the mission of the
minority party is to became the majority. That is, the Outs are constantly
striving to become the Ins. That's what Republicans are working for right now--
to become the In-Group.
There is far more to the role of the opposition than a simple drive for
power, of course. We in the opposition must seek to serve the American people:
we must offer them a better course than that of the other party. We must offer
them a New Direction in government and persuade the voters that this New Direction
will lead the Nation in the paths of peace and prosperity.
If I did not believe that the Republican Party had sounder solutions to
offer the American people I would not be standing before you at this moment.
The role of the opposition in Congress is critical at this time. The
Nation is at a crossreads in economic affairs and the Vietnam War.
The record the Republican Party makes in the 90th Congress is extremely
important in terms of the 1968 election. It will be the record that the next
Republican presidential candidate will run on.
Some Americans believe the rele of the opposition should be solely to oppose.
In my view, it goes far beyond that. Certainly we should oppose when we believe
that the majority party is mistaken in its programs and concepts. But we also
must propose. We must offer the people a choice, tell them how we would run
the Nation's affairs if given the opportunity.
QERALD R.FORD LIBRARY
21
It is only some 15 months before the two major political parties meet in
convention to name their presidential candidates. Already the issues of the
1968 campaign are taking shape. It will be an historic campaign--a campaign
which will shape the destiny of America far into the future.
In recent years, national elections in the United States have been decided
on the basis of two broad issues--peace and prosperity.
I submit that in the 1968 election the issue of peace will involve far
more than the Vietnam War, other possible wars of liberation, the future of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and a possible detente with the Communist
bloc nations of Europe.
That issue will transcend the usual concerns of foreign conflict and alliances
to emwrap itself in an overriding issue of national morality.
This morality issue has a number of offshoots or related issues.
One of these is the Ethics in Congress Issue, as exemplified by the Powell
and Dodd cases. The one case involves alleged misuse of public funds: the other,
alleged misuse of campaign funds. They are different cases, yet related.
The thrust of both the Powell and the Dodd cases is that they point up the
need for a Code of Official Conduct in Congress.
Let me say at this point that the House of Representatives is well on
its way toward establishing a Select Committee on Official Conduct-and it was
primarily Republican pressure that brought it about. We called for establishment
of an ethics watchdog committee in our Republican State of the Union Message on
January 19, and the House Republican Policy Committee promptly endorsed it. This
relates to the Powell case.
Republicans have been pressing since last year for an Election Reform Law.
At this point, I am foreed to say that our insistence on Election Law Reform
has been vocal and persistent, unlike that of President Johnson. We are determined
to clean up campaign fund-raising and destroy all the evils that spring from such
organizations as the Thousand-Dollar President's Club.
FORD LIBRARY
3/
It is interesting to recall that President Johnson took Senator Dodd with
him when he flew to the Democratic convention in 1964-to mislead the press into
thinking he had tapped Dodd and not Hubert Humphrey as his running mate.
Republicans are determined to close the Ethics Gap. We are also bent
on winning the war against crime.
Why are we today plagued with a crime wave that rises and swells until a
complete breakdown of law and order is threatened?
I believe it is because the se-called Great Society is a permissive society
which encourages disrespect for law and order. We are reaping the whirlwind--
the fruit of years of permissiveness in the family, inadequate discipline in the
public schools, a shortage of dedicated teachers, evolution of the attitude that
an American need only obey those laws he deens morally justified, and glorification
of violence and rebellion.
While this may seem unrelated to the composition of the Congress and the
occupant of the White House, it is definitely intertwined. It is part of the
moral fabric of the country, that intangible called atmosphere.
It enters into the difference in approach by the two parties to the overall
issue of crime. I am not going to discuss the crime issue in detail here except
to emphasize that the war against crime must be fought on many fronts and with
a multitude of weapons. We in the Congress must help local communities expand
and improve their police forces and we must make the latest and best information
on crime detection tacties and techniques available to them. We must also
strengthen our probationary and rehabilitation systems to prevent as best as we
can the pattern of the criminal repeater.
