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.
Source Description
This file contains:
Remarks by the Vice President at the Fourth Annual Conference of the Magazine Publishers Association, NewYork. [Report], 9/28/1960
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26127503
label
WHSF: Returned, 50-25
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26127503
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Returned, 50-25
description
This file contains:
Remarks by the Vice President at the Fourth Annual Conference of the Magazine Publishers Association, NewYork. [Report], 9/28/1960
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Returned White House Special Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26127503
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
09a5b0f304448a92
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
White House Special Files Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
Document Type
Document Description
50
25
09/28/1960
Report
Remarks by the Vice President at the Fourth
Annual Conference of the Magazine
Publishers Association, NewYork.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Page 1 of 1
Haldernan 303
file
Herbert G. Klein
FOR RELEASE
Press Secretary to the Vice President
IMMEDIATE
Nixon-Lodge Campaign Headquarters
1146 19th Street, N. W., Wash. 6, D. C.
REMARKS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT AT THE FOURTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE
OF THE MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK, N. Y.
SEPTEMBER 28, 1960.
Mr. Weeks: (Business Week Director, moderator of panel) Mr. Vice
President, it's very gracious of you to be with us this morning. Every one of
us saw your debate with Senator Kennedy on Monday night, and we know that you
have not slowed down your pace since then, -- in West Virginia yesterday, flew
into New York this morning for this breakfast, and before this breakfast, I am
told, oatmeal at 7 'dock.
But this is not a debate. We are here for information, and We will obey
your rules. We want to stretch out and those editors who are around you will try
to keep you awake.
I am going to open the proceedings, if I may, by asking a teaser. When I
have a long haul ahead of me, I like to think of the fishing trip that I'm going to go
on as soon as I get out in the clear. Would you tell us what form or kind of vaca-
tion or rest do you look forward to when the election is over I don't seem to
remember that you ever play golf.
Vice President Nixon: If you don't mind, Mr. Weeks, and members of the
panel, I will stand to answer the questions.
I would say, as far as my relaxation is concerned, your comment that you
don't remember that I ever play golf is probably the most objective comment
about the quality of my golf that I've ever heard. If I have the opportunity to have
a little relaxation, I would say that would be the latter part of November, possibly
the opportunity to go to the seashore would be the one that I would take, first of all.
I'm not a good swimmer, but I like salt water. I like to walk up and down
the sand and collect shells, do the things that people do when they go to the beach.
As far as golf is concerned, never having become good enough at it to enjoy
it as I should, I think probably I have given it up for the duration. But I've said
that before, so I don't make that as a promise. That's not a campaign promise,
I assure you.
Mr. Weeks: We will open the heavy artillery with Mike Cowles. Mike,
will you be heavy artillery for the first question?
MORE
Magazine Publishers Association
-2-
New York City
Mr. Cowles (Cowles Magazines Inc., Chairman): Mr. Vice President, I
hate to ask you tough questions this early in the day. Unfortunately, we know
very little about what is happening in Red China. I think this audience would
appreciate it if you would tell us what you feel is happening in Red China, what
you feel the present relationships are between Red China and the Soviet Union,
and under what circumstances would you favor admitting Red China to the United
Nations ?
Vice President Nixon: Well, first, my observations with regard to what is
happening in Red China would not be worth much more than those on this panel. I,
of course, do have access to intelligence information but the information we have
from Red China is limited and, of course, it is mixed.
Looking at that information and considering the other types of information
that we get in addition to intelligence information, these are the conclusions that
I would arrive at: Red China has a very dedicated, aggressive Communist leader-
ship in the early stages of the development of Communism.
I think perhaps the best way to indicate the difference between the Communist
leadership of Red China and the Communist leadership of the Soviet Union is in
their attitude toward the use of war as a means of accomplishing the Communist
objective of world domination,
Now there's no disagreement whatever between Mr. Khrushchev and Mr.
Mao Tse-tung with regard to the fact that Communism must conquer the world
and will. And they will use any means to accomplish that end.
