John F. Kennedy's Speeches 1947-1963

JOHN
FITZGERALD
KENNEDY
IN HIS OWN
WORDS
Independence Day Speech 1946

"'Some Elements of the American Character,' Independence Day Oration by John Fitzgerald Kennedy,
Candidate for Congress from the 11th Congressional District"
Mr. Mayor; Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen.

We stand today in the shadow of history.
We gather here in the very Cradle of Liberty.
It is an honor and a pleasure to be the speaker of the day--an honor because of the long and distinguished list of
noted orators who have preceded me on this platform, a pleasure because one of that honored list who stood here
fifty years ago, and who is with us here today, is my grandfather.
It has been the custom for the speaker of the day to link his thoughts across the years to certain classic ideals of
the early American tradition. I shall do the same. I propose today to discuss certain elements of the American
character which have made this nation great. It is well for us to recall them today, for this is a day of recollection
and a day of hope.
A nation's character, like that of an individual, is elusive. It is produced partly by things we have done and partly
by what has been done to us. It is the result of physical factors, intellectual factors, spiritual factors.
It is well for us to consider our American character, for in peace, as in war, we will survive or fail according to its
measure.
RELIGIOUS ELEMENT
Our deep religious sense is the first element of the American character which I would discuss this morning.
The informing spirit of the American character has always been a deep religious sense.
Throughout the years, down to the present, a devotion to fundamental religious principles has characterized
American thought and action.
Our government was founded on the essential religious idea of integrity of the individual. It was this religious
sense which inspired the authors of the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain inalienable rights."
Our earliest legislation was inspired by this deep religious sense:
"Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
Our first leader, Washington, was inspired by this deep religious sense:
"Of all of the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are
indispensable supports."
Lincoln was inspired by this deep religious sense:
"That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by
the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth."
Our late, lamented President was inspired by this deep religious sense:
"We shall win this war, and in victory we shall seek not vengeance, but the establishment of an
international order in which the spirit of Christ shall rule the hearts of men and nations."
Thus we see that this nation has ever been inspired by essential religious ideas. The doctrine of slavery which
challenged these ideas within our own country was destroyed.
Recently, the philosophy of racism, which threatened to overwhelm them by attacks from abroad, was also met
and destroyed.
Today these basic religious ideas are challenged by atheism and materialism: at home in the cynical philosophy of
many of our intellectuals, abroad in the doctrine of collectivism, which sets up the twin pillars of atheism and
materialism as the official philosophical establishment of the State.
Inspired by a deeply religious sense, this country, which has ever been devoted to the dignity of man, which has
ever fostered the growth of the human spirit, has always met and hurled back the challenge of those deathly
philosophies of hate and despair. We have defeated them in the past; we will always defeat them.
How well, then, has DeTocqueville said: "You may talk of the people and their majesty, but where there is no
respect for God can there be much for man? You may talk of the supremacy of the ballot, respect for order,
denounce riot, secession--unless religion is the first link, all is vain."
IDEALISTIC ELEMENT
Another element in the American character that I would bring to your attention this morning is the idealism of
our native people--stemming from the strong religious beliefs of the first colonists, developed as they worked the
land.
This idealism, this fixed regard for principle, has been an element of the American character from the birth of
this nation to the present day.
In recent years, the existence of this element in the American character has been challenged by those who seek to
give an economic interpretation to American history. They seek to destroy our faith in our past so that they may
guide our future. These cynics are wrong, for, while there may be some truth in their interpretation, it does
remain a fact, and a most important one, that the motivating force of the American people has been their belief
that they have always stood at the barricades by the side of God.
In Revolutionary times, the cry "No taxation without representation" was not an economic complaint. Rather, it
was directly traceable to the eminently fair and just principle that no sovereign power has the right to govern
without the consent of the governed. Anything short of that was tyranny. It was against this tyranny that the
colonists "fired the shot heard 'round the world."
This belief in principle was expressed most impressively by George Washington at the Constitutional Convention
in 1783. "It is probable that no plan we propose will be adopted. Perhaps another dreadful conflict is to be
sustained. If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our
work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair, the event is in the hands of God."
This idealism, this conviction that our eyes had seen the glory of the Lord -that right was right and wrong was
wrong-finally led to the ultimate clash at Bull Run and the long red years of the war between the States.
Again, the cynics may apply the economic interpretation to this conflict: the industrial North against the
agricultural South; the struggle of the two economies. Say what they will, it is an undeniable fact that the
Northern Army of Virginia and the Army of the Potomac were inspired by devotion to principle: on the one
hand, the right of secession; on the other, the belief that the "Union must be preserved."
In 1917, this element of the American character was stimulated by the slogans "War to End War" and "A War
to Save Democracy," and again the American people had as their leader a man, Woodrow Wilson, whose
idealism was the traditional idealism of America. To such a degree was this true that he was able to say, "Some
people call me an idealist. Well, that is the way I know I am an American. America is the only idealistic nation in
the world."
It is perhaps true that the American intervention in 1917 might have been more effective if the case for American
intervention had been represented on less moralistic terms. As it was, the American people eventually came to
look upon themselves as giving food and guns to a general cause in which all other people had material ends and
in which they alone had moral ends.
The idealism with which we had entered the battle made the subsequent disillusionment all the more bitter and
revealed a dangerous facet to this element of the American character, for this bitterness, a direct result of our
inflated hopes, brought a radical change in our foreign policy and a resulting withdrawal from Europe. We failed
to make the adjustment between what we had hoped to win and what we actually could win. Our idealism was
too strong. We would not compromise.
And thus we brought to our shoulders much of the burden of the responsibility for World War II--a burden
which we would not then acknowledge but for which we have paid full price in recent years on distant shores, on
faraway fields and valleys and hills, on pieces of foreign soil which will be forever ours.
It was perhaps because of this failure that the second world war never did become a crusade as did the first.
Our idealism had become tarnished, but extraordinary efforts were made to evoke it, and it is indubitably true
that the great majority of Americans had strong convictions as to which side spoke for the right before our entry
into the war.
It is now in the postwar world that this idealism--this devotion to principle--this belief in the natural law--this
deep religious conviction that this is truly God's country and we are truly God's people--will meet its greatest
trial.
Our American idealism finds itself faced by the old-world doctrine of power politics. It is meeting with successive
rebuffs, and all this may result in a new and even more bitter disillusionment, in another ignominious retreat
from our world destiny.
But, if we remain faithful to the American tradition, our idealism will be a steadfast thing, a constant flame, a
torch held aloft for the guidance of other nations.
It will take great faith.
Our idealism, the second element of the American character, is being severely tested. Now, only time will tell
whether this element of the American character will be true to its historic tradition.
PATRIOTIC ELEMENT
The third element of the American character that I would bring to your attention this morning is the great
patriotic instinct of our people.
From our pioneer days, perhaps because we were a people who developed from a beachhead on a tremendous
continent, this American patriotism has always had as its core a strange and almost mystical love of the land.
Early in our history we acquired, as James Truslow Adams has pointed out, "a sense of unlimited energy face to
face with unlimited resources."
Land, land, land, stretching with incredible richness across half a world. Its sheer vastness has made it a
challenge to the American spirit. The endless land stretching to, the western sun caught the imagination of men
who founded this nation and awakened the patriotic spirit that has become a characteristic of the American
people.
In the words of America's poet, Walt Whitman, we note this deep sense of the land:
"Land of the pastoral plains, the grass-field of the world, land of those sweet-air'd interminable plateaus!
Land of the herd, the garden, the healthy house of adobe!
Land where the northwest Columbia winds, and where the southwest Colorado winds!
Land of the eastern Chesapeake! Land of the Delaware!
Land of Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan! Land of the Old Thirteen! Massachusetts land! Land of
Vermont and Connecticut!
Land of the ocean shores! Land of sierras and peaks!
Land of boatmen and sailors! Fishermen's land!"
This preoccupation with the land records itself in the catalogue of the colonists' grievances against George III. It
has always been reflected in the highest moments of our patriotism, for, throughout the years, in the early days
here at home and in recent years abroad, Americans have been ever ready to defend this native land.
From the birth of the nation to the present day, from the Heights of Dorchester to the broad meadows of
Virginia, from Bunker Hill to the batteries of Saratoga, from Bergen's Neck, where Wayne and Maylan's troops
achieved such martial wonders, to Yorktown, where Britain's troops surrendered, Americans have heroically
embraced the soldier's alternative of victory or the grave. American patriotism was shown at the Halls of
Montezuma. It was shown with Meade at Gettysburg, with Sheridan at Winchester, with Phil Carney at Fair
Oaks, with Longstreet in the Wilderness, and it was shown by the flower of the Virginia Army when Pickett
charged at Gettysburg. It was shown by Captain Rowan, who plunged into the jungles of Cuba and delivered the
famous message to Garcia, symbol now of tenacity and determination. It was shown by the Fifth and Sixth
Marines at Belleau Wood, by the Yankee Division at Verdun, by Captain Leahy, whose last order as he lay dying
was "The command is forward." And in recent years it was shown by those who stood at Bataan with
Wainwright, by those who fought at Wake Island with Devereaux, who flew in the air with Don Gentile. It was
shown by those who jumped with Gavin, by those who stormed the bloody beaches at Salerno with Commando
Kelly; it was shown by the First Division at Omaha Beach, by the Second Ranger Battalion as it crossed the
Purple Heart Valley, by the 101st as it stood at Bastogne; it was shown at the Bulge, at the Rhine, and at victory.
Wherever freedom has been in danger, Americans with a deep sense of patriotism have ever been willing to stand
at Armageddon and strike a blow for liberty and the Lord.
INDIVIDUALISTIC ELEMENT
The American character has been not only religious, idealistic, and patriotic, but because of these it has been
essentially individual.
The right of the individual against the State has ever been one of our most cherished political principles.
The American Constitution has set down for all men to see the essentially Christian and American principle that
there are certain rights held by every man which no government and no majority, however powerful, can deny.
Conceived in Grecian thought, strengthened by Christian morality, and stamped indelibly into American
political philosophy, the right of the individual against the State is the keystone of our Constitution. Each man is
free.
He is free in thought.
He is free in expression.
He is free in worship.
To us, who have been reared in the American tradition, these rights have become part of our very being. They
have become so much a part of our being that most of us are prone to feel that they are rights universally
recognized and universally exercised. But the sad fact is that this is not true. They were dearly won for us only a
few short centuries ago and they were dearly preserved for us in the days just past. And there are large sections
of the world today where these rights are denied as a matter of philosophy and as a matter of government.
We cannot assume that the struggle is ended. It is never-ending.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. It was the price yesterday. It is the price today, and it will ever be the
price.
The characteristics of the American people have ever been a deep sense of religion, a deep sense of idealism, a
deep sense of patriotism, and a deep sense of individualism.
Let us not blink the fact that the days which lie ahead of us are bitter ones.
May God grant that, at some distant date, on this day, and on this platform, the orator may be able to say that
these are still the great qualities of the American character and that they have prevailed.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Boston College,

Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, February 1, 1953
This is a redaction of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. One draft of the speech
exists in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy
Library. This draft has handwritten changes. A link to page images of the draft is given at the bottom of this page.
You gentlemen tonight are showing your usual tolerance in inviting to a Boston College dinner a graduate of that
theological school across the Charles, but then, Boston College has always been that way. In fact, so tolerant has
Boston College been to outsiders that in all its 89 years of history, Boston College has yet to have a Boston College
graduate as a President - in fact, some feel that Boston College is getting intolerably tolerant, as its last two
Presidents were graduates of Holy Cross.
I am especially glad to be here because your varsity men represent a great athletic tradition.
Men like Jack Ryder, the track coach for over 39 years, but recently retired - John Kelly of Cambridge, who
coached Boston College inter-collegiate championship, and all other coaches who devoted their lives to Boston
College.
Another reason why I am glad to be here is because we have as the guest of honor Mike Holovak. I have known
Mike for a long time. He is not only a Boston College immortal, but has made for himself as a coach a great place
in the hearts of all those who follow the games. One of the greatest tributes I have ever heard was given to Mike
by Frank Leahy of Notre Dame -----
I am especially pleased to be here for while I was no great shakes as an athlete, I had one of the best spectator
records ever achieved at that football factory across the river.
Someone asked me once what senators talked about in the cloak-room. While it covers everything, I remember a
recent conversation I had with George Smathers, the Senator from Florida, who played end for Florida
University. We discussed the greatest teams, plays and players that we had seen, and when Senator Wayne Morse
was speaking we covered a good deal of ground.
The best football player I ever saw - who dominated his team and the entire field, was Clint Frank - saw him
score four touchdowns in less than two quarters, against a pretty good Princeton team.
I would put Al Marsters or Tom Harmon of Michigan in class second. I saw Harmon score 21 points on his 21st
birthday in the first half of the game against California.
Congressman Carrol Kean, who played three years for Chicago in the early 20's - he sat across from me on the
Labor Committee - once told me that George Gitt was easily the best. The fact that Kearn's nose was broken
tackling Gitt may have had something to do with it.
The best play I ever saw occurred in the game between the Army and Notre Dame in the 20's when Chris Cagle
was starring for Army.
The most exciting team was Stamford - won only one game the year before with Dartmouth - which did not do
much for Eastern football - and that was undefeated and went to the Rose Bowl the next year, the first year of the
"T".
The most interesting football player I know of was Wisard White, with whom I served in the Navy, who was All
America for Columbia. After graduating from college he went to Yale Law School. In 1941 he led his class at Law
School by a point and a half.
The greatest game easily, of course, was the Georgetown-Boston College game. No less an authority than
Grantland Rice called it the Greatest Game Ever Played and the Biggest Up-set, - but why go on.
All of these reminiscences are rather one-sided and I know that you each could match them all, but it does
demonstrate the vivid memories that football has produced for those of us who have followed it through the
years.
It is a great game - it, as well as all athletics, - means much in binding together all members of a college - in
creating a common identity and purpose. Athletics help maintain the interest of the alumni in the life of a college,
and without a loyal and interesting alumni a college cannot hope to survive.
By this banquet tonight honoring these young men, you are giving renewed evidence of your devotion to Boston
College and the things for which it stands.
Boston College has long recognized this - and it has also recognized that football, and other sports, should not be
merely spectator sports, - all should participate in them on one level or another. Life in the United States can be
enervating and soft, but in school and college American boys acquire qualities of vigor and stamina.
I think that Catholic colleges, concerned as they are primarily with preparing their graduates for the life
hereafter - recognize the connection between sports and the good life. They have concentrated attention on it, and
all of us have benefited from it.
There is another reason for this emphasis on sports. Douglas MacArthur was right when he wrote these words
which now stand before the playing fields in West Point: "Upon the fields of friendly strife are sown the seeds,
that upon other fields, in other days, will bear the fruits of victory".
These are difficult and dangerous days. The structure of containment in many areas is cracking, and our
horizons are lit by the lightning flash of distant conflict. Young American soldiers now occupy a hundred
different garrisons stretching from the Rhine in a great half circle to the 38th Parallel. If the free world is to
survive in this type of trial and trouble, if the line is to be held against the advancing hordes, then in the final
analysis, and this we must know, it will depend on us.
The leadership has been inexorably thrust upon the United States - for only America has the power and
resources, both physically and spiritually, to provide that leadership. We are in truth the last best hope on earth.
If we do not stand it now - if we do not stand firm amid the conflicting tides of neutralism, resignation, isolation
and indifference, then all will be lost, and one by one the free countries of the earth will fall until finally the direct
assault will begin on the great citadel - the United States.
In our efforts to rally those who would remain free - one of our basic difficulties has been that all too frequently
the things which divide us seem stronger than those which unite us.
In many ways, for example, the free people of South East Asia feel closer to their neighbors, the Chinese, than
they do to us. Many of the things for which we fight seem to mean almost nothing to those whose common
support we seek.
The preservation of the private enterprise system means little as a rallying cry to the sullen half-starved masses of
teeming Asia. Possession and the collectivization of private property does not stir the imagination of that great
proportion of the world's population whose personal resources are almost non-existent.
And even to those who might possess a few sterile sun-baked feet of dusty earth, collectivization may seem a
logical method of attacking agricultural problems which leave them without hope or even life. Democracy even,
the rule of the majority, may mean little to the illiterate millions who have been dominated by native and foreign
autocracies beyond the reach of their memories.
What then does unite us? Certainly the common desire to be free and independent, but there is something more
vital above and beyond that, and that is the common link that unites us - that distinguishes us from our enemies -
a belief in God - in the life of the spirit as against the materialism and atheism that joins together the primitives
who seek to destroy us and the things for which we stand.
This is the common belief and force that binds us - east and west - free and oppressed. This is the power that
must animate our thoughts and actions.
When we recognize this more clearly, when we lay the stress on this part of our national character and tradition -
that it deserves and warrants - then the fundamentals of the world struggle will become more apparent - both to
friend and foe, and then our final victory will be assured.
The Catholic Church has, of course, recognized this from the beginning and the Catholic colleges in America -
colleges like Boston College - have been attempting to provide through their graduates the leadership in this time
of crisis, and they are succeeding. This is especially true of Boston College whose graduates are providing
leadership in so many important fields we are all the [unreadable].
The crisis is as great today as that of early days when Hun and Mongol marched East, West, North and South,
like an irresistible force seeking the ephemeral goal of world domination. Their defeat this time is inevitable as it
was then - for, in the last analysis and in truth, if we but see it, God and the right are on our side and we cannot
fail.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the New

England Luncheon of the National Democratic Women's
Club of Washington D.C., February 12, 1953
Library. A link to page images of the draft is given at the bottom of this page.
The National Democratic Committee is to be congratulated for holding this luncheon meeting. I was particularly
happy to accept, because our Chairwoman today, Mrs. Galvin, is from my native city of Boston. She is the wife of
a distinguished Bostonian, Michael Galvin, the former Under Secretary of Labor, and she is well and highly
regarded in her own right.
We are met today in the shadow of a great defeat. What made this defeat especially difficult for all of us to
sustain was that through it we were denied the services as Chief Executive of the former Governor of Illinois our
candidate for President Adlai Stevenson. Adlai Stevenson fitted none of the traditional moulds from which
successful political leaders are poured, although in his introspection and somewhat melancholy, with all his wit
and sparkle, reserve, there is some resemblance of Woodrow Wilson.
Adlai Stevenson like Henry Clay would rather have been right than President. I was confident that he would be
both, for I was sure that the time, the party and the man had met. It was not to be, but who can safely predict
what the future, now so obscured, will hold for Adlai Stevenson.
In addition the defeat of November was a disappointment because all of us believed that the Democratic Party
with its program and the men that make up its Congressional leadership, was far better fitted to carry the
burdens and responsibilities of leadership in these difficult and dangerous days.
But the defeat that we suffered - our removal from positions of direct responsibility, must not be regarded as an
unmitigated disaster. The Democrats had been in power for 20 years. Although the personnel and the stream of
force had changed somewhat, nevertheless that is a long time to bear the burdens of administrative authority.
The wellsprings which should give freshness and vitality to action commence to become dry and the movement
loses coherence and direction. We can not deny however partisan we may be that this had begun to happen to the
Democratic Party. Defeat is not as Governor Stevenson has so well pointed out a shot in the arm, but it does give
us an opportunity to regain perspective, to renew our energies and to find out where we are going.
What course should we follow now. It is still too early to say and it would perhaps be a mistake to chart it with
too much accuracy, and I think it important to remember that the American people are not interested too much
in party disputes as such. Political parties are to them a means to a more abundant life and are not an end in
themselves. In addition, the American people have given a mandate to President Eisenhower and the Republican
Party. As Americans we want them to succeed.
But we have definite responsibilities as members of the minority party under the American political system. We
must give representation not only to the 24 million Americans who voted for Adlai Stevenson for President, but
also to develop a coherent program of action for the future which we hope will win the support of a majority of
Americans.
In so doing we must take into account that we are a national party, that we therefore include within our
membership groups that are mutually antipathetic but are willing to remain members of the same party because
of the general course of its actions.
In addition, we must realize that because of the success of our social programs of the past 20 years, the political
complexion of the country has changed, and moved to the right. A majority of the people today have enough of a
stake in our economy that they have become conservers, and this has affected their political behavior.
To sum up in a most general way what the Democratic Party should not become, I would say first it should not
become a Labor Party with a capitol "L". In a country with only two major political parties this would be a fatal
mistake as we would be condemned, unless there was a major depression or war, to being a permanent minority
unable to attract sufficient strength to gain widespread approval. Nor does the Democratic Party have a real
future as a conservative or a states-rights party. The Republicans have a monopoly on that course of action that
they will not lose, and if we swing to the right, we would become atrophied and die as did the Whigs in the 1850's
when they no longer served the needs of the people.
Within these two channel marks, we must steer our course - fighting the battle for people's rights, seeking to give
aid and relief to those on the periphery who still live on the marginal edge of existence.
We will have an opportunity in the coming months in the Congress to carve out a solid program - to demonstrate
clearly that the differences between the Republicans and ourselves, between our philosophy of government and
theirs - are fundamental and traditional. We can thus show the American people a clear alternative - one that
justifies their support in the coming elections of 1954 and 1956.
It is important that we do not fall into the habit that often plagues political minorities of waging ceaseless guerilla
warfare over objectives of little importance so that our opposition appears superficial and irresponsible. Our
opponents have shown us the fallacy for over 20 years of that course of action. It took a skilled military leader to
lead them from the hills of petty resistance to join battle successfully in the plains. Our opposition should be
confined therefore to serious questions of policy. There will be many and even in the early days of the Republican
administration they are becoming apparent.
We must, for example, give clear evidence that the Democratic Party seeks to develop and retain our national
lands, and resources as a treasure belonging to all the people, to be used for their benefit. We must work to
strengthen the minimum wage, to bring it up to date with the rise in the national wage structure and extend its
coverage. We must improve and extend our social security program; build the Nation's health; propose workable
alternatives to the National Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 to restore government to a less prejudicial
role in Labor management relations; and continue our ancient battle to see that the influence, and if necessary
the authority, of the government is used to secure equal rights to employment for all people, a right in full accord
with the traditions of American democracy.
We must continue as before to protect the people from monopoly, from the irresponsible exercise of economic
power. In foreign affairs although we have met and will meet with cruel and severe disappointment, we must
continue to guide our policy within the framework of collective security upon which our own domestic well being
depends.
To sum it up we must set our course not, in General Bradley's memorable phrase, by the lights of each passing
ship, but by the fixed stars that we have always followed. If we are true to our historic tradition, we can not fail -
we must succeed. If we in short remain close to the people, the people will remain close to us and we can look
forward to the future with confidence and hope.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy before the Young