Beyond that let us discard the idea that it is subversive to criticize the
Supreme Court. Let us examine court decisions on questioning of suspects and
permissibility of voluntary confessions as courtroom evidence and draw a line
which helps our law enforcement officials without interfering with the constitutional
rights of individual citizens.
FORD
And let us outlaw all wiretapping and eavesdropping by unauthorised citizens BRART
GERAL
4/
but make this tool available to law enforcers under court order as they make war
on organized crime. The constitutional right of privacy is a priceless right,
but so too is the right of an American citizen to be protected against professional
criminals. Law enforcement agencies must have more power if they are to deal
effectively with organized crime.
We have talked of the two major parties in their approaches to the Ethics
Gap in Congress and the Morality Gap that divides the Nation. Let us speak
now of Vietnam.
What is the rele of the opposition on Vietnam? With few exceptions, Re-
publicans support the President in his present course--his view that only
unrelenting military pressure will cause the enemy to talk peace. Meantime,
Republicans are deeply disturbed about the split in the Democratic Party over
the bombing of North Vietnam, the proposals that there be a unilateral halt in
the bombing. I cannot see how any member of Congress who has seen photos of men
and supplies moving from North to South Vietnam during the Tet New Year's truce
can possibly favor an unconditional unilateral halt in the bombing. I am convinced
that those New Year's reinforcements resulted in hundreds of American and South
Vietnamese deaths.
I do not contend that criticism of American policy in Vietnam should be
silenced. But, I do maintain that a political party divided against itself can-
not lead this nation effectively in war, or lead us to peace. Such dissension
makes it more difficult to obtain the peace that all Americans want. The
President himself has said that criticism of the doves in his own party encourages
Hanoi to keep on fighting.
Amid all this domestic turmoil, the Opposition Party has maintained a re-
sponsible position. We have criticised the President but only to push for an
early end to the war with an honorable conclusion. We have chafed at gradualism,
but we have not sought military victory or unconditional surrender.
There is good reason to wonder whether the President would pursue a course
of gradualism in the Vietnam War if he had it all to do over again. It is as
GERAL
LIBRARI
5/
easy to see as deBergerac's nose that the enemy hasimore time to build up strength
and to plan courtermoves when his adversary turns up the screws only a fraction
at a time. No major power has ever before fought a war with such self-imposed
limitations.
I believe the way to a settlement in Vietnam is to maintain steady pressure
on No Chi Minh while a government with a popular support emerges in South
Vietnam. The solution in Vietnam must be essentially political. No rule imposed
by the military can result in a stable government or a semblance of peace in
Vietnam.
The best hope for peace and stability in South Vietnam is the evolving popular
government. We can only "win" there through land reform and democracy-building.
Necessary military action must be supported by effective political and economic
measure simed at the creation of a genuine non-Communist political base. We must
identify ourselves with the advocates of civilian rule in South Vietnam, as
symbolised by the new constitution.
In foreign and domestic policy, the role of the opposition in Congress is
essentially that of watchdog. We owe it to the American people to keep tabs on
the other party and to blow the whistle on mistakes or malfeasance.
The best vehicle for political watchdog activity is present in the British
system--an investigative committee run by the minority. Republicans have urged
such a committee be established in the U.S. House of Representatives but we
are not holding our breaths while it happens.
How many Americans think about the fact that the Federal government is
deeply in deficit and has been for six full fiscal years? How many know that
interest on the Federal debt now runs $14 billion a year, the second largest single
item in the Federal budget? How many Americans realize that the deficit in the
fiscal 1968 budget probably will run to $15 billion or more and that if the
present economic downturn deepens into a recession the deficit will be even more
mountainous?
The huge deficits we now are facing point up the choice the opposition
61
party offers the voters as we approach 1968.
Republicans believe in progress at a pace the people can afford. We
believe that if Federal spending runs wild, thisweakens the foundations of our
economy. The President is asking for higher taxes. We believe non-essential
Federal spending should be cut.
A basic difference between the two parties is that the Democratic Party
prescribes a Federal pill for every ill. The Republican Party would shift more
problem-solving responsibility to state and local governments and to the private
sector.
The Republican Party is concerned that the other party's philosophy of "tax
and tax, spend and spend" destroys individual incentive by siphoning off too much
of the people's income in higher taxes.