Mr. Khrushchev, however, in recent years, particularly the last three or
four years, has taken the line, as we all know, of saying that they do not have to
resort to the use of force and that they will not resort to the use of force. In
fact, he has even at times indicated that they can and will accomplish their objective
through what he calls peaceful competition between the two systems, Communism
and the system of freedom.
Mr. Mao Tse-tung, on the other hand, does not go along with this philosophy.
He says that, in a nutshell, after the first World War we had the arrival on the
international scene of the Communist government of the Soviet Union. After the
second World War, he said the result was the extension of Communism to over
Magazine Publishers Association
-3-
New York City
600 million people, a third of the earth's population. He goes further and says
that after the third World War it may be that Communism will dominate the world.
Now, when we look at this almost diabolical reasoning, here is what he is
saying. He is saying that China with its tremendous population does not fear a
third World War, that they believe that a third World War might result in Com-
munist domination of the world and, while of course they would suffer more, that
the end result would be the extension of Communism and not the extension of free-
dom.
That brings us to the basic difference between Mr. Mao Tse-tung and Mr.
Khrushchev at the present time. When I use these two names, incidentally, I
am not, of course, trying to downgrade other Chinese Communist leaders, who
may be more influential or as influential as Mao Tse-tung at the present time.
But the basic difference is in their attitude toward what means Communism will
use to dominate the world, and we find here again that Khrushchev is insisting
on following the line of so-called peaceful competition.
He follows that line because, one, he knows the terrible power of the
atomic weapons and he respects our power, despite what those who downgrade our
power indicate he thinks of it.
In addition to that, Mr. Khrushchev honestly believes, I think, that he will
accomplish more through peaceful means that he would through war in extending
Communism.
As Chancellor Adenauer said to me when he was over here, Khrushchev does
want to rule the world, but he doesn't want to rule the world of ruined cities and
dead bodies. He wants to rule live people. But Mao Tse-tung looks at it
differently. So, we find here a basic ideological conflict -going on among Com-
munist leaders who do not follow Mr. Khrushchev's thoughts on peaceful co-
existence, peaceful at least as far as words are concerned but, nevertheless,
compared to Mao Tse-tung's thoughts, extremely peaceful. This, therefore,
has resulted in ideological conflict between the two.
Now, can we base our policy on the assumption that this conflict will
result in a split? Here you have a very great disagreement in the international
community. There are those who believe on our side that we can assume that
Magazine Publishers Association
-4-
New York City
China and Communist Russia are inevitably going to break apart and that the line
of U. S. policy and Free World policy should be to drive them apart.
Now to comment on that point: Any obvious attempts to drive them apart
would be counter-productive as we can well see, because they are bound together
by a strong ideological bond. That is, the Communist ideology, like any religion,
binds them together and in some respects binds them together more than any
religion has ever bound people together in the history of the world.
And so I say to base our policy on the assumption that they're going to break
apart would be an error.
Now we come to the final point. What, then, should be our attitude toward
recognizing Communi st China and admitting it to the United Nations?
It has been my position -- it is now and it will continue to be in the future,
until circumstances change -- that we would make a very great mistake to change
our position on admission of Red China to the UN or recognizing it, and the two
must and would go together, I believe.
The reason is, when we look at the UN, for example, that Red China simply
does not qualify to belong to an organization which in its charter says membership
in effect is open to peace-loving nations.
You can read every day in the papers a statement by Mao Tse-tung or 'The
People's Daily" in Communist China indicating that they are not a peace-loving
nation. They are in an aggressive posture toward the United Nations in Korea
today. They are engaging in aggression, both indirect and direct, all over
Southeast Asia at the present time. To admit this country, which in addition to
these things is, as far as the United States is concerned, holding prisoners,
violating all the international laws. As far as we are concerned, to admit this
country to the UN, to recognize it, to raise it to the level of a respectable member
of the world community would have the effect, I think of violating, first, basic
moral concepts, and, second, it would have the effect of spreading the Chinese
Communist influence through the balance of Asia.