Democratic Club, Baltimore, Maryland, March 20, 1953
exists in the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. A link to page images
is given at the bottom of this page.
The Young Democrats of Maryland are meeting in the most critical time in the Nation's history; a period even
more critical than the early days of the Civil War. The structure of containment in many areas is cracking and
our horizons are lit by lightning flashes of distant conflict. Young Americans now occupy a hundred far-flung
garrisons stretching from the Rhine in a great half circle to the 38th parallel. There is on all sides evidence of the
fierce struggle of world domination by the Communists whose dogma teaches that for them there is no security in
a world which they do not control. At the same time there is our own desperate effort to secure that balance of
power in the world for those countries whose national independence still survives. This is a struggle of major
political philosophies and systems of moral values, of men at arms - of stockpiles of strategic materials and
atomic weapons - of air bases and bombers - of industrial potentials and, most important, of military realities.
This is the physical, brutal ominous war upon which we have bestowed the name "cold". It is against this vast
dark panorama that this dinner is held. It is not always easy in a national tension and crisis like this to talk of
politics, and political quarrels pale to the awesome struggle of rival states, but we have a most solemn
constitutional obligation to assemble, to maintain and keep alive the political party to which we owe fealty; to
influence its policies, to guide its actions for the national good during these days of our minority, to work for the
time when we shall once again hold responsibility and authority.
It is therefore a great privilege for me to join with you tonight in behalf of our common cause.
We are met tonight in the shadow of a great defeat. What made this defeat especially difficult for all of us to
sustain was that through it we were denied the services as Chief Executive of the former Governor of Illinois our
candidate for President Adlai Stevenson. Adlai Stevenson fitted none of the traditional moulds from which
successful political leaders are poured, although in his introspection and somewhat melancholy, with all his wit
and sparkle, reserve, there is some resemblance to Woodrow Wilson.
Although Governor Stevenson lost New York and Massachusetts, it was in these two states that he secured some
of his most devoted adherents. You realized as we did in New England that there are no gains without pains; no
easy solutions to difficult problems and that in the final analysis more important to a Nation's survival than
deposits of copper and gold in the ground are the deposits of character and courage in the human heart. Thus we
naturally responded to his challenge and appeal.
Adlai Stevenson like Henry Clay would rather have been right than President. I was confident that he would be
both, for I was sure that the time, the party and the man had met. It was not to be, but who can safely predict
what the future, now so obscured, will hold for Adlai Stevenson.
In addition the defeat of November was a disappointment because all of us believed that the Democratic Party
with its program and the men that make up its Congressional leadership, was far better fitted to carry the
burdens and responsibilities of leadership in these difficult and dangerous days. Certainly on its record, it
deserved public support with its record of social legislation, legislation which has received such widespread
popular acceptance that even the Republicans finally were for it. It had impressive claims on public approval.
But the defeat that we suffered - our removal from positions of direct responsibility, although under the
American system our indirect responsibility is still considerable, must not be regarded as an unmitigated
disaster. The Democrats had been in power for 20 years. Although the personnel and the stream of force had
changed somewhat, nevertheless that is a long time to bear the burdens of administrative authority. The
wellsprings which should give freshness and vitality to action commence to become dry and the movement loses
coherence and direction. We can not deny however partisan we may be that this had begun to happen to the
Democratic Party. Defeat is not as Governor Stevenson has so well pointed out a shot in the arm, but it does give
us an opportunity to regain perspective, to renew our energies and to find out where we are going.
What course should we follow now. It is still too early to say and it would perhaps be a mistake to chart it with
too much accuracy, and I think it important to remember that the American people are not interested in party
disputes as such. Political parties are to them a means to a more abundant life and are not an end in themselves.
In addition, the American people have given a mandate to President Eisenhower and the Republican Party. As
Americans we want them to succeed.
But we have definite responsibilities as members of a minority party under the American constitutional system.
We must give representation not only to the 24 million Americans who voted for Adlai Stevenson for President,
but also to develop a coherent program of action for the future which we hope will win the support of a majority
of Americans.
In so doing we must take into account that we are a national party, that we therefore include within our
membership groups that are mutually antipathetic but are willing to remain members of the same party because
of the general course of its actions.
In addition, we must realize that because of the success of our social programs of the past 20 years, the political
complexion of the country has changed, and moved to the right. A majority of the people today have enough of a
stake in our economy that they have become conservers, and this has affected their political behavior.
To sum up in a most general way what the Democratic Party should not become, I would say first it should not
become a hostile party. In a country with only two major political parties this would be a fatal mistake as we
would be condemned, unless there was a major depression or war, to be a permanent minority unable to attract
sufficient strength to gain widespread approval. Nor does the Democratic Party have a real future as a
conservative or a states-right party. The Republicans have a monopoly on that course of action that they will not
lose, and if we swing to the right, we would become atrophied and die as did the Whigs in the 1850's.
Within these two channel marks, we must steer our course - fighting the battle for people's rights, seeking to give
aid and relief to those on the periphery who still live on the marginal edge of existence. We must continue our
historic mission of extending the horizons of social legislation.
We will have an opportunity in the coming months in the Congress to carve out a solid program - to demonstrate
clearly that the differences between the Republicans and ourselves, between our philosophy of government and
theirs - are fundamental and traditional. We can thus show the American people a clear alternative - one that
justifies their support in the coming elections of 1954 and 1956.
It is important that we do not fall into the habit that often plagues political minorities of waging ceaseless guerilla
warfare over objectives of little importance - so that our opposition appears superficial and irresponsible. Our
opponents have shown us the fallacy of that course of action. And it took a skilled military leader to lead them
from the hills of petty resistance to join battle in the plains. Our opposition should be confined therefore to
serious questions of policy. There will be many and even in the early days of the Republican administration they
are becoming apparent.
It has been just sixty days since the new administration took office. During those sixty days, the administration
has evidenced the desire to carry out campaign pledges regardless of their effect on national policies - and to
carry out policies regardless of campaign pledges. Worse yet the two heads of the Republican elephant, each with
separate campaign promises and platforms have been engaged in a constant struggle for control.
In Boston four days before his election General Eisenhower said "I pledge that the full resources of our new
administration will be thrown into the battle against inflation." The full resources of the administration have
consisted in lifting all price controls, resulting in higher prices on essential military goods made of copper, as well
as the price of groceries to the housewife.
In Pittsburgh General Eisenhower said "We must have better housing for those Americans who are now forced
to live in slums and sub-standard dwellings." To improve the housing program, he appointed its arch enemy,
former Representative Albert Cole as Administrator. To liberalize our national immigration laws, all reference to
the necessity of revising the McCarran Immigration Act about which we heard so much during the campaign has
been omitted from all lists of legislative "must". To raise the morale of government employees their budget
director has ordered all employees to report on other employees in a manner in which Senator Margaret Chase
Smith has compared to "communist thought police". To aid small businessmen they talk of abolishing the RFC,
which makes 90% of its loans to small businessmen who can not obtain capital elsewhere.
For the Republican position on offshore oil, do we believe Mr. Eisenhower, Mr. Brownell, Mr. McKay, or the
State Department representative, all of whom said something different? For the Republican position on reduction
of taxes do we listen to Mr. Eisenhower, the Republican platform or Representative Reed? For the Republican
position on standby controls, do we listen to Mr. Eisenhower or Senator Capehart? For the Republican position
regarding Russia's violation of the Yalta and other wartime pacts, do we listen to Mr. Eisenhower, Mr. Dulles, or
Mr. Taft, all of whom say something different? For the Republican view on the President's powers of
reorganization, should we have listened to Budget Director Dodge, Republicans in Congress or the President, all
of whom made conflicting statements?
We were promised that the best minds of management and labor would draft amendments to the Taft-Hartley
Law; but the President's high-powered committee could not even agree on their rules of procedure, and the
President now indicates he has nothing to say on the Taft-Hartley law. We are expected to grant statehood to
supposedly Republican Hawaii, but not to supposedly Democratic Alaska. We are given a reorganization plan for
the Federal Security Agency, after it has been approved by the A.M.A., which is practically the identical plan
rejected by Republicans in earlier years as the first step towards socialized medicine.
This confusion and inconsistency explains the rise in tide of hope and confidence of the Democrats, both in and
out of Washington. But the role of an effective opposition is not limited to exposing inadequacies alone; we must
propose effective alternatives of our own.
We must for example give clear evidence that the Democratic Party seeks to retain the submerged lands, or
tidelands, as a national preserve belonging to all the people and used for their benefit. Our position must be
clear-cut and President Truman, Senator Hill and others have marked the course for us. We must work to
strengthen the minimum wage to bring it up to date with the rise in the national wage structure and even more
important extend its coverage. We must provide for an increase in social security payments and old age and
survivor's insurance, the payments of which have been almost completely outmoded by the inflationary forces of
the past few years.
We must work to build the Nation's health. The recent report of the President's Commission has shown us how
great are the opportunities, therefore the responsibilities in this vital field. We must propose workable
alternatives to the National Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 to restore government to a less prejudicial
role in labor-management relations. We must develop our natural resources of all kinds in all parts of the
country and maintain the people's equity in them. We must continue our ancient battle to see that the influence
and if necessary the authority of the government is used to secure equal rights to employment for all people, a
right in full accord with the traditions of American democracy.
We must continue as before to protect the people from monopoly, from the irresponsible exercise of economic
power. In foreign affairs although we have met and will meet with cruel and severe disappointment we must
continue to guide our policy within the framework of collective security upon which our own domestic well being
depends.
Certainly however impatient or dissatisfied we may feel with the actions of our Allies, one does not wish to see the
United States abrogate its present position of leadership of the Free World by unilateral action, action which may
not prove decisive. This is a long struggle in which we are engaged - one requiring constancy and perseverance as
well as action and movement.
To sum it up we must set our course not as in General Bradley's memorable phrase, by the light of each passing
ship, but by the fixed stars that we have always followed. If we are true to our historic tradition, we can not fail -
we must succeed. If we in short remain close to the people, the people will remain close to us and we can look
forward to the future with confidence and hope.
Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy at New York

County Democratic Dinner, New York, New York, April
15, 1953
Library. A link to the page is given at the bottom of this page.
Mr. Toastmaster: It is a pleasure to relax tonight in this Democratic stronghold out of the zone of fire of the
Potomac battle-ground where the Republicans in Congress and the Republicans in the administration have just
wheeled out their heavy artillery to use against each other. After enjoying such a pleasant dinner, I am no longer
concerned as to who is supposed to negotiate treaties, who is supposed to announce our terms for peace in Korea,
or who is supposed to throw out the first ball.
It is also a pleasure to be in this Democratic city because of its fame for positive leadership. The State that has
produced Franklin D. Roosevelt, Al Smith, Herbert H. Lehman, Robert F. Wagner, Sr. - and now making a
brilliant record of his own Robert F. Wagner, Jr. - Averill Harriman, and my distinguished friends from the
other House from New York City, Arthur Klein, Adam Powell, Franklin Roosevelt, and Jim Donovan - the state
that has produced these men can stand as a beacon of hope to Democrats meeting in darkened basements and
attics all over the country.
We are met tonight in the aftermath of a great defeat. What made this defeat especially difficult for all of us to
sustain, was that through it we were denied the services as Chief Executive of the former Governor of Illinois, our
candidate for President, Adlai Stevenson.
The wellsprings which should give freshness and vitality to action commence to become dry, and the movement
loses coherence and direction. We cannot deny, however partisan we may be, that this had begun to happen to
the Democratic Party. Defeat is not, as Governor Stevenson has so well pointed out, a shot in the arm, but it does
give us an opportunity to regain perspective, to renew our energies and to find out where we are going.
We have long believed that the Democratic Party is not the party of any one group, but of all groups: Not of some
of the people, but all of the people. In our party may be found members of all races - all religions all walks of life
all income groups in all parts of the country. It must be obvious that while, on the one hand, the Democratic
Party must not be an extremist party, on the other it has no real future as a conservative or states-right party.
The Republicans have a monopoly on that course of action that they will not lose, and if we swing to the right, we
would become atrophied and die as did the Whigs in the 1850's.
We have been welded together by a philosophy of progress, which is emphasized by the young people that I see
here tonight. Whether they be young in spirit, such as Herbert Lehman, or young in age, the members of the
Democratic Party must never lose that youthful zest for which Jim Farley is justly celebrated, a zest for new ideas
and for a better world, which has made us great. Particularly here in New York City the meeting place of the
world does the Democratic party need to be the youthful, vigorous party with progressive ideas that can attract
all of the diverse elements of the population.
All of our associates may not belong to the same organization. You will recall that Will Rogers once said - "I am
not a member of any organized political party I am a Democrat". But the organization of the Democratic Party
in the minority, with all of its conflicting groups, is a model of consistency and uniformity, when compared with
our Republican friends in Washington. Fortunately for President Eisenhower, the Democratic Party, if not in
power, is still a power. With our help the Chief Executive has been able to call his relations with Congress
"excellent". With our help he has defeated the Republicans who wanted to weaken his reorganization powers. He
has defeated the Republicans who wanted to reduce taxes before balancing the budget. We think we can help him
defeat the Republicans sponsoring the Bricker amendment, although Mr. Dulles has made a shocking concession
to those forces of isolationism, by rejecting the genocide convention and our work on international human rights.
We think we can help him defeat those Republicans who want to repudiate his campaign promises, to improve
the Taft-Hartley Law, to strengthen the Social Security Act, and to repeal the McCarran Act. Indeed, I expect to
hear any day that the president can muster a majority in the Senate - all he needs is two more Democratic seats.
It has been nearly 90 days since the new administration took office. During these 90 days, the administration has
evidenced the desire to carry out campaign pledges regardless of their effect on national policies, and to carry out
policies regardless of campaign pledges.
For the Republican position on off-shore oil, do we believe Mr. Eisenhower, Mr. Brownell, Mr. McKay, or the
State Department representative, all of whom said something different. For the Republican position on the
reduction of taxes, do we listen to Mr. Eisenhower, the Republican platform, or Representative Reed? For the
Republican position on stand-by controls should we listen to Mr. Eisenhower or Senator Capehart? For the
Republican position regarding Russia's violation of the Yalta and other war time pacts, should we listen to Mr.
Eisenhower, to Mr. Dulles or to Mr. Taft, each of whom says something different. This confusion and
inconsistency explains the rising tide of hope and confidence of the Democrats, both in and out of Washington.
But the role of an effective opposition is not limited to exposing inadequacies alone, we must propose effective
alternatives of our own. We must on our part continue the battle for people's rights, to give aid and relief to those
on the periphery, who still live on the marginal edge of existence, and continue our historic mission of extending
the horizons of social legislation.
The Democratic Party will have many opportunities for important public service in the coming months, but
already it is becoming apparent, as Senators Johnson and Symington have pointed out, that it may be in the field
of national security that this service will have its most enduring significance.
There is, of course, good reason to believe that the ultimate reliance of the Soviet Union will be on the weapons of
subversion, economic disintegration and guerilla warfare to accomplish our destruction, rather than upon the
direct assault of all-out war.
But we cannot count on it. So long as the Soviet Union and her satellites continue to dedicate the large percentage
of their national production to the preparation for war - so long must the United States recognize the peril to
which we are now subjected in increasing quantities.
Time is only a friend so long as it is favorably used, and there are growing indications that in many categories of
defense, the years since Korea have enabled the Communists to overcome some of their deficiencies in atomic
power, and at the same time continue to widen the gap that separates us on the ground, in the air, and under the
sea. The evidence is obvious. The Armies that the Soviet Union and her satellites have available for an all out
attack on the continent of Europe are still several times the size of the force that now guard Western Europe
from invasion - and we are not closing the gap.
The Soviet Union has a great many more ocean going submarines than do we. They have in fact five times the
submarine fleet with which the Germans nearly succeeded in isolating the British in the early days of the last
war, and their submarines are infinitely more effective.
Although the exact figures are classified, it is now known that the Soviets have many thousands more first class
jets than the United States and its combined allies, and also that their best plane has proved in Korea certainly
the equal - if not superior - to any of our fighters at normal combat altitude.
It may be argued that this is understandable, as the United States has concentrated its attention on a strategic
force of long range bombers, but at least as startling is their rapid development in this field. It is now known that,
if and when they feel they have enough atomic bombs to risk an all out attack on this country, they already have
the planes with which to deliver those bombs. It has now been estimated that the Soviets and its allies have
substantially more jet bombers than the United States and the other nations of the free world: and although most
of the Soviet bombers have not the range of the longest range bombers of this country, there is no reason to
believe that, especially with the tremendous fire power of atomic weapons, they would not be willing to risk one
way flights to destroy American cities. Many people forget that a Russian plane with a Russian crew flew from
Moscow to Southern California non-stop some 16 years ago.
The Secretary of Defense in response to this severe threat has signally failed to emphasize in his public statements
the clear and present danger to which we are now subjected.
The United States has witnessed in recent years, though a stretch-out, the dilution of the strength the Chiefs of
Staff considered to be the minimum for our national security. Any further extension of the target date for our
defense goals would be against the national interest and must be opposed.
Rather it is obvious that it is our obligation, an obligation of the most pressing sort, to inform the American
people of the severity of the threat to our security, and of the sacrifices that must be made to meet it.
This is not an issue, I think, on which the Democrats can win elections, for only disaster could prove us correct,
but we intend to fight for what is right and oppose what is wrong, for the good of the people. If the Republicans
fail to keep their pledges, neither that fact nor the fact that we are in the minority should prevent us from
keeping ours. During the next four years, we shall work in the Congress, in the state legislatures, in the city
councils and in the meeting halls of our nation. We shall continue to work as we have in the past for the welfare
of our people, and for a better country and a better world. We are not engaged in a partisan struggle with the
Republicans in which we would take delight in seeing the country suffer under their management. We are instead
their fellow workers in the struggle for peace and prosperity at home and abroad. The election placed the
responsibility of government in the hands of the Republicans, but it did not remove responsibility from the hearts
of the Democrats.
With imagination and courage, we shall demonstrate to the nation that promises can mean performance - that
responsible opposition can mean constructive legislation - and that the Democratic Party has not forgotten the
people. If we remain close to the people, the people will surely remain close to us and we can look forward to the
future with confidence and hope.
Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy at Bridgeport

Democratic Town Committee Dinner, Bridgeport,
Connecticut, April 24, 1953
Library. Also in the Senate Speech file were notes relating to this speech. Links to page images for both the draft
and the notes are given at the bottom of this page.
It is a great pleasure to be here in Connecticut with so many Democratic friends and the Democrats who labored
long and hard to build and strengthen the party here in this State.
Although 1952 was the year in which Democratic hopes and ambitions received a serious set back yet your
presence here tonight indicates the vitality in the party here and gives promise of brighter days.
Connecticut has been, I believe, unusually fortunate in the quality of its leadership - men like Senator McMahon,
whose memory will live long in the records of the Senate of the United States - and Senator Benton who gave
many evidences of his political courage in his service in Washington - men like former Governor Bowles who has
recently concluded an exacting task in Asia and added new laurels to his reputation. And then there is an old
friend and colleague of mine in the House of Representatives, former Congressman Ribicoff who came to
Washington the same year that I did in 1947. It is a source of great regret to me that he is not in the United States
Senate, for we have need for his type of intelligent leadership.
The Democratic Party is today represented in the United States Congress by but one man - but in Tom Dodd the
traditions of this great state are maintained and indeed enhanced. He is but only at the beginning of a long and
brilliant career.
sustain was that through it we were denied the services as Chief Executive of the former Governor of Illinois, our
candidate for President, Adlai Stevenson.
Defeat is not, as Governor Stevenson has so well pointed out, a shot in the arm, but it does give us an opportunity
to regain perspective, to renew our energies and to find out where we are going. What course should we now
follow? It is still too early to say. It must be obvious that while the Democratic Party must not be an extremist
party, it has no real future on the other hand as a conservative or states rights party. The Republicans have a
monopoly on that course of action that they will not lose and if we swing to the right we would become atrophied
and die as did the Whigs in the 1850's.
We have been welded together by a philosophy of progress which is emphasized by the young people that I see
here tonight. Whether they be young in spirit, or young in age, the members of the Democratic Party must never
lose that youthful zest for new ideas and for a better world, which has made us great. Particularly here in
Bridgeport does the Democratic Party need to be the youthful, vigorous party with progressive ideas that can
attract all groups in the population.
All of our associates may not belong to quite the same organization. But the organization of the Democratic Party
in the minority with all of its conflicting groups, is a model of consistency and uniformity when compared with
our republican friends in Washington. Fortunately for President Eisenhower the Democratic Party if not in
power, is still a power. With our help the Chief Executive has been able to call his relations with Congress
"excellent". With our help he has defeated the Republicans who wanted to weaken his reorganization powers. He
has defeated the Republicans who wanted to reduce taxes before balancing the budget. We think we can help him
defeat those Republicans who want to repudiate his campaign promises, to improve the Taft-Hartley Law, to
strengthen the Social Security Act and to repeal the McCarran Act. Indeed, I expect to hear any day that the
President can muster a majority in the Senate - all he needs is two more Democratic seats.
It has been nearly 90 days since the new administration took office. During these 90 days, the administration has
policies regardless of campaign pledges. To improve our housing program, they have tabled the entire public
housing program for next year in the house. To aid small businessmen they talk of abolishing the R.F.C., which
makes 90% of its loans to small businessmen, many here in the United States who cannot obtain capital
elsewhere.
For the Republican position of off-shore oil, do we believe Mr. Eisenhower, Mr. Brownell, Mr. McKay, or the
State Department representative, all of whom said something different, but all of whom want to give to three
states the billions of dollars worth of resources belonging to all the people. For the Republican position on stand-
by controls, should we listen to Mr. Eisenhower or Senator Capehart? For the Republican position regarding
Russia's violation of the Yalta and other war time pacts, should we listen to Mr. Eisenhower, to Mr. Dulles or to
Mr. Taft, each of whom says something different. We were promised "The best minds of the country" to solve
our serious national problems and yet too frequently those "best minds" have consisted of Republican
Congressmen defeated by the people in the past election. This confusion and inconsistency explains the rising tide
of hope and confidence of the Democrat, both in and out of Washington. But the role of an effective opposition is
not limited to exposing inadequacies alone, we must propose effective alternative of our own. We must on our
part continue the battle for people's rights, to give aid and relief to those on the periphery who still live on the
marginal edge of existence and continue our historic mission of extending the horizons of social legislation.
already it is becoming apparent that it may be in the field of national security that this service will have its most
enduring significance.
direct assault of all-out war.
which we are now subjected to in increasing quantities.
Time is only a friend as long as it is favorably used, and there are growing indications that in many categories of
defense, the years since Korea have enabled the communists to overcome some of their deficiencies in atomic
power, and at the same time continue to widen the gap that separates us on the ground, in the air and under the
sea. The evidence is obvious. The armies that the Soviet Union and her satellites have available for an all-out
attack on the continent of Europe are several times the size of the force that now guard[s] Western Europe from
invasion.
The Soviet Union has a great many more ocean-going submarines than we do. They have in fact five times the
Although the exact figures are not classified, it is now known that the Soviets have many thousands more first-
class jets than the United States and its combined allies, and also that their best plane has proved in Korea
certainly the equal, if not superior, to any of our fighters at normal combat altitude.
force of long-range bombers, but at least as startling is their rapid development in this field. It is now known that,
if and when they feel that they have enough atomic bombs to risk an all-out attack on this country, they already
have the planes with which to deliver those bombs. It has been estimated that the Soviets and its allies now have
more jet bombers than the United States and the other nations of the free world; and although most of the Soviet
bombers have not the range of the longest-range bombers of this Country, there is no reason to believe that,
especially with the tremendous fire power of atomic weapons, they would not be willing to risk one-way flights to
destroy American cities. Many people forget that a Russian plane with a Russian crew flew from Moscow to
Southern California non-stop some 16 years ago.
The Secretary of Defense in response to this severe threat has signally failed to emphasize in his public statements
the clear and present danger to which we are now subjected. This is especially true when we recall the recent
statement of Senator Symington, a member of the Armed Services Committee, that the Soviets are each day
widening the gap that separates us. I, therefore, view with much alarm the emphasis given by Secretary Dulles in
his statement on Thursday from Europe that the Nato Alliance has ceased to build up its strength to prepare for
an attack in 1954 which has usually been held to be the "critical year", when the Soviet strength would be
relatively at a maximum. Rather he placed his emphasis on a "long term program consistent with economic
health".
The United States has witnessed in recent years, through a stretch-out, the dilution of the strength the chiefs of
staff considered to be the minimum for our national security. Any further extension of the target date for our
defense goals would be against the national interest and must be opposed.
It is obvious that it is our obligation, an obligation of the most pressing sort, to inform the American people of the
severity of the threat to our security and of the sacrifices that must be made to meet it.
This is not an issue, I think, on which the Democrats can win elections, for only disaster could prove that correct.
But we shall continue to work as we have in the past for the welfare of our people and for a better country and a
better world. We are not engaged in a partisan struggle with the Republicans in which we would take delight in
seeing a country go to ruin under their management. We are instead their fellow workers in the struggle for
peace and prosperity at home and abroad. The election placed the responsibility of Government in the hands of
the Republicans, but it did not remove responsibility from the hearts of the democrats.
With youthful imagination and courage, we shall demonstrate to the nation that promises can mean performance
- that responsible opposition can mean constructive legislation - and that the Democratic Party has not forgotten
the people. If we remain close to the people, the people will remain close to us and we can look forward to the
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Jefferson-