While the Democratic Party advances proposals that rely primarily on Federal
money, Federal power and Federal control, the Republican Party proposes Federal tax-
sharing to aid the cities and states, tax credits as incentives for a massive nation-
wide cleanup of our air and water, tax credits for tuition and other colleges expenses
to
/make this a nation of college students, tax credits to industry to launch a nationwide
on-the-job training program as an assault on hard-core unemployment.
Incentives, not red tape and excessive Federal power. That's the way of the
opposition party. We believe there should be large-seale business involvement
in the solving of our social ills.
At the outset I spoke of a morality issue that will transcend all else in 1968.
In the final analysis, this translates itself into a question of confidence
in the present Administration. Noted news commentator, Walter Lippmann, is among
those who point to a credibility gap in the country today. Lippmann says it is
"the result of a deliberate policy of artificial manipulation of official news."
As a consequence, Lippmonn says the public simply refuses to accept at face value
what the Federal government says and does.
Is it any wonder that our young people today ask Who and what can FORD
we
believe?
LIBRARY
71
This-the Credibility Gap--poses an intolerable situation, whatever its cause.
I believe it springs from this Administration's search for consensus, its abhorrence
of dissent, its attempt to foist a kind of absolution on the American people...a
kind of benevolent despotism.
At a recent press conference, President Johnson spoke of the Republican
opposition in the same breath with his adversaries overseas. I really do not
believe the Loyal Opposition is that formidable.
I ask only that the American people give the Loyal Opposition a hearing--
and then act on the evidence.
As Edmund Burke said: "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win
in the world is for enough good men to do nothing."
If, as the figures indicate, a majority of the registered voters are Democrats,
then let them ponder the words of a Democratic President, Woodrow Wilson, who
told the Ameriwan people: "Liberty cannot exist where government takes care of
the people, but it can only thrive where the people take care of the government."
This I ask-that the voters of this Nation be attentive to their first and
foremost tank--to see that government in America is the servant and not the master
of the people.
##########
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
Excerpts from an Address by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., at Colgate University
For Release on Delivery at 8 p.m. Sunday, April 9, 1967, at Hamilton, N.Y.
Why are we today plagued with a crime wave that rises and swells until a
complete breakdown of law and order is threatened?
I believe it is because the so-called Great Society is a permissive society
which encourages disrespect for the Rule of Law. We are reaping a whirlwind--the
fruit of years of permissiveness in the family, inadequate discipline in the public
schools and a shortage of dedicated teachers, evolution of the attitude that an
American need only obey those laws he deems morally justified, and glorification
of violence and rebellion.
While this may seem unrelated to the composition of the Congress and the
occupant of the White House, it is definitely intertwined. It is part of the moral
fabric of the country, that intangible called national atmosphere. It enters into
the difference in approach by the two parties to the overall issue of crime.
I am not going to discuss the crime issue in detail here except to emphasize
that the war against crime must be fought on many fronts and with a variety of
weapons.
We in the Congress must help local communities expand and improve their
police forces and we must make the latest and best information on crime detection
tactics and techniques available to them. We must also greatly strengthen our
probationary and rehabilitation systems to prevent as best we can the pattern of
criminal repeaters.
Beyond that let us discard the idea that it is subversive to criticize the
Supreme Court. We must be deeply concerned with individual rights. But let us
examine court decisions on the questioning of suspects and the permissibility of
voluntary confessions as courtroom evidence and then draw a line which aids our
law enforcement officials without interfering with the constitutional rights of
individual citizens.
And let us outlaw all wiretapping and eavesdropping by unauthorized citizens
but make this tool available to law enforcers under court order as they make war
on organized crime.
-2-
The constitutional right of privacy is a priceless right, but so too is the
right of an American citizen to be protected against professional criminals.
I do not contend that criticism of American policy in Vietnam should be
silenced. But I do maintain that a political party divided against itself cannot
lead this Nation effectively in time of war, or lead us to peace. Such dissension
makes it more difficult to obtain the peace that all Americans want. The President
himself has said that criticism by the doves in his own party encourages Hanoi to
keep on fighting.