Now, what should our attitude be toward the future. Our attitude should not
be rigid. We cannot and should not say we will never recognize the government
that rules over this tremendous land mass in Asia and the government which also
rules over 600 million people, but we must say, if we are to maintain moral
Magazine Publishers Association
-5-
New York City
leadership in the world, if the United Nations is to mean anything, we must say
that this government cannot be admitted to the UN, that we will not recognize it
and elevate it to the position of respectability until it changes its policy of ag-
gression toward the free nations and toward the peace-loving nations of the world.
Once it changes its policies of aggression, then we can consider recognizing
it. Until it does that, I believe it would be a great mistake.
Mr. Weeks: Elliott?
Mr. Elliott V. Bell (McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.): Mr. Vice President,
I would like to ask you what is your view of the proper role of government in
seeking to maintain à stable economy. Specifically, in the event of a business
recession and the threat of growing unemployment what actions should government
take? How promptly should it move and what should be the nature of the things
it does?
Vice President Nixon: May I say, incidentally, that I beg your pardon for
answering the last question in such detail, but, as you can see, these editors
think of questions that require speeches rather than answers.
I'm not criticizing the editors. I'm only trying to explain why my answers
may be in more detail than you would expect.
The role of government toward the economy is one that, of course, is an
important issue in this campaign.
Now, as far as the particular role of government, where a recession is
threatened, I think my views have been pretty well known, and I will reiterate
them at this point.
I think, first of all, that it is the responsibility of the President and his
economic advisers constantly to watch the economic cycle and to anticipate as
much in advance as possible the economic trends that would indicate that a down-
turn, which could be detrimental to the economy, is approaching.
The quicker you act when such a down-turn is coming, the more effective
that action will be. Once the down-turn goes too far and once a psychological
reaction sets in, where you not only have a recession in fact, but a mood recession
as well, when people are depressed, when consumers, for example are not buying,
when, for example, your advertisers are not buying advertisements in your
Magazine Publishers Association
-6-
New York City
magazines, you know then that things are getting to be in bad shape. Therefore,
the action must be as quick as possible.
Now, what kind of action should it be? You have two schools of thought.
Well, you have a number of schools but there are two schools of thought with
regard to what the government should do. There are those who suggest that
what the government should do as a recession is coming along -- or I would pre-
fer to call it a down -turn in the economic cycle, because we're going to continue
economy
to have them since you can't have an absolutely level /and have a free economy,
as we want it -- there are those who say that the proper thing to do and the
primary thing for government to do is to move in with massive government
spending programs.
I'm against that. I'm against it for this reason. Most of the massive gov-
ernment spending programs that are suggested to fight recession would take
effect not in time to deal with the recession, itself, but they would come into
effect, as far as spending and money flowing into the economy, after the recovery
cycle begins, and what would that mean? It would mean that at a time when the
danger is inflation rather than deflation, at a time when an inflationary cycle is
beginning, that you would have on your hands spending programs adopted to meet
a recession, which exert pressures you do not want at this point. So what kind
of government spending should be adopted as you see a recession coming along?
The spending should be highly selective, and it should be only for programs that
will act during the period that you expect a recession to last. It must be money
that can be spent, that can be fed into the economy at that point, and the govern-
ment must be aggressive in spending the money at that point. But it should not,
in effect, adopt policies which would say that we would spend money two or three
or four years from now, after the recession was already passed.
The second point: I believe you must use the credit functions of the govern-
the fiscal policies of the government,
ment, /very imaginatively at this point, and again it is a question of using them
early rather than late. If you wait too long -- and the matter of timing is so
essential here -- to lower interest rates in order to encourage more investment
in the economy, if you do that at a time when you are in the bottom of a recession,
too often it has a psychological affect which just makes you go lower. So you
Magazine Publishers Association
-7-
New York City
must move a little sooner than that if you possibly can.
Then, third, there is the tax device. As far as the tax device is concerned,
I believe that generally speaking when you have moved into a recessionary period
the more effective way to stimulate economic activity, more effective than huge
government spending programs, is tax reform and tax reduction.