Jackson Day Dinner at the Hotel Dupont, Wilmington,
Delaware, May 14, 1953
This is a redaction of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. Two drafts of the speech
exist in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy
Library. This redaction is based on the Reading Copy of the speech. Links to page images of the two drafts are
given at the bottom of this page.
sustain was that through it we were denied the services as Chief Executive of the former Governor of Illinois, our
candidate for president, Adlai Stevenson.
Defeat is not, as Governor Stevenson has so well pointed out, a shot in the arm, but it does give us an opportunity
to regain perspective, to renew our energies and to find out where we are going. What course should we now
follow?
We have been welded together by a philosophy of progress which is emphasized by the young people that we see
here tonight. Whether they be young in spirit, or young in age, the members of the Democratic Party must never
lose that youthful zest for new ideas and for a better world, which has made us great. Particularly here in
Delaware does the Democratic Party need to be the youthful, vigorous party with progressive ideas that can
attract all groups in the population.
All of our associates may not belong to quite the same organization. But the organization of the Democratic Party
in the minority with all of its conflicting groups, is a model of consistency and uniformity when compared with
our Republican friends in Washington. Fortunately for President Eisenhower the Democratic Party if not in
power, is still a power. With our help, the Chief Executive has been able to call his relations with Congress
"excellent". With our help he has defeated the Republicans who wanted to weaken his reorganization powers.
We think we can help him defeat those Republicans who want to repudiate his campaign promises, to improve
the Taft-Hartley Law, to strengthen the Social Security Act and to repeal the McCarran Act. Indeed, I expect to
hear any day that the President can muster a majority in the Senate - all he needs is two more Democratic seats.
It has been over 100 days since the new administration took office. During these 100 days, the administration has
policies regardless of campaign pledges. To improve our Housing Program, they have tabled the entire Public
Housing Program for next year in the House. To aid small businessmen they talk of abolishing the R.F.C., which
makes 90% of its loans to small businessmen who cannot obtain capital elsewhere. To protect our natural
resources they are going to turn over the billions and billions of dollars of Tidelands Oil resources belonging to
all the people to a few. This give away on a gigantic scale, I believe, provides a legitimate basis for the fears which
have been expressed that this is but the first step in the gradual liquidation of the public domain of America.
In any case, the excessive campaign promises of balanced budgets, strong new foreign policies, etc., go
shimmering off into space, and it would not surprise us that the only campaign promise the Republicans will keep
is the one to turn over the resources of the submerged lands to the privileged states.
This confusion and inconsistency explains the rising tide of hope and confidence of the Democrat, both in and out
of Washington. But the role of an effective opposition is not limited to exposing inadequacies alone, we must
propose effective alternatives of our own. We must on our part continue the battle for people's rights, to give aid
and relief to those on the periphery who still live on the marginal edge of existence, and continue our historic
mission of extending the horizons of social legislation.
already it is becoming apparent that it may be in the field of national security that this service will have its most
enduring significance.
direct assault of an all-out war.
But we cannot count on it. So long as the Soviet Union and her Satellites continue to dedicate the large percentage
Time is only a friend so long as it is favorably used, and there are growing indications that in many categories of
defense, the years since Korea have enabled the Communists to overcome some of their deficiencies in Atomic
power, and, at the same time, continue to widen the gap that separates us on the ground, in the air and under the
sea. The evidence is obvious. The armies that the Soviet Union and her Satellites have available for an all-out
attack on the Continent of Europe are several times the size of the force that now guards Western Europe from
invasion.
The Soviet Union has a great many more ocean-going submarines than do we. They have in fact, five times the
Although the exact figures are classified, it is now known that the Soviets have many thousands more first-class
jets than the United States and its combined allies, and also that their best plane has proved in Korea certainly
the equal, if not superior, to any of our fighters at normal combat altitude.
force of long-range bombers, but at least as startling is their rapid development in this field. It is now known that,
if and when they feel that they have enough atomic bombs to risk an all-out attack on this Country, they already
have the planes with which to deliver those bombs. It has been estimated that the Soviets and its allies have more
jet bombers now than the United States and the other nations of the free world; and although most of the Soviet
bombers have not the range of the longest-range bombers of this Country, there is no reason to believe that,
especially with the tremendous fire power to atomic weapons, they would not be willing to risk one-way flights to
destroy American cities. Many people forget that a Russian plane with a Russian crew flew from Moscow to
Southern California non-stop some 16 years ago.
I therefore view with alarm the recent decision by the NATO powers to relax their defensive preparations. The
result will be that their strength will not be as great by the end of 1954, as it had been planned that it would be by
the end of 1953. This is all the more serious when we recall that 1954 had always been held to be the "critical
year" - the year in which Soviet strength would be relatively at a maximum.
In short, what has happened is that the Soviet strength has not been cut. We merely increased the size of the
calculated risk with what may prove to be dire results.
Even more serious, however, are the proposed slashes in our own military strength contained in the new military
budget. The present indications are, if Congress accepts the recommendations of the administration, that a new
and severe stretch out of our military strength will be carried out. For the fifth time since the end of World War
II the forced goals of the Armed Services have been changed. The result of these shifts will be that the goals
which the chiefs of staff consider to be the minimum for 1953 in view of Soviet potentials will now be stretched
out to 1956 or 1957. In the air, for example, the new budget will force a summary roll back of aircraft
procurement resulting in reductions in projected air defense, tactical capabilities, as well as our strategic air
force.
Can a country as rich and prosperous as we be satisfied with this? Are we really worthy of our historic traditions
and heritage? Should we, in this time of our greatest national power, consent to a policy fraught with risk and
danger?
In short, I do not see how the Western alliance with a productive potential substantially larger than that of the
Communist bloc, can be satisfied with anything less than a maximum effort in this field, one that has some
relation to the unrelenting efforts of the Soviet to build irresistible military strength.
This is not an issue, I think, on which the Democrats can win elections, for only disaster could prove us correct.
But we must fight, I believe, against this policy of drift and slide and in so doing we shall be worthy of the trust
imposed upon us by the people and by the times. We are not engaged in a partisan struggle with the Republicans
in which we would take delight in seeing our Country suffer difficulty and trouble under their management. We
are instead their fellow workers in the struggle for peace and prosperity at home and abroad. The election placed
the responsibility of Government in the hands of the Republicans, but it did not remove responsibility from the
hearts of the Democrats.
With youthful imagination and courage, we shall demonstrate to the Nation that promises can mean performance
- that responsible opposition can mean constructive legislation - and that the Democratic Party has not forgotten
the people. If we remain close to the people, the people will remain close to us and we can look forward to the
Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy at the Executive

Committee Meeting at the American Legion National
Headquarters in Indianapolis, Indiana on October 16,
1953
This is a redaction of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. Three versions of the
speech exist in the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers, Senate Speech Files, here at the John F. Kennedy
Library. One version is clearly a predecessor to the other two, but there is no way of establishing with certainty
which of those two was actually the version given. Both are labeled “Advance Copy,” although one has edits by
Kennedy on it, which could conceivably be his final thoughts. We have not used that version as the basis for our
transcript because of interpretative ambiguities with regard to those emendations. Instead we have used the other
"Advance Copy" as being the most generally legible copy of the speech. Links to page images of all three versions
are given at the bottom of the page.
The American Legion is the largest veterans organization of its kind in the world. Its members, over the years of
its existence since the end of World War I, have compiled an enviable record in carrying out the principles for
which the legion was formed. It is therefore a privilege for me to address the executive committee of this great
organization today.
One of the articles of the Legion's oath is "to make right the master of might." But the legion has never believed
that "right" should march unescorted and unarmed in a difficult and dangerous world, and therefore since its
earliest days the American Legion has made one of its foremost aims the battle for strong and adequate national
defense, and in so doing it has fought against the successive waves of drift and slide of the last years that have cost
us so heavily.
This meeting is therefore I believe the proper place in which to argue the need for a defense effort more in
keeping with the perils of the time than the one that is at present our national policy.
The American Legion will have many opportunities for important public service in the coming months, but
already it is becoming apparent that it may again be in the field of national security that this service will have its
most enduring significance.
direct assault of all out war.
Time is only a friend so long as it is favorably used and there are growing indications that in many categories of
defense, the years since Korea have enabled the communists to overcome some of their deficiencies in atomic
power and, at the same time, continue to widen the gap that separates us on the ground, in the air and under the
sea. The evidence is obvious. The armies that the Soviet Union and her satellites have available for an all out
attack on the Continent of Europe are several times the size of the force that now guards Western Europe from
invasion. According to Admiral Carney, the Navy Chief of Operation, speaking in Boston last Monday, the Soviet
Union now is the second greatest naval power in the world and they have surpassed in general naval strength
Great Britain. In particular, they have concentrated their effort in the development of the most powerful under
sea fleet that the world has ever seen. They have, in fact, five times the submarine fleet with which the Germans
nearly succeeded in isolating the British in the early days of the last war and their submarines are infinitely more
effective. But dangerous as are these threats to our national security - far greater importance is that presented by
the menace of Soviet atomic and hydrogen weapons to the United States.
Seldom, if ever, in the recent history of the United States, have so many conflicting statements been made on any
issue by responsible officials as were made last week in Washington on the present danger to the United States
from atomic attack by the Soviet Union. Arthur Fleming, head of the Office of Defense Mobilization, stated that
"the Soviet Union is capable of delivering the most destructive weapon ever devised by man on chosen targets in
the United States". Mr. Wilson, the Secretary of Defense, stated that he "would doubt a little" that the Soviets
have "bombs ready to drop and airplanes to drop them". He stated further that we could only spend a little over
five hundred millions of dollars without "upsetting our fundamental defense program". W. Sterling Cole,
Chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, called on the other hand for an expenditure of ten billion
dollars a year for air defense.
President Eisenhower attempted to resolve the conflict by saying that "the Soviets now have the capability of
atomic attack on us, and such capability will increase with the passage of time". All of these statements, in spite
of their being contradictory in emphasis, furnished clear evidence for all to see that the United States was about
to enter the most critical period in our long history. The time is rapidly approaching when the Soviet Union will
have the long range planes to carry to the United States the weapon capable of infinite destruction. And the
traditional advantages that the initial attack has always given the aggressor will be multiplied a thousandfold by
the destructiveness of atomic fire power.
This dire threat to our survival poses a difficult and strategic problem. Recognizing that this threat may exist for
years and that our economic resources are not unlimited, those responsible for our security must determine
whether we should rely for our safety on an elaborate system of continental defense, combined with a reasonably
powerful strategic air force of our own, or whether recognizing that even under optimum conditions there is only
a limited security possible in a maginot line around the United States, we should concentrate all of our ability on
a strategic air force containing such retaliatory powers that the Soviets will be impelled to hold their hand.
At the present time, unfortunately, we are doing neither. Our continental defenses are insecure and our Air Force
has suffered heavily from successive stretch-outs.
In the fall of 1951, the joint Chiefs of Staff recognizing the decisive nature of atomic weapons broke the
compromise between the three services which had made for the equal distribution of funds. It was determined in
view of the Soviet effort and capabilities by 1954 that a minimum goal for our security for that year would be 143
air groups. The targets for the Army and Navy meanwhile remained the same. Although the stretch-out of 1952
ordered by President Truman, which would have provided 138 wings by June 1955 lessened the impact of this
decision on Air Force strength, the primacy of the air weapons was still recognized. The Truman budget of 1953
called for an expenditure of over sixteen billion dollars for air and eleven billion for Army and Navy respectively.
When the smoke of congressional battle cleared last July, however, six months later, five billion had been taken
from the Air Force, a billion from the Navy and over a billion added to the Army. This was a return to the
balanced force concept with a vengeance. This was a wring-out rather than a stretch-out of air force strength.
The preliminary budgets released for next year for the Defense Department, prepared by the New Joint Chiefs of
Staff, were, therefore, most disappointing. In the words of the New York Times, "They were seen as furthering to
a large degree the return of the principle of balanced forces that existed before the Korean War." The result will
be that the United States will not possess more than 115 wings by June 1954 instead of 143, not more than 120
wings by June 1955, not more than 127 by June 1956.
I do not believe that this balanced force concept takes into account the decisive nature of atomic and hydrogen
weapons.
The Kelly report made at the request of the Department of Defense estimated that if a major portion of atomic
bombs were properly placed, an attack would result in destruction of at least one-third of our industrial capacity
and would kill over thirteen million of our people.
This study also warned that our capabilities to stop attacking bombers would run from a high of 20% under
perfect conditions to a fraction if conditions were adverse.
These statistics were made even more sombre by a statement of Congressman Cole here this week when he
warned us that "given the passage of enough time, which need not be great, and a research and production
program of sufficient vigor, I fear that the Soviets may come to possess, not five or ten of these weapons, but
hundreds or even thousands".
The Soviet while developing a basic well rounded military strength has concentrated since the end of World War
II in building the world's largest Air Force.
The Red Air Force contains over 20,000 planes - by the summer of 1954 it has been estimated that they will have
this number of jets alone, while a good portion of our present Air Force strength of 95 wings is made up of
propeller driven planes or jets that are obsolete.
The Russians have a medium bomber based on our B-29 capable of flying one way missions to the United States.
They are producing a heavy turbo-prop bomber comparable to the B-36. They have sufficient jet light bombers
to have provided over one hundred to the Chinese Communist Air Force which, as a result of the Soviet
contribution, is now the fourth largest Air Force in the world. They have numerous four jet light bombers
equivalent to our B-45 stationed in Eastern Europe capable of attacking with lightning speed any point in
Western Europe. They will soon produce a plane similar to our B-47 according to the Secretary of the Air Force
and there are reports of a new larger bomber under development akin to our B-52. These planes, of course, are
supported by thousands of MIG 15's. Even more illuminating as to relative air strength are these words from a
recent article based upon a report by Robert H. Orr, who was the Fifth Air Force Chief of Combat Operation in
Korea I quote:
"During the last year of the Korean War the U. S. Fifth Air Force operated sixteen wings in support of the
fighting. The Force was made up as follows: Three medium-bomber wings (All B-29's) detached from the
Strategic Air Command: Two fighter-interceptor wings (F-86's); five fighter-bomber wings (F-84's and F-80's);
two light-bomber wings (World War II propeller driven B-26's); one reconnaissance wing (F-80's and B-26's);
and three oversized troop-carrier wings (using a variety of transports and cargo carriers)…at the time they were
committed, these wings represented all but a small fraction of the Air Force's (Most modern) ready fighter-
interceptor strength; all but two wings of its ready fighter-bomber strength; and all that the Strategic Air
Command was prepared to spare from its ready resources (not including B-36's and, of course, the B-47 jets,
which did not enter SAC units until last spring."
"It has been likewise estimated that the Soviet interceptor input into the Korean War, including those lost and
the 1,500 MIG's still incorporated in the CCAF, must have been on the order of 3,900 and was probably higher.
That number would equip fifty-two USAF interceptor wings, or almost twice as many as were proposed for the
143 wing program".
This is a large equity in a marginal war and demonstrates clearly the extent of the over-all Soviet investment in
air power.
I believe, therefore, that we are justified in making certain obvious conclusions.
First, that while we should not neglect our continental and civil defense systems at present, it can be assumed that
an attacking force if equipped with atomic and hydrogen bombs could bring about widespread destruction and
possibly speedy victory.
Secondly, we can be sure that the Soviets today are making a maximum effort to improve their capabilities, in
both air power and atomic and hydrogen weapons.
Thirdly, in view of these facts it appears obvious that the United States has no alternative than to give priority to
the development of a Strategic Air Force with sufficient retaliatory powers to threaten a potential aggressor with
havoc and ruin.
Fourthly, I do not believe that the present program of air power expansion gives us such an Air Force. Our
present effort should be judged not in comparison with what we have done in the past but rather with what the
Soviets are now doing today. If we do this, we cannot help but be alarmed by our present progress.
I do not see how a country which is productively the most powerful in the world with its people enjoying the
highest standard of living in our history can be satisfied with anything less than an Air Force second to none.
Today we do not have it.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy before the Boston