Amid all this domestic turmoil, the Opposition Party has maintained a
responsible position. We have criticized the President only to push for an early
end to the war, with an honorable conclusion. We have chafed at gradualism but we
have not sought military victory or unconditional surrender.
There is good reason to wonder whether the President would pursue a course of
gradualism in the Vietnam War if he had it all to do over again. It is as easy to
see as the nose on DeBergerac's face that the enemy has more time to build up his
strength and to plan countermoves when his adversary turns up the screws only a
fraction at a time. No major power has ever before fought a war with such self-
imposed limitations.
I believe the way to peace in Vietnam is to keep steady pressure on Ho Chi
Minh while helping a government with popular support to emerge in South Vietnam.
The ultimate solution in South Vietnam must be essentially political. No rule im-
posed by the military can result in a stable government or lasting peace in Vietnam.
The best hope for peace and stability in South Vietnam is the evolving
popular government. We can only "win" there through land reform and democracy-
building. Necessary military action must be supported by effective political and
economic measures aimed at creation of a genuine non-Communist political base. We
must identify ourselves with the advocates of civilian rule in South Vietnam, as
symbolized by the new constitution.
***
I ask only that the American people give the Loyal Opposition a hearing
--and then act on the evidence.
If, as the figures indicate, a majority of the registered voters are
Democrats, then let them ponder the words of a Democratic president. Woodrow
Wilson told the American people: "Liberty cannot exist where government takes care
of the people, but it can only thrive where the people take care of the government."
####
not distributed
outside calgate
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
Excerpts from an Address by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., at Colgate University
For Release on Delivery at 8 p.m. Sunday, April 9, 1967, at Hamilton, N.Y.
Why are we today plagued with a crime wave that rises and swells until a
complete breakdown of law and order is threatened?
I believe it is because the so-called Great Society is a permissive society
which encourages disrespect for the Rule of Law. We are reaping a whirlwind--the
fruit of years of permissiveness in the family, inadequate discipline in the public
schools and a shortage of dedicated teachers, evolution of the attitude that an
American need only obey those laws he deems morally justified, and glorification
of violence and rebellion.
While this may seem unrelated to the composition of the Congress and the
occupant of the White House, it is definitely intertwined. It is part of the moral
fabric of the country, that intangible called national atmosphere. It enters into
the difference in approach by the two parties to the overall issue of crime.
I am not going to discuss the crime issue in detail here except to emphasize
that the war against crime must be fought on many fronts and with a variety of
weapons.
We in the Congress must help local communities expand and improve their
police forces and we must make the latest and best information on crime detection
tactics and techniques available to them. We must also greatly strengthen our
probationary and rehabilitation systems to prevent as best we can the pattern of
criminal repeaters.
Beyond that let us discard the idea that it is subversive to criticize the
Supreme Court. We must be deeply concerned with individual rights. But let us
examine court decisions on the questioning of suspects and the permissibility of
voluntary confessions as courtroom evidence and then draw a line which aids our
law enforcement officials without interfering with the constitutional rights of
individual citizens.
And let us outlaw all wiretapping and eavesdropping by unauthorized citizens
but make this tool available to law enforcers under court order as they make war
on organized crime.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
The constitutional right of privacy is a priceless right, but 80 too is the
right of an American citizen to be protected against professional criminals.
I do not contend that criticism of American policy in Vietnam should be
silenced. But I do maintain that a political party divided against itself cannot
lead this Nation effectively in time of war, or lead us to peace. Such dissension
makes it more difficult to obtain the peace that all Americans want. The President
himself has said that criticism by the doves in his own party encourages Hamoi to
keep on fighting.
Amid all this domestic turmoil, the Opposition Party has maintained a
responsible position. We have criticized the President only to push for an early
end to the war, with an honorable conclusion. We have chafed at gradualism but we
have not sought military victory or unconditional surrender.
There is good reason to wonder whether the President would pursue a course of
gradualism in the Vietnam War if he had it all to do over again. It is as easy to
see as the nose on DeBergerac's face that the enemy has more time to build up his
strength and to plan countermoves when his adversary turns up the screws only a
fraction at a time. No major power has ever before fought a war with such self-
imposed limitations.