Now, this would seem also to be dangerous. But on the other hand I believe
this for these reasons. When you are in a recession and when you want to come
out of it, too often we think the way to get out of it, the way to get the economy
going, is by expanding the public sector. These are the people who advocate
massive government spending. I don't agree with that. I think when you are in a
recession the thing you should try to do is expand the private sector of the
economy. Let me explain. Our Gross National Product is approximately 500
billion dollars. 400 billion dollars of our Gross National Product is in the private
sector, leaving a hundred billion dollars in the public sector. So when you act
with the credit facilities of the government, when you act with the tax facilities,
you are encouraging the expansion of the four hundred billion, the larger part of
your economy rather than one hundred billion dollars, and it stands to reason,
therefore, that it will mean a greater up-turn.
One last point I would like to make as far as recession is concerned: I
think we can do some other things that will smooth out the business cycle. One
in particular is with regard to unemployment compensation. I think that
unemployment compensation -- our unemployment compensation principles and
...
program -- should be revised so that we can have a more effective method. That
means longer periods which the unemployment compensation covers and also
standards which are more general throughout the states, so that you can have a
greater cushion during a recession that we presently have. These are the devices
that I would use, one, to anticipate recession and, second, to fight it as you
get into it and as you get out.
Mr. Weeks: Mrs. Hickey:
Mrs. Hickey (Ladies Home Journal): Mr. Vice President, of course, as
far as these issues of the campaign concern men and women alike -- but I am
certain at this point I am expected to ask a question that would affect a woman's
Magazine Publishers Association
-8-
New York City
point of view, and it is this: The unprecedented activity of women in this
campaign, I think, indicates that we have great numbers of women politically
active and experienced.
Now, how do you plan to use greater numbers of these women in appointments
to policy level, that is, the thinking, the planning, the higher administrative
levels of your official family?
Vice President Nixon: That's a good leading question, may I say.
I want you to know that I'm aware of the fact that more women are eligible
to vote than men. But I think one of the most interesting developments in
America's political history has been the tremendous increase in the activity of
women in our campaign, In our crowds yesterday -- incidentally, I was not only
in West Virginia, but it was a rather light day, as we were only in Arkansas,
Tennessee and West Virginia -- but in our crowds yesterday the women out-
numbered the men by about three to one. They show tremendous interest.
They show great understanding of the issues, and
another thing: They do more work in the campaigns. The men talk; the women
work.
You can quote me on that, too, in the Ladies Home Journal.
Now, I have a great respect for what women can contribute in policy-making
positions in government.
I don't think that we have done as well as we might in using their talents,
although we have made considerable progress in this Administration.
I speak, for example, of Mrs. Hobby's contributions, and, of course, we
have at the present time the Under Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare,
Bertha Adkins, who is a very effective public servant. I have on my own staff,
for example, several women on the research side who are among the ablest of
my very small team of research assistants, and so I have a high regard for the
contributions they make.
I think as we look at the government and at what the next President ought
to do with regard to using various people from our society in government, that
we have to break away from any of the rigid ideas we have had in the past.
Let me put it this way. I will expand the answer to your question to this
Magazine Publishers Association
-9-
New York City
extent. In the struggle in which we are engaged in the world today, America
cannot afford to do less than use the best people that we have.
This means that you must not, therefore, have a bias toward men as
against women. You must not have a bias for one group in the society as against
another. You must tap the best, whoever they are. I think that means also the
best, whatever party they may belong to. I would think that whoever becomes
President, considering the fact that we are in a struggle which will be just as
decisive as a shooting war, appointments must be made to policy-making positions,
where the world struggle is involved particularly, appointments which tap the
best brains of both parties.
Now, this brings me back to your point. Where the women are concerned,
we must do a better job of enlisting the best women in this country in positions
which they are able to fill, because we have a tremendous potential resource here
that has not been used adequately.
I can say the same, for example, with regard to various racial groups,
minority groups, within our society today. As I have often said to John Johnson,
(when he was going to Africa, we discussed the matter of our foreign service), we
have to make better use, and use more of our Negro citizens, for example, in
Foreign Service positions, not just in the African countries, which to a certain
extent is not equality -- and it's practicing segregation in effect -- but in other
countries as well, because we have able people, and failure to use them is not
tapping the best of the whole society.