Chapter of the National Association of Cost
Accountants, October 21, 1953
This is a redacation of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A draft of the speech
Library. There are also notes that accompany this speech draft. Links to page images of the notes and the draft are
given at the bottom of this page.
As many of you may know, I hays been particularly interested during my first year in the Senate in exploring
those conditions within the jurisdiction of the federal government which have contributed to the impairment of
economic stability within New England or particular communities in this area. One may argue as to whether the
New England economy is now fully recovered from the short term crisis of 1949 and the long term decline which
has characterized its primary manufacturing industries far the past 30 years. But there surely can be no
argument as to the fact that no matter how many new industries move in, some attention should be paid to our
old industries; and that new industries will not move in and old industries will continue to move out as long as
other regions in the country employ what I consider to be unfair methods of competition.
It is my opinion that such unfair methods include the exploitation of loopholes or privileges contained in our
federal tax laws; and I think this is an area of particular interest to you in the accounting field. Certainly no critic
of my New England Program could deny that correction of inequitable federal tax legislation is one example of
where federal policies and action are related to New England's economic status.
But because you are no doubt more familiar with the complexities of such tax laws than I, I am going to reverse
the usual role of the political speaker who supplies all the answers. I am instead going to supply questions -
questions directed in part to you, but to a greater extent directed to our Secretary of the Treasury, Commissioner
of Internal Revenue, Defense Mobilizer and other officials. Some of these are questions of policy, some of
administrative procedures, and some of fact.
PART 2
Tax Loopholes Influencing Industrial Dislocation:
The first group of questions which I wish to raise are those concerned with those loopholes or privileges in our
Federal tax laws which have directly influenced industrial migration or dislocation to the disadvantage of New
England and other older areas. My first question is:
1. Why are municipal securities which are used for the financing of private commercial facilities declared to be
exempt from Federal income taxes? There appears to be a growing tendency of states, counties, and
municipalities to issue tax exempt bonds for the acquisition or construction of plants or sites which are
subsequently leased, loaned or given to private profit-making enterprises. As municipal property, these buildings
escape local property taxes and the interest from these municipal bonds is exempt from Federal income taxes.
This, of course, permits the financing of such facilities at a lower cost, and induces bargain-seeking
manufacturers in other areas to abandon their plants and workers to accept the gains of such a tax dodge, This
constitutes, in my opinion, unfair competition to the private company which would have to pay higher interest
rates to finance taxable bonds for a new plant. One tax expert concluded that a municipally-financed cotton mill
needed only a 2.4% profit on sales to stay in business, compared to a 4.36% return needed by a privately-
financed cotton mill.
Last year the Stylon Corporation, makers of ceramic tile, decided to move from Milford, Massachusetts, to
Florence, Alabama. The city of Florence issued municipal bonds to build a new $1.3 million plant for Stylon. I am
told that these bonds did not pledge the credit of the city, but provided for interest and repayment only from the
so called rent Stylon was to pay on its new factory. The bonds themselves, in fact, were convertible into Stylon
common stock. Nevertheless, these Florence, Alabama, bonds wars exempt from all Federal income taxes and
were gobbled up by investors at a low interest rate. Thus the taxpayers of Massachusetts and every other state in
the union were handing a subsidy to Stylon to help it move from Massachusetts to Alabama. This year, the
American Bosch Company, a rather important factor in the employment and industrial life of Springfield,
Massachusetts, is leaving its location in that city for a free plant, free taxes for 10 years and low wage labor in
Columbus, Mississippi.
I could cite dozens of other examples to you in Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana and
Oklahoma as well as Alabama. These are tactics which have been particularly harmful to the textile industry.
Apparel, machine, leather, abrasive, paper, and other important industries have been lured to these states
through the use of industrial development revenue bonds.
But to return to my question, why are such securities exempt from Federal income taxes? Are not these bonds
issued for a proprietary rather than for a public purpose? Are not these purely commercial bonds being used for
purposes of unfair competition which, by hiding under the sheep's clothing of municipal securities, are able to
cause a loss of revenues to the federal government? The Investment Bankers Association, the Municipal Finance
Officers Association, the American Bar Association's Section on municipal law and others have all condemned
these practices within the past few years. If the Bureau of Internal Revenue is convinced that such bonds cannot
be taxed under our present statutes, then it is the duty of Congress to provide such an amendment. Putting an
end to this tax dodge would benefit not only our older industrial areas whose plants are lured by such practices,
among others, but also in the long run those communities now mistakenly offering such inducements. The
Southeastern States Tax Officials Association has pointed out that this practice is "inequitable and unfair to
industry in the states and detrimental to the taxpayers of the state because what is given away must be paid for
by other businesses and individuals ... thereby creating an unhealthy social and economic condition." Virginia a
few years ago repealed its authorization for such bond issues, its officials pointing out that "someone has to pay
in the end." Moreover, no community which attracts migrant industries obviously not devoted to community
responsibility or high ethical standards can ever be sure at what time such enterprises, having accepted these
benefits and a few years of heavy profits, will again move for new bargains elsewhere leaving the community with
empty buildings and a heavy bond issue.
I raise the question as to whether such municipal bonds are, or properly should be, tax exempt.
My second question is:
2. Should it be possible for Puerto Rico, under her Commonwealth relationship to the United States, to offer tax
exemptions and municipally financed plants to firms moving their operations to Puerto Rico from the mainland
in order to take advantage of such subsidies?
This question is closely associated with the first, but offers a special case because of the economic relationship
between Puerto Rico and the United States. At the present time, certain new industries in Puerto Rico are
granted complete exemption from income taxes, insular and municipal property taxes, and certain license fees,
excise taxes and other levies imposed by the insular and municipal governments of Puerto Rico for the period
from July 1, 1947, to June 30, 1959; a 75 percent exemption from such taxes for the fiscal year 1959-60; a 50
percent exemption for the fiscal year 1960-61; and a 25 percent exemption for the fiscal year 1961-62. Recently,
the Governor has requested a still, more far reaching program of tax exemption. United States corporations in
Puerto Rico and Puerto Rican corporations, as well as citizens of Puerto Rico, do not, except under special
circumstances, pay Federal income taxes to the United States.
I fully sympathize with the need of Puerto Rico for further industrializing its economy; and I am opposed to
undue interference by the Congress in Puerto Rico's affairs since the granting of its constitution. But, I cannot
believe that Congress is powerless to act upon the type of unfair competition and industry dislocation which such
tax exemptions create.
Recently, I obtained assurances from Governor Munoz Marin that the Puerto Rican tax exemption program
"will not be used to encourage any industry to move to Puerto Rico if that involves closing industrial plants in
any part of the United States." However, since the release of this correspondence, several other examples of the
abuse of the Puerto Rican tax exemption program have been called to my attention; and I am hopeful that in the
near future I can travel to Puerto Rico to inspect this situation firsthand. But I raise the question for
consideration by you and our tax officials as to whether either the people of Puerto Rico or the people of the
United States profit from the exploitation of such tax privileges by manufacturers transferring their operations
out of this country.
My third question is:
3. Is that loophole completely closed which permits avoidance of taxes through the operation of a private business
by a tax exempt, charitable or educational trust?
I am sure that all of you remember the wide publicity given to the closing of the Nashua, New Hampshire, mills of
the Textron Company as a part of its manipulation of mill property through the use of charitable trusts and
other tax avoidance devices. Title III of the Revenue Act of 1950 was intended to close this loophole. However, the
original proposals to close up this loophole completely were somewhat modified, such modifications being made
by the Congress in good faith. I raise the question again tonight because since enactment of the 1950 Act, Textron
has sold a mill to a southern university, who could pay a relatively high price because of its tax exempt status and
then "permit" Textron to "manage" the mill for a fixed sum each year. A review of this provision of the Internal
Revenue Code would seem to be in order to ascertain whether its provisions need to be tightened.
Fourth, I wish to ask:
4. Can steps be taken to prevent the preferred capital gains treatment from being used as an incentive to
liquidate going concerns?
It has been called to my attention that the preferential treatment of capital gains under our tax laws has been
increasingly used by financial speculators who purchase going concerns for purposes of manipulation and
liquidation rather that operation. In this way, profitable and established businesses are exploited or destroyed for
personal gain regardless of economic dislocations and human waste. This has apparently been a factor in
liquidations in textile, leather, tobacco and retail establishments. In one example which has been cited to me, a
single group of speculators, through a series of financial manipulations over a period of eight years involving
about a dozen allegedly different corporations, has been able to list most of the taxable income from the textile
mills involved as capital gains, thereby paying a maximum tax of 25 percent - now 26 percent - instead of the
higher rates intended by the tax laws. As a part of these maneuvers, the capital assets of one textile mill in New
Bedford, Massachusetts, were so impaired that it was liquidated in 1949, destroying 1,000 jobs; other mills met a
similar fate.
I realize that any limitation on the preferential treatment of capital gains is difficult to draft and administer, but I
ask whether such repeated abuses could not be restricted.
PART II
Tax Amortization and Industrial Dislocation:
My next set of questions all relate to the same provision in our tax law Section 124A of the Internal Revenue
Code providing for accelerated tax amortization as an inducement to expansion of emergency defense facilities.
Although Defense Mobilizer Flemming has recently said that a sharp cut in such inducements is now planned, the
operations of this program are worthy of review, not only in view of their past and present scope - certificates
having been awarded for some 515.7 billion worth of capital investment - but also because such a program
appears certainly to be a part of any future defense expansion policies.
My first question with respect to this program is:
1. Are tax amortization certificates being issued in a manner contributing to industrial dislocation?
It is my observation that tax amortization certificates have been awarded without regard to available sites or
facilities in labor surplus areas; and frequently in cases contributing to the dislocation and unemployment in
such areas. A few days before J. P. Stevens Company announced the liquidation of its Haverhill mills throwing
over 400 employees out of work, the same company had applied for a tax amortization certificate as an
inducement for new textile facilities in Stanley, North Carolina. The awarding of tax amortization privileges for a
new $25 million transformer plant for General Electric Company in Rome, Georgia, was made at the very time
that General Electric's activities in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, were threatened with curtailment and that
community already had serious unemployment and available plant facilities. Several other examples which I
quoted to the Senate convinced me that this is a question which must be seriously considered and answered by
the appropriate officials. At present, the Department of Labor comments on many such proposals which might
create a problem of labor shortage; but not where it might create a problem of labor surplus. At present,
regulations deny certificates which would be used in lieu of existing facilities; but a Congressional investigation
two years ago indicated that such regulations were not being strictly enforced, particularly on a nationwide basis.
If, therefore, we are to have a prosperous and growing economy in every section of the country, consideration
should be given to the effect of tax amortization certificates on industrial dislocation.
My second question closely related to the first:
2. Are tax amortization certificates being issued in a manner damaging the competitive status of any part of the
country?
New England's participation in the accelerated amortization for expansion program has been disproportionately
small in terms of its population, income, manufacturing employment, defense contributions, value added by
manufacture, and willingness to expand. On the other hand, the four West South Central States, with far less
defense participation, have received thus far certificates of necessity for projects worth five times the amount
awarded all six New England states. Similar comparisons may be made with the South Atlantic and East South
Central states. Particularly in the textile, chemical and metal industry has New England received an amazingly
small portion of such certificates as might be expected on the basis of its employment in those industries.
If some equilibrium is not maintained, we shall end the emergency period with some sections of the country
having most of the new plants and equipment while others, including New England, will have most of the old
plants. In part this inequity is an indication of less aggressive representation on the part of New England
businessmen and Congressmen; but our willingness to cooperate must be met by Federal policies concerned with
an equitable distribution of new productive facilities, The competitive status of New England and other parts of
the country who are an the short end of the present tax amortization program will be further weakened at the
close of the emergency should an excess of productive capacity cause further liquidation of outmoded plants in
higher cost areas.
Third, I would like to ask this question concerning the tax amortization program;
3. ARE TAX AMORTIZATION CERTIFICATES BEING ISSUED FOR OBJECTIVES EITHER
UNNECESSARY OR SUBSEQUENTLY NOT ADOPTED?
This question has its roots in the first two questions raised, particularly with respect to the textile industry. A
considerable number of new textile, and particularly synthetic textile, plants have been built largely in the South
under the inducement of accelerated tax amortization. But at the same time the textile industry showed every
sign of excess capacity with empty plants and unemployment in many important textile towns in New England.
For building and operating these new plants, critical materials had to be allocated and new workers trained, at
the same time that the workers and plants of Lawrence and Lowell stood idle. There are, of course, many reasons
why the manufacturers chose to build these new plants in the South and elsewhere; but it highly questionable
whether the inducement of accelerated amortization was a necessary incentive for such construction,
Moreover, of the 233 expansion programs for which rapid tax amortization certificates have been provided, a
majority have been in the indirect defense category including petroleum, railroad freight equipment and electric
power, many of which facilities would undoubtedly have been built regardless of the special privileges offered by
the government, Finally, several other cases have been called to my attention where the new facilities, built with
the critical materials allocated under the certificate of necessity and operated originally under the accelerated
amortization provisions, have been deemed by their owners to be unnecessary for the defense purposes for which
they were originally built; and instead private commercial operations are transferred thereto from older plants
in older parts of the country. I was astonished to learn that practically no check or review for possible revocation
is provided under the present program, regardless of the use to which such facilities may be put once the tax
privileges have been given. The Congress and the people are entitled to know whether these certificates are being
issued for unnecessary objectives or objectives not subsequently adopted.
Fourth, I ask:
4. ARE TAX AMORTIZATION CERTIFICATES BEING ISSUED IN A MANNER DAMAGING T0 THE
COMPETITIVE STATUS OF SMALL BUSINESS?
This is a question of no small significance to New England, which has a higher proportion of independent
business enterprises employing less than 500 persons than any other region in the United States. The economic
growth of our region is particularly dependent upon the industrial expansion of our small business enterprises.
Present regulations state that expansions will not be certified where such expansions may tend to eliminate
competition, create or strengthen monopolies, injure small business, or otherwise promote undue concentration
of economic power. But let us look at the result. In the basic industries concerned with this program, small firms
normally provide roughly 35% of the employment. In ten out of the 20 major industry groupings in
manufacturing small business firms filed enough applications so that they could have received 35% of the
certificates awarded. But in 18 out of the 20, small business received substantially less than its fair share.
On the whole, although over 43% of all certificates were issued to small business, they received only 10% of the
value of certificates granted; and they represented 23% of the applications denied. In textiles, small business has
22% of the employment, but received only 5% of the value of certificates issue. Thus, we must seriously raise the
question as to whether the effect of this program has been to damage the competitive status of small business
whose need for productive expansion and tax relief is already critical.
Finally, in concluding my remarks with respect to this tremendous program of accelerated tax amortization, I
wish to ask this question:
5. ARE TAX AMORTIZATION CERTIFICATES BEING ISSUED IN A MANNER RESULTING IN
UNJUSTIFIABLE SUBSIDIZATION AT PUBLIC EXPENSE?
Actually, this question breaks down into a number of sub-questions. Because of the billions of dollars of tax funds
involved, we must ask ourselves whether this program has permitted abuses and undue advantages at the
expense of the general taxpayer. If we accept the premise that tax amortization incentives are a necessary and
desirable inducement for defense expansion, then of course we must accept the legitimate gains to manufacturers
from their participation in the program. But it is not always easy to distinguish the legitimate gains from the
unfair advantages. The conclusion of the Hardy Committee Investigation of the last Congress was that " the
certificate of necessity program is the biggest bonanza that ever came down the Government Pike." The
Committee stated that the program had cost the government millions in tax revenues, had been turned into one
of direct and hidden subsidies and resulted in discrimination between competitors and against small business and
had on the whole been excessive. Interestingly enough the Brewster Committee following World War II called
that tax amortization program "legal profiteering"; and the Nye and Couzen Investigations following World
War I were similarly highly critical of the abuses permitted by the special tax amortization programs in existence
during the war. One may wonder how much we learned from our experience and whether future programs will
permit similar abuses.
Many questions need to be raised. In how many cases is the amortization percentage based upon original cost,
instead of original cost less salvage value, as is the normal tax accounting procedure? In how many cases, has
land, which no other taxpayer can depreciate, been included as well as buildings in the investment for which
amortization can be allowed? In how many cases have defense contracts operating on a cost plus basis included in
their costs of depreciation paid by the government the excessive charge for amortization permitted under this
program? In how many cases will the productive facilities amortized in five years - or in the case of atomic
facilities in the unbelievably short period of one year - be extremely profitable to their owner for 20 years
thereafter? In how many cases will the owner be able to sell his facilities at a profit and pay on the long-term
capital gains tax rate, after he has derived the full tax benefit from special amortization under the income or
excess profits tax rates?
Certainly it is legitimate to offer manufacturers a decrease in the risk involved in such plant expansion. The tax
advantage secured through high deductions during a time of high taxes, or the income resulting from tax savings
made possible by the acceleration of amortization deductions, are also gains necessarily connected with any such
program.
But at a time when the tax burden borne by all of us is exceedingly high and when the administration talks in
terms of imposing even more discriminatory taxes upon the general public, these questions relating to those tax
loopholes and privileges which permit the few to profit at the expense of the many must be seriously raised - and
I hope seriously answered.
Address at the Sixth Annual Conference of the Council

of Profit-Sharing Industries, Hotel Sheraton Plaza,
Boston, MA, November 12, 1953
exist in the Senate Press Release File of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F.
Kennedy Library. One of the drafts has notes, while the other has a note labeled "Not Delivered", which leads to
some question as to whether the speech was ever given. With the exception of the notes, which have not been
incorporated, both versions are the same. Links to page images of the two drafts are provided at the bottom of this
page.
I want to talk with you tonight about the Federal budget. I would like to examine in a realistic and non-partisan
manner the fiscal problems faced by the present administration, and point out to you the difficulty which the
Administration faces in carrying out its promises of one year ago.
There are three separate factors which we must consider almost simultaneously in any examination of the federal
government's fiscal problems. These are, of course, first the federal budget or schedule of expenditures; secondly,
federal revenues, dependent primarily upon the schedule of various tax returns; and finally, the federal public
debt, consisting of the total of individual deficits resulting from an imbalance between the previous two factors.
Let us examine the present prospective status of each of these three items.
I. The Federal Budget
Our first inquiry concerns the federal budget.
This year, fiscal year 1954, the federal government is committed to spend at least some $72 billion dollars. This
represents a reduction in expenditures from the budget submitted by the outgoing administration of
approximately $13 billion; but unfortunately a considerable portion of these savings are false, consisting only of
the deferment of present obligations of the federal government such as civil service retirement and veterans'
benefits. For the following fiscal years it is estimated that the budget can be further cut by another $4 or $5
billion dollars, and I can offer several examples of where such cuts should be made; but this, in view of the tax
and debt problems which I shall discuss momentarily, is by no means sufficient.
There are several reasons why this rather large budget cannot be cut far more extensively.
First, the real difficulty in effectuating any cut in the budget of sufficient extent to fulfill campaign promises lies
in our expenditures for national security. Today, although economic aid has been sharply reduced and the
military budget dangerously decreased, expenditures for national security - including the defense department,
atomic energy, military aid abroad and civil defense - constitute over 70% of the federal budget. Housing,
community development, education and research, social security, welfare, health and labor department
appropriations when added together, on the other hand, total less than 4% of our federal budget. Interestingly
enough, among the departments criticized most severely, the budget of the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare was cut by Congress only 2% below the amount submitted by the outgoing administration; the
Agriculture Department only 2%; the Post Office Department only 2%; and the Justice Department only 4%.
Secondly, effective economies in government are restrained by the pressure on particular items. Rivers and
harbors and flood control projects gain the support of those congressmen in whose jurisdiction they are located.
Subsidies to airlines, shipbuilders, publishers, agricultural interests and others all have powerful friends in their
beneficiaries, as do such agencies as the veterans administration, soil conservation service, and many others.
Third, economy advocates are faced with the large amount of unspent funds authorized by Congress, which are
carried over from previous years but whose expenditure is already contracted for. On July 1 of this year, such
funds totaled $81 billion dollars, not counting special revolving loan and other funds of $20 billion dollars. All of
these expenditures will show up in the federal cash budget during the next few years; but Congress will have little
or no chance to reduce them, nor will the Administration.
Fourth and finally, is the matter of fixed charges and legal obligations. Such obligations make up some 20% of
our federal budget, and include such large items as interest on the public debt (8%), which has been increased by
the present administration; veterans' compensation, pension and benefit programs (6%); farm price supports,
public assistance and unemployment compensation payments, federal highway aid and other payments fixed by
law.
In short, the prospects of reducing the budget by more than 4 or 5 billion dollars next year will be difficult,
particularly after this year's reductions. It will be extremely difficult if the Administration seeks, as announced,
over a 1,000% increase in civil defense; or if we make a serious attempt to develop civilian use of atomic power;
or if a worsening of the crisis in Indo-China or elsewhere in the globe requires more American intervention; or if
our farm surpluses require extensive government purchases.
Most important of all, the budget will be difficult to reduce by any sizable proportion if the Congress and the
American people realize that the level of our expenditures for national security, dangerously cut last year, must
be proposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Defense Department, not by the Bureau of the Budget.
II. Federal Tax Revenues
Realizing then, the difficulty of substantially lessening federal expenditures, let us look at the other side of the
Federal ledger; our tax returns.
The income of the federal government during the present fiscal year is expected to reach less than 69 billion
dollars, a sum which you will note is more than 3 billion dollars less than our expected expenditures. But,
although I stated that expenditures for the following fiscal year might drop by some $4 or $5 billion, the income
of the Federal Government is expected to drop by a like amount.
(1) On December 31, the Excess Profits Tax will expire, causing an annual loss of revenue amounting to 2.3
billion dollars.
(2) On January 1, individual income taxes will take a 10-11% across the board decrease, including a 1%
reduction in individual capital gains tax, for a further annual loss of 3.1 billion dollars in revenue.
(3) On April 1, the corporation income tax automatically decreases 5%, for an annual revenue loss of 1.9 billion
dollars.
(4) Several excise taxes now bringing in another 1 billion dollars will expire on that same April date.
(5) In addition, there is strong pressure for a so called tax revision bill, which will grant relief in many areas of
supposed hardships or inequities, which could cost another 1 to 3 billion dollars in annual revenues.
To permit all of these tax reductions to take place will cause a loss in federal revenues of somewhere around 10
billion dollars a year, making any budget balancing impossible even with great reductions in federal
expenditures. It has been suggested that the corporation income tax may be reduced only 2% instead of 5%; that
excise taxes not be permitted to expire but be revised in order to double their production of revenues; and that
the so called tax revision bill be postponed until a more favorable time. But even if these steps are taken, the
expiration of the Excess Profits Tax and the decrease in personal income taxes will prevent revenues from
reaching a point sufficient to support an adequate federal budget. Under the circumstances, one may question
whether we can afford to lose these revenues.
The Federal Government could close those tax loopholes, such as the percentage depletion allowance for oil, gas
and mining interests, which loopholes have been estimated to cause an annual loss in revenues of over 4 ½ billion
dollars. On the other hand, such revenues could be raised through imposition of a general manufacturers' excise
tax, which is the familiar sales tax at the manufacturer's level.
There are however many, many objections to the imposition of a general manufacturer's excise tax.
Among others, it is a discriminatory tax, taking a greater proportion of the income of the small wage earner than
of those in the higher income brackets, hitting harder at the poor family than the wealthy individual. It is an
unsound tax, taxing not income, not profits, but consumption. Regardless of the level at which it is imposed, it is
clearly passed on to the consumer.
When imposed at the manufacturer's level, the effect of the tax is pyramided; for each mark up by the wholesaler
or retailer on the cost of the product as it comes to him must of necessity include a percentage mark up on the tax
itself which forms a part of that cost. Moreover, inasmuch as it is included in the cost of the wholesalers' and
retailers' inventory, the latter are required to borrow more capital for the acquisition of such inventory, buy
more insurance to cover it, pay higher personal property taxes on it, and pay higher commissions for its resale.
Thus, in addition to the tax itself, these further costs boost prices still higher.
As a result of these costs and the pyramided tax this form of taxation is artificially inflationary, unnecessarily
increasing the cost of living and doing business at a time when every effort should be made to hold it down.
At the same time, it clearly reduces the purchasing power of the consuming public. The consumer today has only
a limited number of dollars to spend upon the purchase of goods. The addition of a sales tax to the price of these
products obviously does not increase the number of dollars the consumer has available, and obviously decreases
the number of items on which he can spend his dollars. True enough, it may transfer that purchasing power to
the federal government; but in holding the line against recession we are interested in the buying power of the
housewife and the worker and the farmer who buys your goods, and not the buying power of the federal
government whose expenditures for a limited number of items is not determined primarily by its tax revenues.
In short, a general manufacturer's excise tax or sales tax imposed by the Federal Government would be
economically unsound. Its concealment through imposition at the manufacturer's level does not really make it
any less painful; nor do the discriminations and evils resulting from the present system of federal excise taxes and
state and local sales taxes justify broadening that discrimination to envelop us all. Adequate tax revenues of the
Federal Government must be maintained, and I have pointed out the difficulties and alternatives which exist with
respect to that task; but certainly the general manufacturer's excise tax or sales tax is not a desirable alternative.
III. The Federal Debt
Finally, then, we come to consider the third factor: the national debt. As you have no doubt read in the
newspapers, the statutory debt limit is 275 billion dollars, an amount fixed over 7 years ago. Tonight, the gross
public debt of the federal government is 274.96 billion dollars, or less than 40 million dollars under the ceiling.
This is indeed a small margin on which to operate a government which spends some 300 million dollars every
day! The President's request for a 15 billion dollar increase in the statutory limit was, as you recall, denied in the
closing days of Congress. It now appears as though the government will squeeze by until the first of the year,
partly through a reduction in progress payments on defense contracts, a reduction which is particularly hard on
small businessmen who are anxious to avoid additional credit costs. During the first 6 months of next year, a
large portion of tax revenues, including at least 60% of the corporate income tax, will be paid, and the debt
should drop. But in the 6 months thereafter, as revenues decline and expenditures are maintained, an increase in
the gross public debt over and beyond the present statutory limit seems almost inevitable.
The likelihood of a further deficit to increase the total debt during the next two fiscal years is obviously very
great, inasmuch as, as I have already pointed out, it will be difficult to reduce expenditures which already exceed
income, by more than the expected decline in tax revenues. Moreover, should a mild recession strike our
economy, tax revenues will likely drop by nearly $10 billion; fiscal theory will call for a further reduction in tax
rates; and the size of the deficit will be still greater.
There is, of course, a "desperate alternative" here, too. The Federal Government might sell its public lands,
power developments, and other projects, in order to increase its fluid assets and reduce its debt; or it might call
for a transfer of the social security, unemployment compensation and other trust funds to the general treasury,
thus improving its fiscal position on the books. But I need not tell you that these are dangerous alternatives
indeed, threatening the rights and interests of all of the people of the United States, and leading to disastrous
consequences in the future which may cause still greater budgetary deficits.
IV. An Optimistic View
You have before you, then, an apparently grim or at least disillusioning picture. Federal expenditures cannot be
substantially lessened, unless we endanger our defensive strength. Federal taxes cannot be substantially reduced
if we are to balance the budget (and if it is insisted that Congress keep tax loopholes open), unless a
discriminatory and undesirable sales tax is imposed. The national debt cannot be reduced and the present debt
limit will have to be exceeded, unless the government adopts policies with respect to its assets and trust funds
which would endanger the security and rights of ourselves and our posterity.
Although the Administration cannot be blamed for the tremendous expenditures of World War II and the
Korean Conflicts, which were to a large extent responsible for this situation, at the same time I do not think we
can fairly place all of the blame upon its predecessor. The last year of World War II expenditures was fiscal
1945-46 and the public debt which had risen so rapidly during the war stood at 269.4 billion dollars at the close of
that year. Surprisingly enough, by the end of fiscal 1952-53, the gross national debt stood at 266 billion dollars, a
drop of nearly $4 billion. Similarly, the net debt, which is calculated on the basis of the so-called consolidated
cash budget of the government based on actual revenues and expenditures of all types, and which is the basis for
most economic and business analyses, also showed a sharp reduction during the years of the Truman
Administration.
Our ultimate objective must quite obviously be a balanced budget within a framework of full employment. But
inasmuch as it appears that we shall face continuing deficits for some time unless undesirable alternatives are
adopted, we might well remember some of the incorrect premises upon which much discussion of the national
debt has centered.
First, is a deficit inflationary? Certainly that is its tendency, and that is ample reason for its reduction; but the
causal relationship is not that simple. Our worst inflation was experienced during the fiscal year 1950-51; but
that was a year when the administrative budget showed a sizable surplus. In subsequent years, the government
showed a deficit but prices levelled off. This year, we face a sizable deficit again; and yet the financial pages
indicate that the danger today is more recession than of inflation. Obviously, other economic factors are more
important in the nation than the size of the deficit.
Secondly, is a balanced budget necessary to give us the strength to maintain the cold war? The view that it is also
fails to look at the federal budget in the framework of the entire national economy. All of us surely realize that
World War II could not have been won if our military expenditures were slashed to the point necessary for a
balanced budget. But because our economy was prosperous and our productive potential showed a tremendous
increase, and because our federal government had the financial and productive resources to draw upon, even
though it meant incurring a huge deficit we were able to accomplish fantastic military production objectives in
order to win that war. It is equally important to emphasize today that what we shall "afford" is not to be
determined on the basis of whether the federal budget is or is not balanced, but on the basis of our defensive and
productive strength and other national objectives.
Third, does an unbalanced budget show an unsound economy? Again, it is important to look at the entire
national picture. During the past 20 years, our national debt increased to previously unheard of levels. But at the
same time, personal income, employment, savings, planned investment, and profits increased over the same
period of time to record levels, as did our standard of living, purchasing power and general prosperity. In 1932,
our national debt was considerably less than 10% of the present debt ceiling which had us all so concerned; but
our national prosperity was also considerably less. In the years since 1932, every time you or I bought a savings
bond, it was a sign of further prosperity; and yet at the same time it increased the national debt. Of course, the
argument that "we owe it to ourselves" ignores the difference between taxpayers and bond holders; but the fact
remains that for every dollar owed by the government there is a dollar asset in the hands of a private citizen or
corporation, an asset which he regards as a part of his personal prosperity. In short, our nation as a whole has
not been living beyond its means but getting richer and more productive while at the same time financing a huge
war effort and giving extensive aid to other nations (whose economies could not support such an effort and who
really were living beyond their means).
Fourth, as a result of the foregoing, the national debt burden, as distinguished from the national debt, has
decreased not increased. At the end of 1945, the gross debt was over 152% of that year's national income; by the
end of August 1953 its percentage of national income was less than 88%. Total public and private debt in this
country has fallen from 425% of national income in 1933 to 190% at the end of 1952. This year's deficit about
which we are so concerned, is but a small fraction of the value of this year's national output.
Thus in addition to seeking a balanced budget, we should also work for full employment, and for increasing the
productivity of our workers. The output of our plant and the income of all of our citizens in order to continue a
lightening of the debt burden. [sic]
Certainly this conclusion brings us back to that which unites us here: profit sharing. It is through such practices
that the productivity of our workers and our industrial community will continue to increase, and our wages and
our national income shall continue to rise, so that the burden of debt shall weigh less heavily on each of us, and
the actual debt will decrease as our citizens become still more prosperous.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy for the