I believe the way to peace in Vietnam is to keep steady pressure on Ho Chi
Minh while helping a government with popular support to emerge in South Vietnam.
The ultimate solution in South Vietnam must be essentially political. No rule im-
posed by the military can result in a stable government or lasting peace in Vietnam.
The best hope for peace and stability in South Vietnam is the evolving
popular government. We can only "win" there through land reform and democracy-
building. Necessary military action must be supported by effective political and
economic measures aimed at creation of a genuine non-Communist political base. We
must identify ourselves with the advocates of civilian rule in South Vietnam, as
symbolized by the new constitution.
***
I ask only that the American people give the Loyal Opposition a hearing
--and then act on the evidence.
If, as the figures indicate, a majority of the registered voters are
Democrats, then let them ponder the words of a Democratic president. Woodrow
Wilson told the American people: "Liberty cannot exist where government takes care
of the people, but it can only thrive where the people take care of the government."
#####
antstrucil
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
Excerpts from an Address by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., at Colgate University
For Release on Delivery at 8 p.m. Sunday, April 9, 1967, at Hamilton, N.Y.
Why are we today plagued with a crime wave that rises and swells until a
complete breakdown of law and order is threatened?
I believe it is because the so-called Great Society is a permissive society
which encourages disrespect for the Rule of Law. We are reaping a wharlwind--the
in the public schools
fruit of years of permissiveness in the family, inadequate discipline and a shortage
dedicated
obey those laws he deems morally justified, and glorification of violence, rebellions
of teachers the schooley evolution of the attitude that an American and needm only
While this may seem unrelated to the comprosition of the Congress and the
occupant of the White House, it is definitely intertwined. It is part of the moral
fabric of the country, that intangible called national atmosphere. It enters into
the difference in approach by the two parties to the overall issue of crime.
I am not going to discuss the crime issue in detail here except to emphasize
that the war against crime must be fought on many fronts and with a variety of
weapons.
We in the In Congre SS must help local communities expand and improve their police
forces and we must make the latest and best information on crime detection xxux
tactics and techniques YM available to them. We must also stre greatly strengthen our
probationary and rehabilitation systems to prevent as best we can the pattern of
criminal repeaters.
Beyond that let us discard the idea that it is subversive to criticize the
Supreme Court. We must be deeply concerned with individual rights. But let us
examine court decisions on the questioning of suspects and the permissibility of
voluntary confessions as courtroom evidence and then draw a line which aids our
law enforcement officials without interfering thax with the constitutional rights of
individual citizens.
And let us outlaw all wiretapping and vesdropping by unauthorised citizens but
make this tool available to law enforcers under court order as they
make war on organized crime.
ORD
The constitutional right of privacy is an priceless right, but so too is the right
professional
of an American citizen to be protected against/criminals.
(MORE)
-2-
I do not contend that criticism of American policy in Vietnam should be
silenced. But I do maintain that a political party divided against itself cannot
lead this Nation effectively in time of war, or lead us to peace. Such dissension
makes it more difficult to obtain the peace that all Americans want. The President
himself has said that criticism by the doves in his own party encourages Hanoi to
keep on fighting.
Amid all this domestic turmoil, the Opposition Party has maintained a
responsible position. We have criticized the President only to push for an early
end to he war, with an honorable conclusion. We have chafed at gradualism but we
have not sought military victory or MNEX unconditional surrender.
There is good reason to wonder whether the President would purse a course of
gradualism in the Vietnam War if he had it all to do over again. It is as easy to
see as the nose on DeBergerac's face that the enemy has more time to build up his
strength and to plan countermoves when his adversary turns up the screws only a
fraction at a time. No major power has ever before fought a war with such
self-imposed limitations.
I believe the way to peace ini Vietnam is to keep steady pressure on Ho Chi Minh
while helping a government with popular support to emerge in South Vietnam. The
ultimate solution in South the Vietnam must be essentially political. No rule imposed
by the military canresult in a stable government or lasting
peace in Vietnam.
The best hope for peace and stability in South Vietnam is the e volving popular
government. We can only "win" there through land reform and democracy-building.