So, my answer is: Of course, from a political standpoint, you expect me
to say we're going to use more women, but from the standpoint of the country we
ought to use more women, because otherwise we won't get the best.
Mr. Weeks: Mr. Johnson.
Mr. John J. Johnson (Editor of Ebony Magazine): Mr. Vice President, I
would like to ask a question in the area of civil rights. I have read the planks in
both party platforms and I think they are both quite strong. So it seems to me
the question is not what we are for, but how we will go about achieving it. So I
would like to know, if you are elected President, what specifically will you do
to extend equal justice and equal opportunity to more of our citizens?
MORE
Magazine Publishers Association
-10-
New York City
Vice President Nixon: Mr. Johnson, what I would specifically do first is to
to carry out the Republican platform. In this field I had special responsibility in
writing the plank -- I know every one of the provisions. The Republican platform
is not as extreme insofar as the promises it makes in the civil rights field, but
there isn't one item in that Republican platform that cannot be carried out, that
won't work, that any reasonable Congress should not adopt, and that is what we
need.
The difficulty in the field of civil rights, as I have looked over it through
the years -- and both parties are at fault in this respect -- is that every time they
have national conventions they include in their platforms a lot of promises for
action which they know cannot be carried out and which are forgotten soon afterward:
I believe the important thing here is first to keep trust, keep faith, by keep-
ing the platform. In this area, as you know, we deal with voting rights, we deal
with employment through the medium of the Committee on Government Contracts
being expanded into a committee which will have statutory authority and which
will cover about one-fourth of all the employment in the country, directly or
indirectly.
Now, that deals with what we do in the field of law. In the executive branch
of the government a great deal can also be done, not only where government em-
loyment is concerned but also through activities such as the Attorney General of
he United States recently engaged in with regard to certain problems -- the situa-
tion regarding sit-ins.
I don't know whether all of you are aware of this. When you talk about sit-ins
people usually think of the fact that here was a very, very difficult situation. It
was one where people understood it and were hopeful that it could be worked out
without violence, without setting a bad example to the world. Finally it goes to the
courts. Now, we could have waited three years or so to get a Supreme Court
lecision on the sit-ins, and that decision eventually will come down. But the
Attorney General did not wait. He called in on a voluntary basis the heads of the
major chains in this country. They sat down, and the Attorney General got them
voluntarily to adopt a regulation to the effect that they were going to break this
barrier themselves. This is executive leadership. This is the leadership which
Magazine Publishers Association
-11-
New York City
does not wait for the law.
I would say, finally, we will carry out our platform. We will do what the
law can do. But we must recognize that in this field of civil rights the need
primarily is for leadership, which will anticipate what the law would have people
do and which will get people to do voluntarily what the law would compel them to
do against their will at a later point. Here is where the President of the United
States can do a very effective job. I have very strong convictions on this subject,
as you are well aware. That's why I have spoken on it in the Southern states I
have visited. When I speak on civil rights, in Arkansas and Tennessee, in Virginia
and the other states like that, it isn't easy. It's much easier to ignore. It's much
easier to tell these people things they agree with. And I'll tell you why I speak of
it. I don't speak of it because I go down there as a Westerner or a Northerner, who
is preaching to the Southerners and telling them the things that are wrong with
their system. This doesn't mean anything, but the reason I speak of it is because
it's the responsibility of our national leaders, recognizing that this is not just a
Southern problem, but a Northern and Western and Eastern problem as well.
It is the responsibility of our national leaders to lead the people, to lead
them and to develop public opinion on the side of carrying out the law. Why?
Because of three basic reasons: One, because it's right; two, because the United
States cannot afford in this world struggle to fail to develop to the fullest the
talents of fourteen million of its citizens; and, three, because in the international
arena we cannot afford to have a man like Khrushchev come to our shores, a man
who has enslaved millions, slaughter ed thousands in the streets of Hungary, and
point the finger to the United States and say, "Look, you're enslaving people of this
country," and I say this to any audience.