Northeastern University Convocation, Symphony Hall,
Boston, Massachusetts, December 2,1953
Library. Although one draft is more fragmentary and does seem to be earlier, there is no way of knowing which, if
either, of the drafts best represents the speech as delivered. The redaction is based on the longer and apparently
later draft. Links to page images of the two drafts are given at the bottom of this page.
I appreciate the opportunity to be with you on the occasion of your mid-year convocation. The functions of the
private university are basic and fundamental today for its task is a continuing search for the truth - - - both for
its own sake and because only if we possess it can we be really free. Never has been the task of finding the truth
been more difficult.
In the struggle between modern states “truth” has been a weapon in the battle for power - - - it is bent and
twisted and subverted to fit the cause of national policy.
Frequently, we in the West are forced by this drumbeat of lies and propaganda to be “discriminating” in our
selection of what facets of the truth we will disclose. Thus the responsibility of a free university to pursue its own
disinterested studies is even more important today than ever before.
In our search for truth the American tradition of freedom is of inestimable importance. It was stated clearly by
Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural “all, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of
the majority in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their
equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression…if there be any among us who
would wish to disolve this union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of
the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”
I thought this morning I would tell you something about the work and responsibilities of elective office and about
some of the problems we have to face. I do this because, quite obviously, you as future graduates of a private
university will be expected to assume leadership in a democratic society. The democratic system demands much
of its members because it presupposes the essence of a rational, self-reliant citizenry - - - the majority of which
when joined together will be wiser than would a governing elite. So the responsibility for action rests on both the
citizen and the office holder. You will in future days be one or the other. In recent months the question has been
raised by Mr. Attlee and others as to the true source of power in the American Federal system. I do believe that
much of the confusion and some of the fear felt by the citizens of other countries toward the United States is the
result of the failure to comprehend, particularly for those with a parliamentary system of government where
responsibility and power are more closely united, the full significance of the differences between the two houses of
Congress, between the Legislative branch and the Executive branch, and between the Federal and State
Governments. Our constitutional founders believed that liberty could be preserved only when the motions of
government were slow - - - the power divided - - - and time provided for the wisdom of the people to operate
against previpitous and ill-considered action. The delegates believed that they were sacrificing efficiency for
liberty. They believed, in the words of James Madison, who in his middle thirties was the most vigorous figure in
Philadelphia, that they were “so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent
parts may, by their mutual relations…be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.”
In our constitution there are limits placed on both the Federal and State Governments, and there is an area of
individual liberty protected against both. Like the reign of law, this is a tenant that has roots deep in Graceo-
Roman theory, medieval political theory, in Locke and Montesquieu.
The Senate today is a different body than its early framers imagined that it would be. The admission of new
states - - - the passage of time - - - the 17th Amendment that resulted in the direct election of Senators instead of
by the State Legislature, has brought about changes in its procedure and composition although the Senator’s
tenure of office and unlimited debate still set it apart from the House. As one who has served in the House of
Representatives and in the Senate, I must admit that the task of representation is not always as simple as it
sometimes seems to students of legislative process. Those of you who aspire to public office should be reminded
that it is not always easy to be on the side of the angels. I say this because it is only on rare occasions revealed to
us on which side the angels stand. Indeed, in most issues it seems as though the angels are not present - - - the
questions do not involve a moral issue of right and wrong - - - but rather the settlement of conflicts between
powerful interests. For example, though I believe that the Federal Government has a paramount right to the oil
of the Tidelands - - - nevertheless, I would not claim that the issue involved was a moral one. It is not a moral
question, nor is the answer obvious as to whether we should vote twenty million dollars more for hospital
construction even though we have at the same time a heavy deficit. It is not a moral question whether the “free
speech” section of the Taft-Hartley Bill should be extended to representation elections. I am not even as
convinced as is Mr. Dulles that foreign policy is a moral issue - - - although there is no doubt that the basic
struggle with the Soviet Union is fundamentally a moral struggle. But if all our country’s foreign policy were
based on moral grounds it would be difficult for us to reconcile our favoring freedom for the people behind the
Iron Curtain on the one hand and yet opposing the people of Morocco obtaining their independence from France
on the other - - - merely because we have air bases there.
Take the subject of the Federal Budget for instance. All of us would like to see it cut, and eventually get tax
reductions. But what are the facts, first on the budget for spending and second on income or revenue? The real
difficulty in effectuating any cut in the budget of sufficient extent to fulfill campaign promises lies in our
expenditures for national security. Today, although economic aid has been sharply reduced and the military
budget dangerously decreased, expenditures for national security--including the defense department, atomic
energy, military aid abroad and civil defense--constitute over 70% of the federal budget. Housing, community
development, education and research, social security, welfare, health and labor department appropriations when
added together, on the other hand, total less than 4% of our federal budget.
Secondly, effective economies in government are restrained by the pressure on particular items. Rivers and
harbors and flood control projects gain the support of those congressmen in whose jurisdiction they are located.
Subsidies to airlines, shipbuilders, publishers, agricultural interests and others all have powerful friends in their
beneficiaries, as do such agencies as the veterans administration, soil conservation service, and many others.
And finally, is the matter of fixed charges and legal obligations. Such obligations make up some 20% of our
federal budget, and include such large items as interest on the public debt (8%), which has been increased by the
present administration; veterans’ compensation, pensions and benefit programs (6%); farm price supports,
public assistance and unemployment compensation payments, federal highway aid and other payments fixed by
law.
In short, the prospects of reducing the budget by more than $4 or $5 billion dollars next year will be difficult,
particularly after this year’s reductions.
Realizing then, the difficulty of substantially lessening federal expenditures, let us look at the other side of the
Federal ledger; our tax returns.
The income of the federal government during the present fiscal year is expected to reach less than $69 billion
dollars, a sum which you will note is more than $3 billion dollars less than our expected expenditures. But,
although I stated that expenditures for the following fiscal year might drop by some $4 or $5 billion, the income
of the Federal Government is expected to drop by a like amount.
(1) On December 31, the Excess Profits Tax will expire, causing an annual loss of revenue amounting to $2.3
billion dollars.
(2) On January 1, individual income taxes will take a 10-11% across-the-board decrease, including a 1%
reduction in individual capital gains tax, for a further annual loss of $3.1 billion dollars in revenue.
(3) On April 1, the corporation income tax automatically decreases 5%, for an annual revenue loss of $1.9 billion
dollars.
(4) Several excise taxes now bringing in another $1 billion dollars will expire on that same April date.
Many, however, think that the cuts in the Federal Budget can come out of national defense. But what are the
facts here - - - have we truly an adequate defense - - - are we spending too much for defense and therefore can
afford to cut our defense budget or, in the light of world conditions are we spending enough? The facts are these.
In the Fall of 1951, the joint chiefs of staff recognizing the decisive nature of atomic weapons broke the
compromise between the three services which had made for the equal distribution of funds. It was determined in
view of the Soviet effort and capabilities by 1954 that the minimum goal for our security for that year would be
143 air groups. The targets for the Army and Navy meanwhile remained the same. Although the stretch-out of
1952 ordered by President Truman, which would have provided 138 wings by June 1955 lessened the impact of
this decision on Air Force strength, the primacy of the air weapons was still recognized. The Truman Budget of
1953 called for an expenditure of over sixteen billion dollars for Air and eleven billion for Army and Navy
respectively. When the smoke of Congressional battle cleared early last July, however, six months later, five
billion had been taken from the Air Force, a billion from the Navy and over a billion added to the Army. This
was a return to the balanced force concept with vengeance - - - was a ring-out rather than a stretch-out of Air
Force strength. The preliminary budgets released for next year for the Defense Department, prepared by the new
Joint Chiefs of Staff, were, therefore, most disappointing. In the words of the New York Times, “they were seen
as furthering to a large degree the return of the principle of balanced forces that existed before the Korean war.”
The result will be that the United States will not possess more than 115 wings by June 1954 instead of 143, not
more than 120 wings by June 1955, not more than 127 by June 1956. This is at a time when the Soviet Union, in
addition to building the largest Army in the World and becoming the second largest Naval power in the World, is
concentrating its attention on building the World’s largest Air Force. By the summer of 1954 they will possess
over twenty thousand planes, nearly all of which are Jet, while a substantial part of our Air Force consists of
planes that are propeller driven or Jets that are obsolete.
The point is that the questions on which we must vote only rarely involve issues that admit an easy solution. Some
Senators vote to appease political pressures at home and stay in office and become according to Dryden’s
Epilogue to the Duke de Guise:
“Damned neuters in the middle way of steering
are neither fish nor flesh nor good red herring;
Not Whigs, nor Tories they, nor this nor that
Nor birds, nor beasts; but just a kind of bat;
A twilight animal, true to neither cause
With Tory wings, and Whiggish teeth and claws.
While others, like Senator Taft, vote according to convictions. But their convictions are after all the result of their
own lives, their environment, their experiences and prejudices, their glands and blood pressure, and thus their
convictions may bring them to the wrong conclusion, as occasionally did Senator Taft’s, while the Senators who
supinely follow the wishes of the people may end up voting right, for under our Federal system the needs of the
individual state must be given recognition, for the sum of the real interests of the separate states, in those cases
where they do not conflict with each other representing the National interest.
But in the final analysis the only way to national survival is for the people to support the point of view stated by
Edmund Burke in his famous letter to the electors of Bristol. After stating his views on Britain’s relationship with
the colonies, he wrote, “Gentlemen, you have my opinion on the present state of public affairs…without troubling
myself to inquire whether I am under a similar obligation to it, I have a pleasure in accounting for my conduct to
my constituents. I feel warmly on this subject and I express myself as I feel.
“If my conduct has not been able to make any impression on the warm part of that ancient and powerful party,
with whose support I was not honored at my election; on my side, my respect, regard, and duty to them is not at
all lessened…But flattery and friendship are very different things; and to mislead is not to serve them. I cannot
purchase the favor of any man but counsel from him what I think is ruin.
“By the favor of my fellow citizens I am a representative of an honest, well-ordered virtuous city;…I do, to the
best of my power, act so as to make myself worthy of so honorable a choice. If I were ready, on my call of my own
vanity or interest, or to answer any election purpose, to forsake principles…which I had formed at a mature age,
on full reflection, and which have been confirmed by long experience, I should forfeit the only thing which makes
you pardon so many errors and imperfections in me.”
If we demand that our representatives measure up to the high standards that we expect of them it will depend
basically upon our own conduct. In a democracy we get the kind of government we deserve, and unless we are
honest and responsible we will not have honest and responsible representatives.
You would be interested to read in this light the letters that Congressmen receive. He receives letters from small
businessmen who advocate free competition so that they may survive--but who insist also on price fixing through
so-called free trade laws. The receive letters from farmers who pride themselves of their individuality and self-
reliance - and yet who receive the largest subsidies of any group in the American economy. They receive letters
from Southerners who believe in everything the Republicans stand for yet would not ever vote for the admission
of the two-party system in the South. They receive letters from citizens who want economy but who also want
funds for local airports, for the dredging of local rivers and harbors.
We cannot long afford the luxury of irresponsibility in national affairs. Today our economic and political system
is competing with that of the Communists. In 50 years the Communists have moved outward with unparalleled
swiftness so that now they control over one-third of the world’s population and their shadow hangs heavy over
the lives of many millions of men in the free world. Their economic system--rigidly controlled--devoted
completely to the aggrandizement of the state, steadily is closing the gap in productive supremacy that once we
enjoyed. The troubles and pressures of the 18th century when our country began, pale in significance with those
we now face for basically challenged our all of the suppositions upon which our founders based our government.
That there are inalienable rights--rights granted by God and not by the state--that man is a political animal--that
he is rational--that the state is organized for his welfare and to protect his rights--that rule by the majority is not
only more just but more efficient.
Unless we can prove again the truth of these fundamentals then time will continue to serve the cause of our
enemies.
As young men and women on this occasion, you can take no better theme than the words of Daniel Webster,
spoken at Bunker Hill a century ago, which are now standing above the head of the Speaker of the House of
Representatives. “Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its power, build up all its great institutions
and see whether we also in our day and generation may perform something worthy of being remembered.”
Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy at the