Necessary military action must be supported by effective which political and
economic measures aimed at creation of a genuine non-Communist political base. We
must identify ourselves with the advocates of civilian rule in South E Vietnam, as
symbolized by the new constitution.
* * *
I ask only that the American people give the Loyal Opposition a hearing--and
then act on the evidence.
If, as the figures indicate, a majority of the registered voters are
Democrats, then let them ponder the words of a Democratic president. Woodrow Wilson
told the American people: "Liberty cannot exist where government takes care of the
people, but it can only thrive where the people take care of the government."
#####
Distribution: 20 sent w/mr Ford ONLY
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
Excerpts from an Address by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., at Colgate University
For Release on Delivery at 8 p.m. Sunday, April 9, 1967, at Hamilton, N.Y.
Why are we today plagued with a crime wave that rises and swells until a
complete breakdown of law and order is threatened?
I believe it is because the so-called Great Society is a permissive society
which encourages disrespect for the Rule of Law. We are reaping a whirlwind--the
fruit of years of permissiveness in the family, inadequate discipline in the public
schools and a shortage of dedicated teachers, evolution of the attitude that an
American need only obey those laws he deems morally justified, and glorification
of violence and rebellion.
While this may seem unrelated to the composition of the Congress and the
occupant of the White House, it is definitely intertwined. It is part of the moral
fabric of the country, that intangible called national atmosphere. It enters into
the difference in approach by the two parties to the overall issue of crime.
I am not going to discuss the crime issue in detail here except to emphasize
that the war against crime must be fought on many fronts and with a variety of
weapons.
We in the Congress must help local communities expand and improve their
police forces and we must make the latest and best information on crime detection
tactics and techniques available to them. We must also greatly strengthen our
probationary and rehabilitation systems to prevent as best we can the pattern of
criminal repeaters.
Beyond that let us discard the idea that it is subversive to criticize the
Supreme Court. We must be deeply concerned with individual rights. But let us
examine court decisions on the questioning of suspects and the permissibility of
voluntary confessions as courtroom evidence and then draw a line which aids our
law enforcement officials without interfering with the constitutional rights of
individual citizens.
And let us outlaw all wiretapping and eavesdropping by unauthorized citizens
but make this tool available to law enforcers under court order as they make war
on organized crime.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
The constitutional right of privacy is a priceless right, but so too is the
right of an American citizen to be protected against professional criminals.
I do not contend that criticism of American policy in Vietnam should be
silenced. But I do maintain that a political party divided against itself cannot
lead this Nation effectively in time of war, or lead us to peace. Such dissension
makes it more difficult to obtain the peace that all Americans want. The President
himself has said that criticism by the doves in his own party encourages Hamoi to
keep on fighting.
Amid all this domestic turmoil, the Opposition Party has maintained a
responsible position. We have criticized the President only to push for an early
end to the war, with an honorable conclusion. We have chafed at gradualism but we
have not sought military victory or unconditional surrender.
There is good reason to wonder whether the President would pursue a course of
gradualism in the Vietnam War if he had it all to do over again. It is as easy to
see as the nose on DeBergerac's face that the enemy has more time to build up his
strength and to plan countermoves when his adversary turns up the screws only a
fraction at a time. No major power has ever before fought a war with such self-
imposed limitations.
I believe the way to peace in Vietnam is to keep steady pressure on Ho Chi
Minh while helping a government with popular support to emerge in South Vietnam.
The ultimate solution in South Vietnam must be essentially political. No rule im-
posed by the military can result in a stable government or lasting peace in Vietnam.
The best hope for peace and stability in South Vietnam is the evolving
popular government. We can only "win" there through land reform and democracy-
building. Necessary military action must be supported by effective political and
economic measures aimed at creation of a genuine non-Communist political base. We
must identify ourselves with the advocates of civilian rule in South Vietnam, as
symbolized by the new constitution.
***
I ask only that the American people give the Loyal Opposition a hearing
--and then act on the evidence.
If, as the figures indicate, a majority of the registered voters are
Democrats, then let them ponder the words of a Democratic president. Woodrow
Wilson told the American people: "Liberty cannot exist where government takes care
of the people, but it can only thrive where the people take care of the government."
####