I say that the next President, Democrat or Republican, should, and I think
can, exert leadership which will give the people generally, men and women of good
will, the kind of action, constructive action in all of these fields, which will mean
progress in education, progress in employment, and in all the other fields which
mean equality of opportunity.
Mr. Weeks: Mr. Luce.
Mr. Henry R. Luce (Editor-in-chief of Time, Life, Fortune, Sports
Magazine Publishers Association
-12-
New York City
Illustrated, etc.): I thought I might ask a question which would give you a chance
to say something that hasn't been covered. I have in mind your acceptance speech
in Chicago, in which you said that the greatest task the next President of the United
States will face is to develop a new grand strategy for winning the battle of freedom
for men and women, all men and women, without war.
What perhaps are some of the elements of this grand new strategy, as they
begin to shape up in your mind?
Vice President Nixon: As far as the grand strategy for winning the battle
for freedom is concerned, the first responsibility of the next President, as it has
been of our present President, is to inform the people as to what the struggle is
really about, and that means that our people must understand the importance of the
non-military aspects of this struggle.
We all understand the necessity for maintaining America's military might.
Any Congress will appropriate anything that a President asks it to appropri-
ate within reason to keep up our military strength, and this is essential, because
without more military strength than have those who threaten the peace we are not
able to be the guardians of the peace as we are at the present time. But the
trouble is too many people stop here. They say we will be militarily strong.
We'll be good and tough at the conference table, and then we will have peace -- and
we might. But we are not going to win the struggle for the world because it is
going to be won clearly apart from the strength that we have, no matter how tough
we may be in our diplomatic policy, how resourceful, how able, how firm.
What I am speaking of, of course, is that the struggle of the world is being
decided in Asia, in Africa, in South America, in theNear East. Over a billion
people live in this area.
It is necessary for us to understand that to win this struggle we to
recognize what the Russians are doing first. We've got to counterpunch, but in
addition to the counterpunch, we have to develop an offensive strategy.
What are they doing? Well, they are attempting to win these countries.
They are doing it with every device possible. The main thing they are doing is
presenting hope for change to the peoples of these countries, most of which are
newly-developing, all of whom have less of this world's good than they want and
Magazine Publishers Association
-13-
New York City
need, all of whom are living virtually on subsistence with the exception of part of
South America.
The Russians, the Communists, come in but they don't say, "Go Communist.
They don't sell it that way. They say, "You need a change. What you have is wrong.
We offer change. And the Western, free world, tells you: 'Stay as you are.'
They fight only for the status quo."
And so the first responsibility in developing a new strategy is for us to
change our attitude. We've got to recognize that holding the line against Commun-
ism, defending the free world, erecting tremendous military barriers will protect
ourselves. But being firm at the diplomatic table and all of these things are not
enough. We have got to go in and fight the battle in Asia, and Africa, and South
America, just as resourcefully, just as ably, and more resourcefully than they are.
Now, how do we do this? What are the elements of this struggle?
First, it is economic in character. Second, it is ideological in character.
Now, as far as the economic aspects of this struggle are concerned, this
means -- as unpopular as this is to great numbers of people in our country -- that
the United States cannot leave to these people the alternative of either staying as
they are in their economic development or turning to Communism and paying for
progress by giving up freedom.
If that is the alternative they have, they're going to go with the Communists,
because they are not going to stay where they are.
So therefore we have to have an economic program combining developmental
loans, some grants and technical assistance, an economic program -- and I
particularly emphasize this -- which will encourage private international activities
and investment in this area of the world.
With economic activities, I would mention one other thing. We must get
our allies in this struggle, the Germans, the French, the Italians, the Japanese,
others that have now recovered from the war, others who also have ability to
contribute, get them to go with us in helping to bear the cost of this tremendous
enterprise of helping these countries to develop economically.
Now, the difficulty is that too many people stop here too. They say, "The
answer to Communism in Asia, in Africa and South America, is a huge new Marshall
Magazine Publishers Association
-14-
New York City
Plan. Pour out the money, five, ten, twenty billion dollars more. This is the
answer."