Massachusetts State C.I.O. Convention, Massachusetts,
December 3, 1953
Library. Draft two contains handwritten corrections and the redaction is based on this draft although there is no
way of knowing with certainty which, if either, of the drafts best represents the speech as delivered. Links to page
images of the two drafts are given at the bottom of this page.
It is a great pleasure to be here today with my friends of the Massachusetts State C.I.O., and to participate in
your deliberations on matters affecting all working men and women, and indeed all people everywhere. I thought
I would speak to you today about conditions in Washington. I know that you have been greatly disappointed not
only by what the present administration and Congress have done in the field of labor law, but also by their
actions and inactions in other fields.
It seems to me that those of us who are opposed to government by postponement, government by give-away, and
government by turning-back-the-clock are faced with three serious responsibilities in the years ahead. First, we
must oppose vigorously those measures and failures which harm the public interest; secondly, we must propose
constructive approaches to fill the gaps left vacant by delay and confusion; and third and finally, we must make
only those promises and charges which are within the limits of fairness and responsibility.
As an example of our first responsibility, of vigorous opposition, let's look at the field of labor. Start at the White
House. On September 22 of this year, Press Secretary Hagerty said he checked on Martin Durkin's story with the
President, and said: "I find that there has been no decision made by the President on any suggestions or detailed
recommendations for changes in the Taft-Hartley Law." No decision! No decision despite promises of changes
over a year ago, and despite the President's statement calling for specific amendments in his message to
Congress.
We then move to the Department of Labor itself. Martin Durkin was replaced by a man who considers Taft-
Hartley to be basically a good law; and left a department where political replacements and budget cuts have
seriously weakened its effectiveness. The President promised to strengthen the Department of Labor; yet its
budget, which was already the smallest in government, was cut 14%, more than 7 times as much as they cut the
Post Office Department, the Justice Department, the District of Columbia, Agriculture, and the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare. The Wage and Hour Division was cut 27% below the 1952 appropriation, thus
making it possible to inspect only 1 out of 22 establishments covered by the law. Field offices in 8 regions in the
South were abolished entirely, which was good news for those sweatshops paying less than $0.75 an hour. As
Senator Paul Douglas charged, "The runaway and exploiting shops and the commercialized farms have called the
tune, and the Administration is dancing."
Now let's move over to the National Labor Relations Board. The new Chairman is Mr. Farmer, who says the
Taft-Hartley Law is basically sound. The other new member is Mr. Rogers, who was council for the Republican
majority on the Rules Committee and who says he wants the law carried out just as the Republican 80th
Congress would have wanted it to be carried out. The third hasn't been appointed, but you can bet it won't be
Bill Belanger. Already, there has been a series of NLRB decisions which indicate that a still wider latitude is
going to be given to employers refusing to bargain, refusing to enforce union shop contracts, discharging
employees because of union activities, weakening employee bargaining units, and coercing employees under the
guise of so-called "free speech."
Next, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Here, too, they slashed 14% out of the budget, and fired
the able and experienced Director, a Republican himself.
That completes our tour of the Administration. Now let's ride down to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue - to
see what's been going on in Congress that affects labor. There, too, the Taft-Hartley Law was carefully studied;
but the only concrete result was a bill drawn up by the staff of the Senate Labor Committee which contained
provisions far more stringent than those now contained in Taft-Hartley. This bill would not only have halted
unionization in the South and other areas of the country, but would have turned the clock back 20 years in giving
full power to the states to take any anti-union actions they pleased.
The same is true on all other measures affecting workers as citizens, in housing, health, education, lower prices,
cheaper power, and all the rest. The 83rd Congress nearly killed public housing, abandoned all rent controls and
even standby price controls, gave away our offshore oil resources to a few states instead of preserving their
income for our schools, and took other actions against the national interest.
Permit me to add that much of what I have been describing has particular importance for you as citizens and
workers of New England. If we are to stop the liquidation of our plants and their migration southward; if we are
to attract new industries to our one-industry towns; and if we are to protect adequately the jobs and security of
our workers; then a great deal needs to be done. This has been a good year for New England and Massachusetts,
certainly better than last. But you know that prosperity in New England is not yet permanently assured; that
layoffs are increasing and plant closings are continuing. We still lag behind the rest of the country in our
industrial growth; and if a recession strikes us, our loss will be even more severe than other parts of the country.
This means, as I stated to the Senate in presenting my program for New England, that the Taft-Hartley Law
must be drastically revised to encourage the unionization of areas competitive with ours; our minimum wage
raised and our other fair labor standards laws strengthened or $1.00/hr. [illegible], in order to discourage the
runaway shops and prevent substandard wage competition. It means that those tax loopholes must be closed
which encourage industrial migration; the tax amortization program carefully scrutinized; and greater
consideration given to labor surplus areas in the awarding of defense contracts.
It means further that our natural resources must be developed so that our power bills will no longer be twice as
high as those in the TVA area. It means that we must work for better programs of aid to small business, of
retraining the unemployed industrial workers, and of providing security for the unemployed, the aged, and the
disabled. Only in this way can New England continue to grow and prosper, and our jobs be free from the
uncertainty and difficulty that unfair competition and our own position as an older area seek to press down upon
us. The C.I.O., with many other labor, civic and business organizations, has been most helpful in pushing this
program; and I want to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation.
At any rate, there's a long way to go in all fields of importance to labor. This is a clear example of a field where
Democrats and Republicans alike who believe in a sounder economy for all, including labor, must oppose
vigorously these attempts to hold back American progress.
Now, let's look at our second responsibility, the responsibility of offering a constructive approach to fill the gap
left wide open by present delay and confusion.
My example here is our foreign policy. Never before have the uncertainties and power vacuums in world affairs
called more clearly for positive American leadership and clear American policies.
But instead, what has been done? They have harassed, reversed and rendered ineffective some of our most able
public servants in this field. They have impaired Western unity by being indecisive instead of resolute; and by
being quick to denounce and slow to understand. They have first cut our defensive strength in order to save
money, and now talk of tripling it in order to save lives. They have reduced Point 4 to a pale and non-stimulating
three point two. They have reorganized interminably and cut seriously our information program and the Voice of
America, until the Voice is little more than a whisper. They have played politics on restrictive immigration
policies, on the isolationist Bricker Amendment, and the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. They have gone
forward, then backward, then vacillated concerning Israel and the Middle East, Indian participation in the Peace
Conference, human rights and genocide, and other issues.
This is a dangerous course indeed; for through it we have stimulated neutralism among traditional friends who
now distrust our attempts at leadership. Let us hope after 1954, and certainly after 1956, our policies will again
be positive, our programs comprehensive, and our principles reaffirmed.
We must not make political issues out of war and peace, and we must continue to recognize executive
responsibility for the conduct of foreign relations under the constitution. But, nevertheless, we have a definite
responsibility to check our present policies of drift and slide.
Indeed, the administration might do well to follow the vigorous example of the C.I.O. in its effective battle against
Communistic exploitation. The I.U.E.-C.I.O., for example, has not lacked active and positive leadership both in
this state and in the country as a whole in opposing Communist domination in a free and healthy trade union
movement. The I.U.E. and the C.I.O. believe in individual rights and human dignity more than totalitarian
power, in the free expression of opinion rather than slavish adherence to any party line: and in accomplishing
their goals through peaceful and democratic methods, not by subversion and violence. That is why you have so
successfully broken the foothold in labor which these Communist-dominated unions once held; and that is why
I.U.E. will continue to do battle successfully. Thousands of patriotic members and local leaders of the UE, and
other unions expelled from the C.I.O. in 1949 should not be charged with disloyalty. But the fact remains that the
national leadership of UE has been characterized as one following "a tenacious conformity to the Communist
party line through at least six major reversals" by Senator Hubert Humphrey's Senate Sub-Committee on Labor
Management Relations and is presenting too great a security risk to be permitted to represent workers. The
individual members and the union as a whole should take remedial action against such leadership which has
brought down upon them these inequities.
Finally, and perhaps most important, those of us who seek a return to progressive and effective leadership must
be responsible, as opposition and as politicians. If we now make promises we cannot carry out, the people will see
we are no different than the Republicans. If we now blame the Republicans for ills which Government cannot
control, the people will expect the impossible from a Democratic victory.
Democrats, labor, liberals and all of those who join us must indeed "talk sense to the American people"; make
only those promises we can carry out; and frankly state the difficulties and dangers which confront us.
We would be deceiving the people to deny that these are all difficult tasks.
We can provide in 1954 and 1956 a factor which has been generally lacking under the Republican regime,
particularly since the death of Robert Taft - and that factor is leadership; in our case positive, purposeful and
progressive leadership; leadership to further the interests of America as a whole and not a favored few. I am
certain that many, many Republicans, in and out of Congress, will be happier under Democratic leadership than
under the kind of leadership they are getting now.
As Christmas approaches, I would recommend to our respected President and his able Cabinet of businessmen
that they restudy the role of businessmen as Dickens set it forth in his "Christmas Carol." You all remember the
words of Jacob Marley's ghost to his partner, Ebenezer Scrooge:
"But you were always a good man of business", said Scrooge… "Business," replied the Ghost, "Mankind was my
business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance and benevolence were all my
business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business."
Let us hope that our businessmen's government will heed this advice. Republicans and Democrats, labor and
management, men and women of all races and creeds and national origins, all must see that we are led by those
who make mankind their business. Together we can demonstrate to a disillusioned nation that promises can
mean performance - that responsible opposition can mean constructive legislation - and together we shall make
real and meaningful the promise that for all of us is America.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the University
of Montreal, Montreal, Canada, December 4, 1953
Library. A link to the page images is given at the bottom of this page.
I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you at this celebrated university in this ancient and famous city. The
functions of the private university, particularly those that are Roman Catholic, are basic and fundamental today
for its task is a continuing search for the truth, both for its own sake and because only if we possess it can we be
really free. Never has been the task of finding the truth more difficult. In the struggle between modern states
"truth" has become a weapon in the battle for power - it is bent and twisted and subverted to fit the pattern of
national policy.
Frequently, we in the West are forced by this drumbeat of lies and propaganda to be "discriminating" in our
selection of what facets of the truth we ourselves will disclose. Thus the responsibility of a free university to
pursue its own disinterested studies is even more important today than ever before. The University of Montreal
has succeeded in carrying out this mission, so that today it stands as a bulwark on the North American Continent
in the battle for the preservation of Christian civilization.
I appreciate also this opportunity to express once again the respect and friendship with which the people of the
United States regard their neighbors in Canada. The ties that bind our two nations together are many and
indissoluble. We have a similar background in that both of our nations have people from many dissimilar
backgrounds. Although this is my first journey to Canada, Canadians are by no means strangers to me. For, of
all the many residents of my state of Massachusetts who were born outside of the United States, a much larger
percentage - more than 1 out of 4 - were born in Canada than in any other country. Those of you who are of
French extraction would feel at home in Lowell and Lawrence, New Bedford and Fall River, and in dozens of
others of our cities and towns where the French language and culture are maintained with vigor by the thousands
and thousands of your former neighbors who now are American citizens, and thus they have kept open an
important link with Canadian and French culture - its literature and its arts, which otherwise might have been
lost. They have maintained singular devotion to the Catholic religion in an age of growing cynicism and
indifference.
Perhaps most fundamental of all, the roots of our similarly free political and economic institutions may be traced
back to a common seed, and the peaceful maintenance of the Canadian-American border has been a symbol all
over the world for those who believe that a just and lasting peace can be achieved.
Today, our economic ties are made closer by international trade between our two countries. Last year, Canada
bought nearly $3 billion worth of goods from the United States, representing approximately 20% of our sales to
other countries. More than $7 out of every $10 Canadians spent to bring goods into their country was spent in the
United States, indicating the importance of my nation as a source of supply to your industries and consumers. On
the other hand, the United States bought nearly $2.4 billion worth of goods from Canada. We were your best
customer, buying one-half of all goods you exported. Out of all the dollars spent by the United States for goods to
be imported from other countries, more than $1 out of every $5 [was] spent for Canadian products. Many
Canadian securities are bought in the United States; many United States firms have subsidiaries or plants in
Canada; and many other economic ties are equally strong.
The bonds between our two countries, then, are beneficial to both. We export professional football players to you;
and you export professional hockey players to us. The example of cooperation which Canada and the United
States have set - in the economic, military, political, cultural and other spheres - is one for all the World to
admire.
Unfortunately, from time to time tensions arise between the United States and Canada, just as tensions will arise
between any close friends. Today such tensions have received a disproportionate amount of headline space in the
newspapers of both of our countries; disproportionate not because such tensions are unimportant, but because
this negative side of the balance sheet is greatly smaller than the positive side which I have previously mentioned.
Nevertheless, it is well to understand exactly what these tensions are, and how they might best be reduced. Today,
the charged atmosphere of suspicion and fear which has resulted in my country from the external and internal
threat of communist imperialism has caused a number of incidents which have caused alarm and resentment
among Canadians and Americans alike. The proposed St. Lawrence Seaway has been frequently postponed,
much to your disappointment, because of the failure of the United States to get Congressional approval for
participation in its construction, and the proposed St. Lawrence Power Project has not yet cleared its final hurdle
in the United States Court of Appeals in order that the power authority of the State of New York may join with
Canada in the construction of that project.
Perhaps of more importance, several questions have been raised with respect to international trade between the
two countries. The U. S. Tariff Commission has held hearings at which American producers requested
restrictions on the importation of Canadian oats, fish, lead, zinc, and oil. Bills for the same purpose have been
introduced in Congress. Last March a year-long embargo on all Canadian beef cattle, imposed because of a local
outbreak of hoof-and-mouth disease, was lifted, after costing Canada about $50 million dollars.
Even this problem is not one-way. New Englanders may accuse Canadians of "dumping" groundfish fillets; but
Canadians are accusing New Englanders of dumping textiles. Canadians have also expressed concern with
respect to United States policies for exporting agricultural surpluses; and of course, Canada and the United
States are competing for other export markets in Latin America and elsewhere.
It would not be appropriate for me to attempt to analyze each of these many issues, and discuss in detail their
solutions. But I do maintain that much of the confusion and fear results from the unfounded misunderstandings
and misconceptions which the citizens of each country hold with respect to the other. Perhaps if I explain some of
the factors in the United States which give rise to this uncertainty and confusion, it may be of some help to you in
understanding the conflicts we read about today.
I make this statement as a Member of the United States Senate, one of two parliamentary bodies in the
Legislative Branch of our Federal Government. It is frequently difficult for citizens of other countries,
particularly those with a parliamentary form of government where responsibility and authority are joined more
closely together, even for Canadians with a Federal System of their own, to comprehend the full significance of
the difference between the two Houses of Congress, between the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch,
and between the Federal and State Governments; or to understand that a Congressional Committee is not the
same as the United States Government. For example, the editor of the Montreal Star, Mr. G. V. Ferguson, wrote
in 1952 that Canadians find it hard to understand that the American Congress can successfully frustrate its own
administration in the pursuance of international trade objectives. "In Canada," Mr. Ferguson pointed out, "a
government remains a government only so long as it can pass its legislative program." Even more recently, Mr.
Attlee of Great Britain raised questions concerning the ultimate source of power in the United States.
Our constitutional founders believed that liberty could be preserved only when the motions of government were
slow - the power divided - and time provided for the wisdom of the people to operate against precipitous and ill-
considered action. The delegates believed that they were sacrificing efficiency for liberty. They believed, in the
words of James Madison, who in his middle thirties was the most vigorous figure in Philadelphia, that they were
"so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual
relations … be the means of keeping each other in their proper places."
In our constitution there are limits placed on both the Federal and State Governments, and there is an area of
individual liberty protected against both. Like the reign of law, this is a tenant that has roots deep in Graeco-
Roman theory, medieval political theory, in Locke and Montesquieu.
The system of checks and balances set up in our constitution was, of course, also the result of the necessary
compromises between powerful interests in all of the thirteen colonies. The most basic dispute of the Convention
was that involving the larger states: Massachusetts, Virginia and Pennsylvania with the smaller states, Delaware -
so small in the words of John Randolph that it was composed of five counties at low tide and three at high -
Connecticut and New Jersey. The larger states possessing a majority of the population and revenue were
determined that their influence should be in proportion, while the smaller states were reluctant to sacrifice their
confederatory status wherein each state as sovereign held veto on action. The result of the Connecticut
compromise - "a motley measure" in the words of Alexander Hamilton - are familiar to us all. The
representation in the Lower House was based on population, and they alone had the power to initiate legislation
dealing with revenue matters; while in the Upper House each state was given an equal vote.
Successive presidents who have had difficulty with the Senate, including President Eisenhower, would be
surprised to have learned what our founders perceived the role of the Senate to be. In a famous anecdote,
Jefferson after his return from France once asked Washington at breakfast why he had agreed to a second
chamber in Congress. Washington asked him, "Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?" "To cool it,"
Jefferson said. "Even so," said Washington, "we pour legislation into the Senatorial saucer to cool it."
There is no doubt that the framers of the Constitution saw the Senate as a sort of privy council to the President -
enjoying a different and more intimate relation with the Chief Executive than did the direct representatives of
the people. And thus the Senate was given a powerful voice over foreign affairs and the selection of office holders
for the Executive Department. Washington tried to make such use of the Senate. Herbert Agar, in discussing the
situation writes, "he entered the chamber one day and took the Vice President's chair, saying he had come for
their advice and consent regarding an Indian treaty, and that he had brought with him General Knox, the
Secretary of War, who knew all about the treaty. Knox produced the papers which were read; Washington then
waited for some advice or consent. The Senate was unwilling to give it in the presence of the President and his
Cabinet Minister. The feeling seemed to be that the Senators were under pressure, and that their dignity was
being violated. The Senate did not want information from General Knox; it wanted to be left alone to act in its
own fashion." "We said for him to withdraw," wrote Senator Maclay, "he did so with a discontented air."
A proper understanding of the system of checks and balances would explain for citizens of other countries the
many and seemingly conflicting actions which appear on the governmental scene in the United States. A State
Governor may protest the imports of Icelandic fish, but only the President and the Tariff Commission can
restrict such imports, even into that State under present law. The United States Department of Agriculture may
protest the importation of Canadian oats, and a United States Senator may introduce a Bill to restrict such
imports, but, until the House of Representatives takes initial action to amend the Reciprocal Trades Agreement
Act, the final decision rests with the Tariff Commission in the Executive Branch. When Congress failed to
approve the St. Lawrence Power Project, the Federal Power Commission authorized the State of New York to
build it, but only the Federal Courts can remove all legal objections to that decision. A Senator may broadcast all
his suspicions of foreign officials; but he speaks only for himself and not the United States Government or our
people.
Time has proved that the American Constitution is not, as Macaulay once said, "all sail and no anchor." Sir John
MacDonald, speaking in 1865, after the American Constitutional system had received its most severe test in the
American Civil War stated, "It is the fashion now to enlarge on the defects of the Constitution of the United
States, but I am not one of those who look upon it as a failure. I think and believe that it is one of the most skillful
works that human intelligence has created; (it) is one of the most perfect organizations that ever governed a free
people. To say that it has some difficulties is but to say that it is not the work of omniscience but of human
intellect." Our constitutional system like that of Canada was the result of special circumstances existing at the
time of our early development. But like yours, it demonstrated confidence in man as a rational being - in the
belief that given an atmosphere - and time - where truth has an opportunity to compete with error in the market
place of ideas - in the long run the judgment of the great majority of the people can be trusted to come to the
right decision.
The rights of the minority were given special protection in the American Constitution. This freedom for the
minority was provided through the Bill of Rights, especially the first eight amendments, which wrote into law the
inalienable and God-given rights of man, while the while the 9th and 10th, which dealt with the so-called reserve
powers, provided that those powers not exclusively granted to the United States Government were held by the
various states and the people themselves. In contrast to the United States, the enumerated powers in the
Canadian Constitution are provincial and the reserve and residual powers in theory are federal. And an
additional protection was the establishment of an independent judiciary on equal terms with the Executive and
Legislative Branch. John Marshall, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, in a series of
fundamental decisions: - Marbury vs. Madison, which established the right of the Supreme Court to hold as
unconstitutional an act of Congress, and McCullough vs. Madison in which the court annulled a state law which
conflicted with a federal law, set up the Supreme Court to act as "umpire" in our Federal System. This is one of
the main adjustive mechanisms in the constitutional framework through the principle of judicial review, which is
quite unique in its broad extension and use. For many years - particularly in the early days of the New Deal, the
Court was regarded by many, by its constitutional interpretation of the Acts of Congress, as a block to legitimate
progress. In recent years, however, the Court has acted generally as a conservator of fundamental values and
significantly advanced them in areas, like racial discrimination.
The boldest conception of the delegates to the American Constitutional Convention was that the Federal
Government was not superior to the State Government; the State and Federal Governments each had their share
of sovereignty; each operated directly upon its citizens; each was supreme in its field.
A famous legal case from the distant past might explain clearly the source of some of our present difficulties. To
illustrate the difficulties of comprehending our governmental system, while at the same time illustrating the
division of functions in our government, I would like to choose an example - not from the present tensions which
mar our near-perfect relationship; but rather from incident which occurred more than 110 years ago.
I would remind you of the very famous case of "the People vs. McLeod." In the years 1837 and 1838, there was
considerable difficulty along the American-Canadian border, due largely to the overly-enthusiastic desires of
many American citizens to bring democracy to Canada by force against the British crown. The Montreal
Transcript for December 23, 1837, summed up the atmosphere as follows:
"The concurrent statements of the Canadian press, the American press, and of private letters, leave no longer
any doubt of a hostile feeling along, and within, the American frontier - a cherished hope of perpetuating their
own blind prejudices at the expense of the British Government, which, with all its noble characteristics, has in
their eyes the damning sin of being a monarchy."
In one of a series of incidents along the border, a group of Canadians sought retaliation against an unauthorized
raiding party of American citizens and destroyed the steamer Caroline in a New York port. An American citizen
was killed; and three years later, a Canadian by the name of Alexander McLeod was arrested and imprisoned by
the State of New York on a charge of murder. Inasmuch as the British Government assumed responsibility for
the actions taken as a matter of international relations between the two countries, it was generally agreed by
experts in international law that McLeod was being unlawfully detained. At that time the position of Secretary of
State - corresponding to your Minister of External Affairs - was held by a very famous American, and a former
Senator from Massachusetts, Daniel Webster. Mr. Webster, although using the restraint necessary for the
support of Congress and public opinion, practically admitted that the arrest and trial of McLeod was improper;
and Presidents Harrison and Tyler (who succeeded Harrison upon his death) agreed.
The British and Canadian authorities assumed that this would be an end to the matter, and that their demand for
the release of McLeod would be instantly met. Such, however, was not the case. The President, through Daniel
Webster, pointed out that the Executive Branch of the Federal Government was forbidden by the Constitution to
interfere with the conduct of the case by the Judicial Branch of the State Government. They also pointed out that,
because of the division of functions between local and federal authorities, they could not require the local
prosecuting attorney to dismiss the case. The British Ambassador in Washington, Mr. Fox, wrote Secretary of
State Webster, however, that his Government could not "admit for a moment the validity of the doctrine that the
Federal Government of the United States has no power to interfere with the matter in question and that the
decision thereof must rest solely and entirely with the State of New York"; and he talked darkly of further action
to free McLeod.
Next, the British wondered, if it was impossible to interfere with the Judicial Branch of the State Government
under existing law, could not the U.S. Administration, as leader of the majority party, obtain action by Congress
to change the law. (Of course, Congress cannot change the Constitution, which in our country is supreme over all
federal and state statutes.) But President Tyler did send a message to Congress urging legislation for the removal
of such cases from state courts to federal courts, on the grounds that such incidents embarrassed the Federal
Government in its conduct of international relations. But the President, despite his anxiety to conform to the
wishes of the increasingly hostile British, could only request such legislation; and, although it was eventually
passed, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, to whom the McLeod Case was referred, took a very dim view
of any action being undertaken with respect to the case by the Executive Branch. You might also be interested to
know that, although the House of Representatives was anxious to review all of the correspondence and
documents in the State Department relating to the case, it could not demand that information, but only request it
if, it said by Resolution, the President did not feel this to be incompatible with the public interest.
So history presents us with a case 110 years old to remind Americans and Canadians of the dangers in
misunderstanding the governmental process of the other country. The McLeod case illustrates the role of the
American President and his Secretary of State as the chief spokesmen for my nation in foreign affairs; the role of
Congress as the only body with legislative power, a power separate and distinct from that exercised by the
President; and the role of states as individual entities within the Federal Government whose jurisdiction in
certain matters cannot be infringed by federal action. In addition, the case illustrates the checks and balances
which exist not only between the Federal and State Governments, but also between the three branches of
Government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Finally and most important today, it illustrates how our system
of government can appear to others to speak with one tongue but many voices, and thus create
misunderstandings which lead to unnecessary tensions.
Incidentally, I didn't mean to leave Mr. McLeod languishing in jail without telling you the final outcome of his
case. His attempt at habeas corpus, which the Federal Government supported, failed in the New York Supreme
Court as the result of a judicial opinion which has been much criticized in international law circles; but as
somewhat of an anti-climax, he was subsequently tried by a local court and acquitted by the jury. All of the
trouble caused by his arrest was unnecessary.
A great heritage has been passed on to both of us. Our job now, of course, is to maintain it in a changing world
and pass it on with its basic protection for the average citizen, undisturbed.
The responsibility of those who now hold elective office is thus especially great. As one who has served several
years in our House of Representatives and in the United States Senate, I must admit that the task of
representation is not always as simple as it sometimes seems to students of the legislative process. Those of you
who aspire to public office should be reminded that it is not always easy to be on the side of the angels. Indeed, on
most issues it seems as though the angels are not with us - at least not politically, as the questions that face us do
not involve moral issues of right and wrong - but rather the settlement of conflicting claims of powerful interests.
For example, though I believe that the St. Lawrence Waterway would benefit substantial sections of my country
as well as yours - yet its effect on New England, and particularly on the Port of Boston which I represent, might
be unfortunate. The easy answer on the course to adopt would be for the Representative to vote for the national
interest, but am I not sent to the Congress to represent the needs of my people. It is not a moral question, nor is
the answer obvious as to whether we should vote twenty million dollars more for hospital construction - even
though we have at the same time a heavy budgetary deficit. I am not even as convinced as is Mr. Dulles, our
Secretary of State, that foreign policy is a moral issue, for if this is not simply a struggle for survival by the
powerful states but a crusade against the evils of the materialistic system that the communists espouse, how can
we, to defeat Soviet Communism, ally ourselves closely with the communists of Yugoslavia?
If our country's foreign policy were based on moral grounds alone - it would be difficult to understand how we
can reconcile our favoring freedom for the people behind the Iron Curtain on the one hand and yet opposing
freedom for the people of Morocco on the other - merely because in our case we have air bases there. The point is
that the questions on which we vote only rarely involve issues that admit an easy solution. Some politicians vote
as the result of hoping to appease political pressures at home and stay in office and become, according to
Dryden's Epilogue to the Duke de Guise:
"Damned neuters in the middle
way of steering
Are neither fish nor flesh nor
good red herring;
Not Whigs, nor Tories they; nor this
nor that
Nor birds, nor beasts; but just a kind
of bat;
A twilight animal, true to neither
cause
With Tory wings, and Whiggish teeth
and claws
while others like Senator Taft in our country, or Sir Wilfred Laurier or Louis St. Laurent in yours, vote
according to their convictions. But their convictions are after all the result of their own lives, their environment,
their experience and prejudices, their glands and blood pressure, and thus their convictions may bring them to
the wrong conclusion, as occasionally did Senator Taft's, while the politicians who supinely follow the wishes of
the people may end up voting right, for under our federal system the needs of the individual state must be given
recognition, for the sum of the real interests of the separate states, in those cases where they do not conflict, is the
National interest.
But in the final analysis, the only way to national survival is for our political leaders to accept the view-point
expressed by Edmund Burke in his famous letter to the electors of Bristol. After stating his position on Britain's
relations with the American colonies, he wrote: "Gentlemen, you have my opinion on the present state of
affairs…I feel warmly on this subject and I express myself as I feel…Flattery and friendship are very different
things and to mislead them is not to serve them. I cannot purchase the favor of any man but council him from
what I think is his ruin."
We cannot afford the luxury of irresponsibility in national affairs. Today our economic and political system is
competing with that of the Communists.
In 50 years the Communists have moved outward with unparalleled swiftness so that now they control over one-
third of the world's population and their shadow hangs over the lives of many millions of men in the free world.
Their economic system - rigidly controlled - devoted completely to the aggrandizement of the state, steadily is
closing the gap in productive supremacy that once we enjoyed. The troubles and pressures of the 18th Century
when our country began pale in significance with those we now face, for basically challenged are all of the
suppositions upon which our founders based our government: that there are inalienable rights - rights granted by
God and not by the state - that man is a political being - that he is rational - that the state is organized for his
welfare and to protect his rights - that rule by the majority is not only more just, but more efficient.
Unless we can prove again the truth of these fundamentals, then time will continue to serve the cause of our
enemies.
In conclusion, I would like to address a brief word to the present relations of our two great countries. I am not
attempting to minimize the disputes which have caused an unfortunate amount of resentment and distrust on the
part of both Canadian and American citizens; neither am I able to offer a simple formula for the solution of these
problems. But I know that I speak for the great majority of American people when I say to you that the United
States highly values her fraternal friendship and association with Canadians. If you and I, the citizens and
officials of our two great nations, and the press, can all emphasize these positive values and traditions which
insure the continued amity of the United States and Canada, then there will be less danger of a deterioration in
our relationship resulting from temporary insignificant or politically inspired controversies. If the United States
and Canada, with their common language, common history, common economic and political interests and other
close ties cannot live peacefully with one and other, then what hope is there for the rest of the World. We have a
responsibility to demonstrate to all peoples everywhere that peaceful and stable existence by powerful countries
side by side, can remain a permanent reality in today's troubled world.
It is my hope that the people of Canada, by their careful judgment and clear thinking stability, will refuse to
permit the pressures of the day to weaken those foundations laid a century ago. Let us put away the
misunderstandings and misconceptions which give rise to uncertainty and confusion at the present time, just as
they did over one hundred years ago; and then our two nations will continue to grow in friendship, to grow in
prosperity, and to grow in peaceful and democratic achievement.
Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy, Chattanooga,