But it isn't the answer. It is wrong. It is just as wrong to give to a newly-
developing country, that doesn't know how to use money, two or three million
dollars a year without providing the technical assistance so that they know how to
spend it as it is to leave them where they are.
And so what we must do, in addition to providing funds, under the circum-
stances that I have mentioned, is to recognize that it is our responsibility, with
our allies, with the UN, with new confederations that may be set up, to train the
people who can develop the economies and run these countries.
Take the Congo. Twelve people in the Congo, it is said, have a college de-
gree. How can you expect a group like that to take this tremendously rich area
and be able, one, to run a government, and, two, to run an economy, however
much money you give them?
And so we need a greatly broadened educational program, a technical as-
sistance program which will train men in the field of government and which will
train them in the field of running an economy if they want it, if they're willing to
have it.
This must not be unilateral in character where we can avoid it, because then
it looks as if we are doing this solely for ourselves, solely in our own self interest
to extend our power and domination.
That is not why we are doing it. We're doing it for them. We must make
it clear that we're doing it for their interests, and the interests ultimately will
be in the interest of ourselves and the free peoples everywhere.
Now the other point that is made is in relation to the so-called ideological
struggle to which I referred. This is a lot harder to explain, a lot harder to
justify before any kind of audience. But we must remember that what Communism
really offers the world today, what it has made its great gains from, has not been
in the economic assistance it has poured out (very little as a matter of fact com-
pared to what we have done), it has not been in its military strength, but it has been
in the power of its ideological appeal.
Here we have not done as effective a job as we can. This is not just a
Magazine Publishers Association
-15-
New York City
question of a bigger U.S.I.A., it is a question of quality. It is just a question of
understanding what we are fighting for, what we present to these countries, and it
is to that point I would like to talk for just a second before I conclude.
The greatest mistake we make is to present our case in Asia, in Africa,
in Latin America as being one in which we are helping them to fight Communism.
Now we're helping them for that reason, because certainly if the Com-
munists came we know that would be worse than what they have today. But these
people do not want to be pawns in a world struggle. What they are interested in is
their own future and so the United States must present to these people and to all
the world the picture of a people who are wanting to help these people of Asia and
Africa and the newly-developing countries, not because we're fighting somebody
else but because of the traditional American idea of having compassion for people
who do not have as much as we have, of being concerned about poverty and misery
and disease, because there is poverty and misery and disease.
This is what people have to understand. When they know that then we will
have appeal.
And then we combine this concern for their problem, a concern which is
expressed not only by government but by private organizations as well, with a
strong program in which the people of these countries, through exchange and
otherwise, understand what we really have to offer.
And I refer here to the fact that Communism comes promising independence,
promising freedom, promising plenty, but produces none of them.
We come promising these people they can have progress but at the same
time retain freedom. Freedom means very little to them at the present time, but
the fact that it means very little now doesn't mean that it could not mean something.
For us to make our case economically solely on the basis of materialism is the
greatest mistake we could make. We have got to get some idealism into our people.
Now, how do you do this from the standpoint of the executive?
I have already indicated I'm going to spell it out more in the campaign --
that I think we need within the executive branch of the government a reorganization
of all of the activities that deal with this non-military struggle -- the economic,
the information, all of those activities that deal with the battle of ideas, technical
Magazine Publishers Association
-16-
New York City
assistance. These should be drawn together into one compact striking force
under the direction, as I have tried to divide it, of the Vice President of the United
States, reporting directly to the President, and then on a day by day, week by
week, month by month basis, this battle should be fought aggressively.
Fighting it for what? Well, of course, in the long run for the interests of
the United States, for our freedom, because whoever wins this part of the world
wins the whole world; but, as far as our immediate aim is concerned, and what
we must present to the world, we fight it because we are concerned about the
future of these people, we are concerned about their freedom, about their
progress, and whether there were any communism in the world or not we would
still be concerned. If we can present the case that way, if we can be tough-
minded, realistic, but at the same time have a heart in our international relations,
we will win against the Communists, for the fundamental reason that we're on
the right side and they're on the wrong side.
But we have to present the case better than we have done in the past.
#####