Tennessee, December 10, 1953
This is a redaction of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. One draft of this speech
Library. A link to page images of the speech is given at the bottom of this page.
It is a great pleasure to be here today in Tennessee, and to become better acquainted with your famous and justly
celebrated state. I value most highly my association in the United States Senate with two of the most able
members of that body, Estes Kefauver and Albert Gore, with both of whom I had the pleasure of serving in the
House of Representatives, and I can assure you that they have wasted no opportunity to tell me about the
advantages and assets of the Volunteer State. I am also a long admirer of your Andrew Jackson, and have framed
on my Senate office wall a letter of President Jackson in 1836 warning against "attempts to build up political
power irresponsible to the will, or faithless to the trusts, of the majority."
Only a short time ago I had an opportunity to learn more details about Tennessee's industrial development in a
special advertising supplement to the Sunday New York Times . I acquired a good many copies of that paper
because it also contained an article by myself describing some of the problems currently facing New England,
including southern competition. The Tennessee advertising section substantiated, rather than contradicted, many
of the points in my article.
I would like to discuss with you today some of the issues which concern New England and the South with respect
to this whole question of industrial development and migration.
Possibly you will say that you know of no instances where companies have abandoned their Massachusetts plants
and simultaneously established the same operations in Tennessee. But the process of industrial migration is more
subtle and indirect. More often, firms start by operating mills in both New England and the South, then abandon
their northern plants in periods of decline and later expand their southern operations when prosperity returns.
Beginning chiefly with cotton textiles over 25 years ago, this pattern of industrial migration has spread to other
industries. Since 1946, in Massachusetts alone, 70 textile mills have been liquidated, generally for migration or
disposition of their assets to plants in the South or other sections of the country. Besides textiles, there have been
moves in the machinery, hosiery, apparel, electrical, paper, chemical and other important industries. Every
month of the year some Massachusetts manufacturer is approached by public or private southern interests,
including Tennessee, offering various inducements for migration southward. Other manufacturers warn their
employees that they must take pay cuts to meet southern competition or face plant liquidations.
Why do our industries move to Tennessee and to the South, with all of the attendant consequences to their
employees and community?
It would be unfair to imply that your natural advantages have not been responsible for a large share of this
industrial migration. Perhaps most important of all, the South has a much larger supply of farm workers to draw
upon for industrial employment, permitting wider selection of the most productive employees. Pure, fresh water;
nearness to raw materials and production factors; greater space; a milder climate; and the hospitality shown new
industries in new areas are also southern advantages which should not be denied. Nor should we deny or seek to
hamper the rapid efforts of the South to obtain for itself some of New England's own many and well-known
advantages, in skilled labor, research, markets and credit facilities.
However, it is an unfortunate fact that the southward migration of industry from New England has too
frequently taken place for causes other than normal competition and natural advantages, which causes I shall
detail in a moment. It is particularly unfortunate when one realizes the impact such industrial migration has
upon New England. Although our states are far from depressed or undeveloped, and our citizens still enjoy a
standard of living and per capita income above that of the nation as a whole, the lack of sufficient new industry to
replace the old plants lost to the South has retarded New England's economic growth. Its industrialization,
manufacturing employment, share in particular industries, and per capita income have not kept pace with
increases in the rest of the country, even in 1953, one of our most prosperous years. What is true of New England
generally is particularly true in Massachusetts, where we have been unusually dependent upon manufacturing as
a source of employment and income.
In Tennessee, on the other hand, the trend has been in the opposite direction. Between 1939 and 1952, the
number of manufacturing plants and wages in Tennessee more than tripled; the number of manufacturing
employees nearly doubled; and the value of manufacturing output has increased by some 450%. Thousands of
new industries, and billions of dollars in investment in plant expansion, have poured into this state. The same
trend, of course, is true for the South as a whole. The 11 Southeastern states, for example, between 1929 and 1950
increased their per capita income 179%. The gain for the nation as a whole was 111%; for New England, 85%.
It would be wrong for New England to attempt to retard industrialization of the South. Although New England is
at a locational disadvantage in reaching the rapidly expanding markets of the Southeast and the Southwest, New
England, who must sell to the South, benefits from this tremendous increase in purchasing power. To the extent
that locational advantages of southern industries offer real efficiency, New England consumers share the benefits
of such efficiency with the entire nation.
But while recognizing New England's gains from southern industrialization, and the natural advantages of
southern industry, we must also recognize that the serious consequences of industrial migration are not all due to
these natural advantages.
There are two other major reasons influencing this remarkable industrial development. The first has been the
influence of Federal programs. The Tennessee Valley Authority, which I shall discuss in more detail in a moment,
is only one of these. Tennessee has also received from the Federal Government a disproportionate share of
government contracts, tax amortization certificates, federal construction projects, grants in aid, and similar aids
to its economy in comparison with Massachusetts, partly due to our own uninterest. In 1952, Massachusetts, with
50% more population than Tennessee, received 1% of the value of federally financed construction projects; while
Tennessee received nearly 15% of such contracts. Massachusetts, in fiscal 1952, contributed nearly 4 times as
much as Tennessee to the Federal Government in taxes; but Tennessee received from the Federal Government 4
times as much as Massachusetts in expenditures for rivers, harbors, and flood control projects under the Army
Engineers. The latest figures available show that, as of one year ago, tax amortization certificates had been
awarded Tennessee valued at twice those awarded Massachusetts, despite the fact that Massachusetts deserved a
larger proportion than Tennessee in terms of manufacturing capacity, defense contribution, proportion of
industry, need for expansion, and so forth.
The second major reason - influencing industrial migration from New England to the South and the relative
development of those two areas - is the cost differential resulting from practices or conditions permitted or
provided by Federal law which are unfair or substandard by any criterion. An inadequate minimum wage
permits industries moving South to pay wages below the subsistence level. A weakened Walsh-Healey Public
Contracts Act permits them to bid for Federal contracts despite wage levels substantially below their northern
competitors. A Labor Relations Act which has frozen unionization permits employers to run away from unions
and particularly a union shop by moving to Tennessee or other southern states. Various tax loopholes encourage
migration to take advantage of tax-free plants, charitable trusts, and other privileges. These are some of the
Federal policies which unduly accentuate this cost differential and industrial migration.
Although time does not permit us to examine each of these aspects of the struggle for industry between New
England and the South more closely, permit me to cite in contrast two examples of inducements which Tennessee
offers to industry through the New York Times advertisement -the Tennessee Valley Authority, an example of a
Federal program which has been greatly beneficial to Tennessee although Massachusetts and New England have
no comparable program; and your tax-free plant and site program, an example of what I deem to be unfair
competition.
First: There is no denying the fact that the low cost power made possible by the TVA is a consideration in the
location and development of business. The man who wants to start a moderate sized industry with a demand of
500 kilowatts and a monthly use of 100,000 kilowatt hours finds his annual electric bill in Boston would be
$26,800; in Chattanooga $11,000. There is not a single Federal hydro-electric project in the state of
Massachusetts or indeed in the entire six-state New England area. There is not a single R.E.A. cooperative or
utility district, such as you have in Tennessee, in the whole state of Massachusetts. We do have municipally-
owned electrical plants in Massachusetts similar to yours; but they must purchase their power from the private
utilities at rates nearly twice as high as those paid by your municipal system here. Interestingly enough the rates
in these two regions were at approximately the same levels in 1932; but by 1948, the bills for 250 kilowatt hours a
month had declined about 18% in New England and about 47% in Chattanooga.
It is my position, a position not shared by all segments of opinion in New England, that our answer to your power
advantage in the struggle for industry should not be attempted dilution of power development in Tennessee; but
instead the development of our resources in Massachusetts and New England. The TVA is not "creeping
socialism" because it attracts industry which might otherwise locate, remain or expand in New England. It is a
challenge to us to seek further utilization of our own natural resources. I do not want to see your electric bills for
industrial power go up; I want to see our bills go down.
Perhaps Massachusetts will never enjoy the same advantages in the field of power as Tennessee. Our fuel costs
are higher; we have fewer land areas which can suitably or profitably be flooded; and our river valleys are less
adaptable to power and multi-purpose development. Nevertheless, the power potential of the rivers of Maine and
other New England states, of a tidal project at Passamaquoddy, of the St. Lawrence and Niagara, have not yet
been fully tapped. The current Federal Inter-Agency Survey of Water Resources has been continually
hamstrung, and its conclusion postponed, by inadequate appropriations. If New England can see this
comprehensive survey financed and completed, and obtain therefrom a comprehensive formula for its power
development, we will be able to move ahead with definite knowledge and goals.
But if we are to pursue these objectives, we need the help of the South. I am hopeful that southern Congressmen
and Senators will not attack any such program, as some of them have attacked appropriations for this Inter-
Agency Survey; and still more have opposed other programs to bolster the economy of New England - including
Defense Manpower Policy 4 assisting labor surplus areas to get defense contracts, and the Walsh-Healey Act, to
which they attached the restrictions of the Fulbright Amendment - as "Federal interference with the forces of
free competition." For, as I have previously pointed out, the South has long recognized more than any other
region the tremendous importance that the Federal Government can play in developing the resources of an area.
Moreover, so inter-dependent is the economy of the United States that any increase in tempo in New England
from the development of its power potential or other aids will stimulate industry in the South.
Let us turn now from the TVA, which incidentally I will be touring this week, to the Tennessee Industrial
Revenue Bond Building Act of 1951. It is my understanding that this Act, as amended in 1953, authorizes all
incorporated municipalities and counties to erect buildings and acquire sites, as inducements to new industry,
through the issuance of revenue bonds. The New York Times advertisement goes on to proclaim proudly:
"Since the bonds are exempt from state and federal taxation, and most materials used in the building are also tax
exempt, it is possible for local governments to provide factory space at a lower financial outlay in most cases than
would be possible for such space to be provided by private financing.''
This constitutes, in my opinion, unfair competition to the private companies which must pay higher interest rates
to finance taxable bonds for a new plant. Indeed, in effect, the taxpayers of Massachusetts and every other state
are handing a subsidy to Tennessee and the industry moving into Tennessee and other southern states to take
advantage of this subsidy. Textile, apparel, machine, leather, abrasive, paper and other important industries have
been lured to these states at least partly through the use of industrial development revenue bonds. I understand
that last year the city of Elizabethton, Tennessee, approved a 6 million dollar bond issue to finance the erection of
a plant for Textron, Inc., once a major source of employment in New England. Although this particular deal
apparently fell through, Textron has located many of its southern plants through the use of various tax loopholes,
including charitable trusts. I am also told that the city of Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, planned to build a 4.5
million dollar plant for the Wamsutta Mills, a New Bedford, Massachusetts, firm. Again, this was one
arrangement which did not work out, partly because investment bankers are increasingly reluctant to handle
such bonds. But I am sure you know of many more successful examples, not only in Pulaski and Merryville,
Tennessee, but other parts of the South, involving firms from New England and elsewhere.
Why are such securities exempted from federal income taxes when they are issued for a proprietary rather than
for a public purpose? The U. S. Chamber of Commerce, the Investment Bankers Association, the Municipal
Finance Officers Association, the American Bar Association's Section of Municipal Law and others have all
condemned this practice.
I am hopeful that southern spokesmen and statesmen, including your able Representatives in Congress from
Tennessee, will assist me in my efforts to plug up this federal tax loophole. In the long run, fair competition is just
as important to the South as it is to any other section. There are areas in Tennessee and the Southeast which
already share New England's troubles of surplus labor areas, a declining textile industry, one-industry towns,
and the out-migration of industries to take advantage of unfair inducements elsewhere. These are all problems, in
fact, that exist now in many parts of the country and which will multiply as the economies of those regions
mature; and which will particularly trouble the Southeast because of your dependence on textiles, already hit by
the impact of synthetic fibres, foreign competition and migration. Chattanooga, Knoxville, Memphis and
Nashville have all experienced some labor surplus.
Moreover, tax subsidies are no foundation on which to build stable industries. Virginia repealed its tax exemption
law in 1946, on grounds that it meant unstable industry and an unstable tax base. It was unfair to existing
business, said one Virginia spokesman, for "someone has to pay in the long run." Although 6 southern states
besides Tennessee have statutes offering tax exemptions to new industries, the others do not. The Southeastern
States Tax Officials Association has condemned the practice of tax-free municipal plants as "inequitable and
unfair to industry in the state and detrimental to the taxpayers of the state because what is given away must be
paid for by other businesses and individuals, ultimately, thereby creating an unhealthy social and economic
condition."
Industries thus attracted are migrants, not new enterprises. Their home offices are generally not in Tennessee,
but in New York, Boston or elsewhere. Once having accepted your tax benefits and a few years of heavy profits,
they may again move, leaving your community as well with empty buildings, stranded workers and a heavy bond
issue. As such use of public credit spreads, no community can be sure of the stability of the enterprises on which
its citizens depend for their livelihood. I am told that your town of Elizabethton, with only l0,000 people, had $26
million in municipal bonds for private industrial plants in February 1952, and was planning another issue to
bring this total to $51 million, or an additional debt load of more than $5,000 plus interest for every man, woman,
and child in the town! What happens when their new-found benefactors leave for another bargain elsewhere?
I intend to work for the elimination of unfair competition of this character in Congress, and urge the South to
support this move for its own benefit. This is not an issue between North and South, but one concerning the
stability and integrity of our entire national economy. The competitive struggle for industry will and must go on,
but it must be a fair struggle based on natural advantages and natural resources, not exploiting conditions and
circumstances that tend to depress rather than elevate the economic welfare of the nation.
Contrast, if you will, your TVA with your program of tax-exempt factories. The one utilizes the vast resources of
the Federal Government to develop publicly the natural, human, and material resources of an area; the other
robs the Federal Government of its tax dollars by utilizing a public advantage for private gain. The one
contributes immeasurably to the economic progress of our nation and all of its citizens; the other abuses a federal
tax policy in order to benefit one section of the country at the expense of another. The one sets a standard for all
the nation to admire and emulate; the other offers a path which is eventually self-destroying for those who follow
it.
New England's answer to the South lies neither in prohibiting federal power and other programs aiding the
South; nor, as some have maintained, in cutting wages or social benefits in New England or meeting subsidy with
more subsidies; for in the end all of us are harmed and our problems remain unsolved. Instead positive action is
required. For this reason I presented to the Senate in May of 1953 a comprehensive program calling for federal
legislation aimed at the correction of these abuses.
I called for action to aid the expansion and diversification of industry in our older areas to replace the traditional
industries lost through migration. Such aid would include providing loans and assistance to small business,
retraining unemployed industrial workers, tax amortization benefits for industries expanding in areas of chronic
unemployment, developing natural resources, and aiding local industrial development agencies. I further called
for more adequate security for the jobless and aged who are the victims of industrial dislocation. But that is not
enough. The Minimum Wage, Walsh-Healy, Taft-Hartley, Unemployment Compensation and Social Security
Laws must be improved to prevent the use of substandard wages, anti-union policies and inadequate social
benefits as lures to industrial migration. Tax loopholes must be closed, and equal consideration given to all areas
in the administration of policies dealing with tax write-offs, transportation rates or government contracts and
projects; for these should not properly be factors inducing plant migration.
These are some of the policies within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government affecting New England's
economic status. At no time did I suggest in this program that any solution of New England's difficulties must be
at the expense of the economic well-being of the South. I was anxious that the program be studied not as a
political or regional issue, with heated arguments and oversimplified solutions, but rather as a program of
mutual benefit for all, based upon the inter-dependent economies of New England, the South and the nation. It
was not my intention to absolve New England itself from all responsibility for its economic ills, or to make the
South our whipping-boy in an appeal to the emotions of the man on the street. This is a problem upon which
inter-regional cooperation, not political antagonisms, is needed. It calls, not for a single simple solution, but many
steps consistent with the approach I have outlined.
The South, instead of fighting such a program, should welcome it for the stability that it promises and the
safeguards that it assures to the South's new and proud industrialization. It is a common goal that lies ahead of
us - the expansion and prosperity of every section of the nation, not the ephemeral aggrandizement of one at the
expense of another through the exploitation of impermanent and ultimately self-destroying values. In checking
such practices, the alliance of both South and North is needed if we would carry out our common pledge "to
promote the general welfare and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy on the Saint

Lawrence Seaway before the Senate, Washington, D.C.,
January 14, 1954
Library. A link to the page image is given at the bottom of this page.
(1) I am frank to admit that few issues during my service in the House of Representatives or the Senate have
troubled me as much as the pending bill authorizing participation by the United States in the construction and
operation of the St. Lawrence Seaway. As you may know, on 6 different occasions over a period of 20 years, no
Massachusetts Senator or Representative has ever voted in favor of the Seaway; and such opposition on the part
of many of our citizens and officials continues to this day. I shall discuss the bases of that opposition
subsequently; but in initiating a comprehensive study on this issue, I limited myself primarily to two questions
which have not previously been before those Massachusetts Senators and Representatives opposing the Seaway,
two questions which are indeed facing all Members of the Congress on this issue:
First, is the St. Lawrence Seaway going to be built, regardless of the action taken in the United States Senate on
this bill?
and
Secondly, If so, is it in the national interest that the United States participate in the construction, operation and
administration of the Seaway?
A careful, and I believe thorough and objective, study of this issue has fully satisfied me that both of these
questions must be answered in the affirmative.
(2) The evidence appears to be conclusive that Canada will build the Seaway. Although they frequently overlook
this fact, Seaway opponents now appear to take this for granted. I have studied the Act passed by the Canadian
Parliament authorizing the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway by Canada, which was dependent only upon
the United States participation in the power project. As you all know, such participation is now assured through
the license granted by the Federal Power Commission to the New York State Power Authority, subject only to
rejection of a final attempt at litigation which is practically assured in the Court of Appeals. Construction has
been delayed only pending this final step. The Canadian law entitled "An Act to Establish the St. Lawrence
Seaway Authority" (15-16 George VI, Ch. 24, 1950), and the official statements of the Canadian Government,
make it clear that Canada will build the Seaway alone and cooperate on the power project with New York,
although the door is left open for American participation if we should so decide at this session of Congress.
Indeed, the Toronto Telegram stated in an editorial of January 9 following the State of the Union message that
"President Eisenhower's call to Congress to get cracking on the Seaway arouses only a mild and skeptical interest
in this country, because Canadians have made up their minds that the best thing for them to do is to build the
Seaway themselves." We can no longer doubt that the Seaway will be built, regardless of how we vote today.
(3) We are then confronted only with the second question, is it in the national interest of the United States that we
participate in the construction, operation and administration of the Seaway as authorized by the Wiley Bill? That
question has been answered in the affirmative by every President, Secretary of Army and Defense, Secretary of
Commerce, National Security Council, National Security Resources Board, and other administration officials for
the past 30 years, including President Eisenhower and other representatives of his administration. The President
stated in that part of his message on national defense:
"Both nations now need the St. Lawrence Seaway for security as well as for economic reasons. I urge the
Congress promptly to approve our participation in its construction."
Mr. President, our ownership and control of a vital strategic international waterway along our own border would
be lost without passage of this bill. If Canada builds the seaway alone, it may not only be a more expensive
proposition, due to the difference in topography, requiring higher tolls over a longer period of time, but the
Seaway will still be paid for to a great extent by the American interests whose use thereof will be many times
greater than the Canadians. Thus the economy of the United States will have paid for the greater part of the
Seaway at a higher cost, but the United States Government will have no voice in the decisions regarding tolls,
traffic, admission of foreign ships, defense and security measures, and priorities. Inasmuch as the United States is
going to benefit both economically and militarily from the construction of the Seaway, and inasmuch as the Wiley
Bill provides that the Seaway will be self-liquidating, and require comparatively small appropriations over a 5-
year period, I believe that our participation is in the national interest, and therefore should not be defeated for
sectional reasons.
(4) I refer to "sectional reasons" because I have been urged to vote against the Seaway, on two other grounds,
neither of which is related to the unchangeable fact that Canada will otherwise build it alone and that our
participation is important. These two points of opposition, entirely sectional in nature, are:
1. The Seaway will work an economic hardship upon Massachusetts,
and
2. The Seaway will be of no direct economic benefit to Massachusetts.
I would like to discuss each of these questions briefly, inasmuch as they not only explain the basis of much of the
traditional opposition to this measure in my state and other states, but also, I believe, because they involve the
very nature and responsibility of the United States Senate and our Federal Union.
(5) First, will the Seaway work an economic hardship on Massachusetts?
Of course, inasmuch as the Seaway is to be built anyway, regardless of American participation, such arguments
are of necessity only academic; for the issue here is not whether the Seaway should be built, but whether the
United States should participate in that project. However, inasmuch as I have devoted considerable time and
effort in the Senate to an analysis and alleviation of some of the economic problems now troubling New England,
I am especially concerned with these many predictions of injury to my state and region resulting from the
Seaway.
(6) The Port of Boston.
The primary attention in this discussion of the Seaway's effect upon our economy has centered upon the Port of
Boston; and I have therefore analyzed carefully figures on Port traffic, largely furnished me by the Boston Port
Authority. In the first place, at least 75% of the Port traffic is coastwise, intraport and local, which no one has
claimed will be affected by the Seaway. Of the remaining foreign traffic, an examination of imports reveals that
practically all of it is coal, fuel oil, petroleum, food products, beverages and other items for consumption within
the New England area. Other raw materials used by New England manufacturers, such as wool and rubber,
make up a large part of the remainder of this import traffic. It is obvious that none of this traffic will be diverted
by the Seaway.
(7) With respect to goods shipped by rail out of the New England area, I have had the opportunity to see a
comprehensive analysis of New England's chief rail exports, and only a small portion of these were foreign-made
imports arriving through the Port of Boston; and even a smaller portion of these few items went to the area
which the St. Lawrence Seaway would serve. Consequently, only an extremely small percentage of foreign import
trade will be lost to the Port of Boston at most. Even if as much as 22% of these imports were lost, as has been
alleged by some but which the figures do not support, even if all of this were lost, the total loss in tonnage would
be less than 5% of the annual traffic handled by the Port.
(8) With respect to exports, which total less than 2% of Port traffic, opponents of the Seaway have suggested only
that the export grain trade might be affected once the Seaway is in operation. The analysis of New England rail
traffic bears this out. It cannot be denied that some or all of the Port's export grain trade may be affected by the
Seaway. However, in 1952, in terms of tonnage handled, this trade amounted to only 9/10 of 1% of the total
traffic in the Port of Boston; and due to the mechanical nature of the operation, involved only a small number of
employees. Thus, although grain as a bottom cargo has some significance beyond its own tonnage, nevertheless,
even if the entire export grain trade was lost to the Port, the over-all effect upon its traffic, and the economy of
Boston and New England, would be almost negligible.
(9) In short, even if the Port of Boston were to lose all of its export grain, and as much as 22% of all foreign
import trade as the result of the Seaway, a figure which exceeds the claims of its strongest opponents and cannot
be supported by the traffic analysis, even under such circumstances the over-all decline in terms of total traffic at
the Port would be less than 6%; and since 1945 the variations in the Port's traffic from year to year have been
practically always greater than 6%.
(10) There has been some speculation that if the Seaway is not built by Canada and the iron ore begins to move
out of Labrador, the Boston Port would receive this traffic. However, the rail haul from Boston to the steel-
producing areas in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois is considerably greater than that from the competing ports in
Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York; and, although the latter may be affected by a current Interstate
Commerce Commission case, it is even clearer that the newer steel developments in Maryland, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania will be served by ports considerably closer than Boston. I think it is not only speculative but overly
optimistic to hope that Boston would get any substantial share of this trade if the Seaway were not built. Of
course, as I have already indicated, the Seaway is going to be built, and will then provide for the transportation of
iron ore over a water haul equal to the haul from Labrador to Boston, and a rail haul of approximately 20% the
distance from Boston to Youngstown. No Atlantic port would carry such ore then; and it is therefore extremely
doubtful whether either the Port of Boston or the New England railroads would wish to make considerable
expenditures in adapting their facilities to handle this iron ore traffic when it will most certainly be carried by the
Seaway within a period of several years.
(11) In short, I do not feel that the effect of the Seaway upon the Port of Boston will be of any lasting significance;
and there are some who believe that in the long run traffic at the Port will be stimulated. What is more important
to the Port of Boston, as pointed out by the President's Committee on the New England Economy, is the fact that
a 1948 sampling of New England firms showed that 81% of their exports were shipped out of New York instead
of Boston. If those in New England who have decried the loss to the Port of Boston resulting from the Seaway
would only divert their own export traffic to the Port, the gain would be many times as great as any loss suffered
by construction of the Seaway,
(12) New England Railroads
For these same reasons, I have been unable to find any serious injury to the New England railroads resulting
from the construction of the Seaway. The analysis of New England's rail traffic, which I mentioned before,
indicates that New England's chief rail exports were largely consumption goods or highly manufactured
industrial products and equipment which have a high unit value in which the cost of transportation is a relatively
small portion. It is doubtful that these goods would be shipped over 1500 miles to the Gaspe Peninsula, to go over
the Seaway instead of the quicker and more direct route via rail. Moreover, only a small portion of these goods go
to the area to be served by the Seaway; and whenever any goods are so diverted, of course, it will be a further
gain for the Port of Boston.
(13) With respect to goods shipped by rail into New England, by far the largest single item is coal from West
Virginia, Kentucky, and other coal producing states; and this, like most of the other items which are shipped into
the region by rail, will continue to come by this more direct route. Again, any Seaway diversion of goods for
consumption in Massachusetts and New England will be a gain for the Port of Boston. The only major exception
is grain, and I have already discussed the fact that export grain may be lost to the New England railroads and
ports, but this represents only 1/3 of 1% of the entire rail traffic handled by the New England railroads. The
other 90% of the grain shipped into New England would not be affected by the Seaway, inasmuch as present
routes utilizing the Erie Canal and railroads are considerably shorter and more economical than even the Seaway
will provide. On the contrary, the increased industrial activities in the Middle West may well build markets for
New England manufacturers, and traffic for the New England railroads and ports. But permit me to repeat the
one unchangeable fact which makes discussion of possible gain or loss to Massachusetts irrelevant to the pending
measure; namely, that the Seaway is going to be built, its economic consequences are going to be felt, whether
beneficial or not, regardless of the vote in the United States Senate.
(14) However, this discussion of the possibilities of economic gain to the Port and railroads leads to the other
"sectional question", namely how will the St. Lawrence Seaway help Massachusetts? There have been a great
many claims advanced along the lines that it would be of help to my state; but I have studied them with care and
must say in all frankness that I think they are wholly speculative at best. I know of no direct economic benefit to
the economy of Massachusetts or any segment thereof from the Seaway, and I have been urged to oppose the
Seaway on these grounds, inasmuch as the initial investment, even though repaid, will come in part from
Massachusetts tax revenues.
(15) But I am unable to accept such a narrow view of my functions as United States Senator; and in speaking on
the Senate floor on behalf of the New England economy I stressed my opposition to the idea that "New England's
interest is best served by opposing Federal programs which contribute to the well-being of the country,
particularly when those programs increase the purchasing power of New England's customers. Where Federal
action is necessary and appropriate, it is my firm belief that New England must fight for those national policies."
(16) Moreover, I have sought the support of Senators from all sections of the country in my efforts on behalf of
New England, pointing out to them not only the concern which they should have for an important region in our
country, but also the fact that an increase in economic activity in New England would benefit the nation as a
whole. For these reasons, I cannot oppose the Seaway because the direct economic benefits will go largely to the
Great Lakes and Middle Western areas. I could not conscientiously take such a position, and at the same time
expect support from the Senators in the Middle West or any other part of the country for those programs and
projects of aid to New England.
(17) The Seaway is going to be built; the only question is the part we shall play in opening our fourth coastline.
To those in my state and elsewhere who oppose our participation in the construction of this project for national
security merely because the economic benefits go elsewhere, I would say that it has been this arbitrary refusal of
many New Englanders to recognize the legitimate needs and aspirations of other sections which has contributed
to the neglect of, and even opposition to, the needs of our own region by the representatives of other areas. We
cannot continue so narrow and destructive a position. As was so well stated by a famous Massachusetts Senator
over 100 years ago, our aim should not be "States dissevered, discordant, (or) belligerent"; but "One country,
one Constitution, one destiny."
Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy at the Cathedral

Club, Brooklyn, New York, January 21, 1954
The Major responsibility facing the Congress, indeed the entire country, is the maintenance of a strong and
vigorous foreign policy. The function of that policy, of course, is to protect the security of the United States, to
keep the peace if possible, and to retain on the side of the free world the balance of power. A foreign policy is
constituted of many ingredients. Certainly of fundamental importance to its success is our military strength; for
even though it is unused, its potential adds significance to our every action. The truth of this axiom is readily
apparent from a study of the post-war foreign policy of the Soviet Union. For no country in the recent history of
the world, with the exception perhaps of Hitler during the Munich crisis, has used the threat of a powerful army
equipped for instant war with more effectiveness than have the Russians. It has been the factor which has won
them in the critical years from 1945 to the present time success after success, though not a single Russian soldier
has been forced to sacrifice his life during this period. It is equally apparent that military strength is a vital
ingredient of an effective American foreign policy. To our failure to possess it in 1950 can be attributed in great
measure the beginning of the Korean War and many other setbacks to our hopes and aspirations in the last 9
years. Thus the maintenance of a military potential second to none is of fundamental importance not only for
defense in case of war but for the peacetime security of the United States.
Today the President submitted to the Congress a military budget which reflects the fiscal aspects of the
fundamental shift in the implementation of our foreign policy which was indicated by Secretary Dulles in his
speech earlier this week before the Council on Foreign Relations here in New York. This change in policy had
momentous implications for all Americans and should be so understood; for, while it may decrease the prospect,
as has been argued, of successive Koreas scattered throughout the world, it may also, if our warnings are not
heeded, increase the possibility of the United States being forced to become involved in atomic action. Secretary
Dulles gave clear warning to the Chinese and Russian leaders, in his speech in New York, that if they should
begin another limited Korean-type war the homeland of neither the Chinese nor the Russians would be a
sanctuary from direct atomic attack by the strategic air force of the United States. Mr. Dulles stated "the way to
deter aggression is for the free community to be willing and able to respond vigorously at places and with means
of its own choosing." Secretary Dulles and the leaders of the present administration have obviously concluded
that the West can no longer afford to fight a series of marginal wars or successive police actions which sap our
strength and neutralize our friends. It is preferable, they believe, to face the enemy with prospects of all-out
warfare, rather than drift through years of perpetual discord and struggle.
Basically this represents a change in our approach to the problem of containing the expansion of the Soviet
Union, which has too often tended, as Secretary Dulles pointed out, to be merely a reflex action to Soviet
initiative. Our policy of containment originated in 1947 when the Communists, in defiance of the World War II
agreement between the Russians and Winston Churchill, attempted by intensive guerilla action to seize control of
Greece, which had been placed under the protection of the free world. In response to this threat, President
Truman came before Congress and, by requesting assistance for Greece and Turkey, originated the Truman
doctrine. Later that year there was spelled out in the Foreign Affairs Quarterly, in an article by Mr. X, later
identified as George Kennan, the leading Soviet expert in the American State Department, a comprehensive and
detailed analysis of what steps would be necessary to prevent the Soviets from seizing strategic areas in the world,
areas vital to our security. The implementation of this policy called for the building of strength in those areas
surrounding the post war Soviet zone of control, stretching in a great half moon from Norway down through
Greece and Turkey to the Middle East across to the Orient through Japan to Alaska. The purpose was to prevent
gradual deterioration in our position and a consequent increase in the relative strength of the Communist bloc,
resulting finally in a situation where the Communists could face the prospects of war with a certitude of victory.
Though the immediate threat then was in the Eastern Mediterrean, the general challenge was not alone to the
Greeks and Turks, and it became obvious that further assistance in other areas was necessary. Thus, in 1948
economic assistance to Western Europe on a massive scale was started through the Marshall Plan. We realized at
that time, with the atomic monopoly held by the United States, that the chief threat to our security was not a
military one, but rather from the danger that the standard of living of the people of Western Europe would fall
below the marginal level, and that active and vigorous Communist parties within those countries would profit
from their hardships. By 1949, however, it was apparent that, although the Communist challenge was world-
wide, our assistance was concentrated. The Communist threat became especially heavy in the Middle East and
Southeast Asia. Dominated by colonial powers for more than a century, with a large percentage of their people
unable to read or write, with an average income in many of the areas of $40 or $50 a year, and a life expectancy
in the poorest country of 25 or 26 years, the people of this great region stretching from the eastern
Mediterranean to the South China Sea offered a ready target to Communist infiltration. To give them some
confidence that under a free system they could hope for a better life, to counter the Soviet subversion and
propaganda, the United States initiated programs of technical assistance and propaganda, for all the countries
along the Soviet underbelly. These programs, of course, are still in effect and have had, in some areas, significant
results.
Towards the end of 1949 it became obvious, however, that the Soviets were concentrating on building up and
maintaining the most powerful military forces in the world, forces which, as I have said, provided power and
support to their diplomacy and propaganda, encouragement to their supporters and a constant threat to their
enemies. In 1949, therefore, we initiated the North Atlantic Treaty, which not only provided for mutual
cooperation in building up military forces in the West, but also resulted in the United States' guarantees of the
territorial integrity of all NATO powers. We hoped by this means to avoid the mistakes of World War I and II
where doubts about our ultimate actions were sufficient to encourage the Germans to commence military action
without fear of the United States. It was our hope that the warning of United States' retaliation in case of a
Western European invasion would offset the weakness of European armies at that time and would prevent the
Russians from marching to an easy victory. Even today, after three years of build-up, a build-up substantially
slower than our earlier hopes for the NATO forces, this threat of American retaliation remains the chief defense
of the Continent of Europe.
Since then the military guarantees of NATO have been widened; we are attempting to include within a mutual
defense pact the major countries of the Eastern Mediterranean. The day may come when neutralism ceases to
hold itself out as a practical alternative for many of the peoples of Asia and our system of mutual guarantees will
become world-wide.
But until this is accomplished, the new policy announced last week faces grave difficulties and dangers. It would
be difficult, for example, for the United States to commence atomic retaliation against communist aggression in
Burma, if Burma had from the beginning of the cold war shown uninterest in the cause of the free world and
opposed vigorously any action that would result in closer defense arrangements with us.
But this prospect of a unilateral world-wide Monroe Doctrine for the Atomic Age is only one of the complications
of the new policy. A second complication, that of the limitation on atomic weapons against current communist
tactics, is suggested by the present war in French Indochina. The war there has been proceeding with growing
intensity since 1945. The burden has been borne almost totally by the French who have lost more officers than
yearly graduate from the French military academy at St. Cyr. The French fight there against the communist
forces of the Viet Minh, the native armies led by Ho Chi Minh, who despite his record as a lifelong communist,
has influence penetrating all groups of society because of his years of battle against French colonialism.
French Indochina offers a sharp contrast with the struggle in Korea. There we were supporting a courageous and
valiant native government in their desire to be independent of the Communists. In French Indochina, because of
the decades of heavy and unilateral control that the French have maintained over this Colony, the native people
too often tend to regard the French as the real oppressors, and the rebel forces, even though Communist, as
liberators. Thus the natives have played, unlike the South Koreans, a relatively small part in the war against the
Communist; the burden has been carried chiefly by the French with an increasingly large investment in military
assistance by ourselves, and the prospects of a Communist defeat become more distant. The pressures in France
are growing steadily for cutting their investment and loss, and either withdrawing or working out an
arrangement for a negotiated peace with the leaders of Viet Minh - a peace, I must add, which will in my opinion
ultimately and inevitably result in Communist domination in French Indochina. For Indochina is probably the
only country in the world where many observers believe the Communist-led element would win a free election.
Moreover, since the end of the Korean war, the Chinese, who were hard pressed in the fighting - probably more
hard pressed than we ever imagined at the time - have now been able to catch their breath. Their assistance to the
forces of Viet Minh is thus steadily growing, and they themselves, and this is a most significant fact, are steadily
increasing their own military strength. Some observers believe that within two years the Chinese Communists
will have developed over 150 modern divisions. They will then become, after the Soviet Union and the United
States, the greatest single military power in the world, lacking only an atomic arsenal and an industrial capacity
to sustain it, to put them in the first rank. This power will be under the direction of native leadership which has
increasingly evidenced aggressive and rapacious intentions towards the countries along their southern border.
Under these circumstances, we must ask how the new Dulles policy and its dependence upon the threat of atomic
retaliation will fare in these areas of guerrilla warfare. At what point would the threat of atomic weapons be used
in the struggles in Southeast Asia - in French Indochina - particularly where the chief burden is carried on the
one side by native communists and on the other by the troops of a Western power, which once held the country
under colonial rule? Under these conditions at what point would our new policy come into play? All observers
agree that it is vital to the security of all of Southeast Asia that Indochina remain free from Communist
domination, for if Indochina should be lost undoubtedly within a short time, Burma, Thailand, Malaya and
Indonesia and other now independent states might fall under control of the Communist bloc in a series of chain
reactions. Such an occurrence obviously would have the most serious consequences for all the Middle East and
Europe, and indeed for our own security. Thus French Indochina may well be the keystone to the defense of all of
Asia.
But if the Chinese do not intervene directly, and merely increase their supplies to the native Communist forces,
and send informal "volunteer" missions to assist in the training of troops and the handling of more complicated
equipment, at what point would it ever be possible for us in the words of Secretary Dulles to employ "massive
retaliatory power"? It seems to me that we could be placed in a most difficult position of either giving no aid at
all of the kind that is necessary to bring victory to us in that area, or the wrong kind of aid which would alienate
the people of great sections of the world who might feel that the remedy was worse than the disease. Of course,
Mr. Dulles feels that the threat of attack will prevent the brush fires from starting far more effectively than could
subsequent efforts to assist the forces of freedom in each of these areas against the well entrenched communist
guerilla or native armies. But once the brush fire begins to spread, and particularly if it spreads through a series
of localized combustions, then the new policy might be confronted with a serious dilemma.
The third question presented by Mr. Dulles' policy involves the constitutional and political nature of our
government. Under the Constitution the President must seek the consent of Congress for a declaration of war;
and even in the absence of a formal declaration, congressional consent would be required before such a drastic
step could be taken as ordering our strategic air force into action against a country who might retaliate with
bombs on our own citizens. And yet, if the President goes to the Congress and asks their consent, does he not give
a warning to the enemy of our intentions, a warning that might under present conditions permit retaliation on us
before our own blow became effective? Here again you can see that the "new strategy" most recently announced
by the Secretary of State has implications of the utmost seriousness. We will not now, as formerly, resist
aggression wherever it occurs. Now the United States is being committed to instant retaliation against the
aggressor anywhere we choose with any weapons we choose. Now we are making it clear to the Communists that
an act of aggression will be followed by retaliation by the United States on the home territory of China or Russia.
Thus, we have witnessed how far the United States has come since the neutralism of the 30s.
Some may ask whether the American people have been able to adjust their thinking so rapidly and so extensively
as to support a policy which, under a broad interpretation, could call for instant atomic attack upon the
homeland of any aggressor against any country in any part of the world.
I would not maintain for a moment that the policy of containment which has undergone steady revision and
improvement since 1946 should not be constantly and critically re-examined. But, the people of the United States
in their consideration of the new policy enunciated by the President and Secretary of State Dulles, with all of its
implications concerning our military manpower and our relations with other nations, are entitled to the fullest
answers of at least these three basic questions:
First, what would be the relationship of this policy to any attacks upon those nations who may at that time be
neutral or unfriendly in their attitudes toward a defensive alliance with the United States?
Second, of what value would atomic retaliation be in opposing a Communist advance which rested not upon
military invasion but upon local insurrection and political deterioration?
Third, does this new policy depend for its success on the relinquishment by Congress of its traditional, though
time consuming and well publicized power to consent to our involvement in all-out atomic war?
Foreign policy, is of course, a bi-partisan affair; and I do agree with Secretary Dulles' general objective of
preventing a series of exhausting, though localized, engagements of military manpower. Nor do I seek
Congressional interference in the Executive's responsibility for the conduct of our foreign affairs. On the
contrary, I would oppose any constitutional amendment or other attempt to restrict that executive responsibility.
But I think that all of us have our own responsibility to call attention to what we believe to be the implications of
those policies into which we might otherwise drift without a public awareness of their significance. In this
country, one of our most fundamental rights is to petition and question the Executive and Legislative branches of
the Government about the policies which they pursue. I raise these questions tonight, not only for the
consideration of high officials of our government, but also because no foreign or domestic policy can be
effectively maintained in a Democracy such as ours unless it is understood and supported by the great majority of
the people. In an era of supersonic attack and atomic retaliation, extended public debate and education are of no
avail once such a policy must be implemented. The time to study, no doubt, to review and revise - is now. For
upon our decisions now may well rest the peace and security of the world - indeed the very continued existence of
Mankind.
Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy at meeting of The

Young Presidents Organization at Harvard Business
School on January 23, 1954
This is a redaction of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. There is one copy of this
speech in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy
It is a privilege to meet at the Harvard Business School with the Young Presidents Organization of the United
States.
It seems to me that there is before the Congress today one fundamental issue which has more significance to
growing businesses than any other: that of maintaining and expanding our business prosperity and preventing
the disaster of a serious recession. Experience has shown that it is the new, independent and growing businesses
which are hit first and hardest in a declining economy.
I do not think it is necessary with this group to go into detail concerning current economic indicators, and
whether they portend a serious decline in the near future. I would like instead to discuss what Congress and the
Federal Government should be doing in this area to prevent any serious set-back from occurring, whether that be
termed a "rolling readjustment" or "orthodox recession." I realize that the President will set forth his program
in his economic message next Thursday; but I would like to take this opportunity to outline my views as to what
such an anti-recession program should entail.
The fundamental premise upon which such a program must be based, in my opinion, is that the foundation of the
American economy is the American consumer. Too frequently this is overlooked by those preparing the
programs aimed at maintaining prosperity and full employment. Neither a program of psychological confidence
or tax assistance to investors will induce plant expansion on the part of those industries now cutting back for lack
of customers. The recent decline in department store and other retail sales, which further cuts production in our
basic industries, may be traced directly to the decline in national and personal income caused not by lower farm
prices but the steady fall in manufacturing hours and employment since last July. During this same period of
time, the rate of unemployment has risen at a higher rate than that which accompanied the economic decline of
1949; and lay-offs in a wide variety of manufacturing industries have been increasing, the labor force has been
decreasing, and the hiring rate has dropped. In short, Congress must at this session consider the ways and means
of increasing the employment, the income and the purchasing power of the consumer; and through such
stimulation of purchasing power indirectly stimulating industrial investment and expansion.
I would like to mention briefly seven non-partisan legislative steps which should be included in any minimum
anti-recession program:
1. First, we must counteract an economic decline with tax reductions. This is, of course, an easy and traditional
method of keeping additional funds in the hands of consumers. But to be effective, it cannot be an across-the-
board percentage reduction which benefits primarily those in the higher income brackets, nor can it be effected
primarily in the fields of corporate taxation or dividends. Instead, (a) We should reduce the present level of excise
taxes which are a direct tax upon, and therefore a discouragement to, consumption.
(b) We should raise the current dependency exemption from the present outmoded figure of $600 to a level
possibly as high as $1,000, in order to increase the purchasing power available to the large family consumers who
should be our best customers.
(c) We should raise the taxable income level beneath which no tax is required from the present $600 to a level
possibly as high as $1500, in order to make certain that the benefits will accrue largely to those in the lower
income group. For it is this latter group whose income is channeled primarily into the purchase of your products,
rather than personal savings or investment.
(d) Of course, I need not add that it would be unthinkable to reverse this trend by imposing a manufacturers
excise tax or sales tax, which would directly decrease purchasing power and discourage consumption.
2. Secondly, we must strengthen our unemployment compensation system. Our experience in 1949 indicated that
this program was one of the bulwarks in maintaining national income at a time when employment was suffering a
serious decline. But unless important improvements are made in the system, it will not prove adequate as a means
of maintaining purchasing power should a full recession get underway.
(a) Coverage of workers for unemployment compensation benefits should be extended to those employed by
smaller firms, the Federal Government, and others exempted under the present law.
(b) The Federal Law should be amended to provide minimum standards for the amount of benefits paid to
unemployed workers, and the duration of the period for which such payments may be made. The wide variation
in state plans today not only denies adequate protection to workers in many parts of the country, but also
discriminates between employers with respect to their tax burden in support of the program.
(c) A Federal program of reinsurance should be established, whereby the unemployment funds presently
accumulating in the general Treasury would be utilized in a national reinsurance fund to be drawn upon by those
states whose reserves are dangerously depleted by a heavy run of unemployment. Even under the recent
prosperity, many states, of which Rhode Island is the most notable example, find the solvency of their state
unemployment compensation reserves threatened by years of chronic unemployment. There is pending before the
Senate Finance Committee at the present time a bill passed by the House which I regard as a step in the opposite
direction of this goal; for it provides only for loans, repayable under harsh conditions, rather than reinsurance;
and it distributes the greater portion of these accumulated funds to all of the states regardless of need or the use
to which such funds should be put.
(d) It has also been suggested that such Federal funds may be necessary to provide supplementary benefits to
individuals whose unemployment is the result of mobilization readjustment, or the consequences of developments
in technology or international trade.
3. Third, we must strengthen our social security program in order to provide more adequate purchasing power
for those consumers who, being past the retirement age, draw neither wages, unemployment benefits nor other
substantial sources of income.
(a) Social security coverage should be extended to an additional 10 million persons a year, including farm
operators and workers, lawyers and other self-employed professional persons, additional public employees and
domestic workers, fishermen, and others.
(b) The benefit level must be increased, inasmuch as the present minimum of $25 a month is obviously
inadequate to maintain a decent standard of living, even when supplemented by personal savings and other
income. I have joined in recommending changes in the wage base and benefits bases, as well as an increase in the
minimum.
(c) Protection should be extended to those forced to retire before age 65 by reason of a total or permanent
disability. This is one of the glaring gaps in this country's social insurance protection today.
(d) Other improvements are required in our social security program, including the amount of permissible
monthly earnings under the retirement test, and other eligibility requirements. Such changes must, of course, be
financed on the present basis of a social insurance reserve adequate to meet the needs of the system.
4. Fourth, a more solid floor of purchasing power should be established through strengthening of our Fair Labor
Standards Acts.
(a) A minimum wage of 75¢ an hour is obviously outdated and permits the exploitation of too many workers at
submarginal levels. I have introduced legislation to raise this minimum to at least $1 an hour, thereby assuring
workers of a more decent wage and enabling them to maintain a more decent living standard through increased
consumption.
(b) The coverage of the Fair Labor Standards Act, like Social Security and Unemployment Compensation, must
also be extended to many millions of workers now exempted from its protection.
(c) The Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, which prevents the tremendous spending power of the Federal
Government from contributing to a lowering of these standards, is similarly in need of improvement. The
Fulbright Amendment passed 2 years ago has made difficult the effective adoption of industry-wide minima, and
should be clarified or repealed.
5. Fifth, and I turn now from direct income stimulants to the area of maintaining employment, we must make
certain that a reservoir of necessary public works is available, and the funds therefore appropriated, such
reservoir to be utilized before a recession is well underway. Public works are now recognized as a basic, although
in my opinion limited, method of providing additional employment opportunities. Certainly it can hardly be
denied that there remains a tremendous need in this country for additional housing, hospitals, schools, dams,
highways and other projects, all of which could be integrated into a public works program far more effective
than those hastily but belatedly begun 20 years ago. Such a program aids not only those employed upon such
projects, but also the steel, lumber, machine tool, cement and other industries whose goods, services or
equipment will be required.
6. Sixth, the Federal Government must adopt a more effective defense manpower policy to relieve spot
unemployment in various areas of the country. The recent furor over President Eisenhower's support of the new
Defense Manpower Policy No. 4, which is loosely intended to encourage the awarding of defense contracts to
plants in areas of serious unemployment, has concealed the shortcomings of this policy. The new program
represents a reduction in the efforts exercised under the previous policy, particularly in its elimination of bid-
matching provisions, and needs considerable improvement if it is to be of any assistance to the textile centers of
New England, the coal mining areas of the Appalachians and the other so-called distressed areas in all parts of
the country.
7. Seventh, a program of industrial job retraining should be adopted in order to enlarge the job opportunities for
workers laid off in declining industries. If the thousands of unemployed textile workers of Lawrence,
Massachusetts, for example, could be trained to relieve the shortage of employment in the electronic or other
more technical industries willing to expand in Lawrence or elsewhere, we would have struck at this problem of
unemployment before its effects could multiply throughout other segments of the economy.
I sincerely believe that this briefly outlined program is one on which all men of goodwill can unite. Partly for that
reason, I omitted discussion of other fundamental but more controversial problems affecting our economy.
Certainly, for example, (a) we must have a program which maintains a prosperous agricultural economy.
(b) Our monetary and credit policies, although of less value in stimulating consumption, must certainly not be
applied in the opposite direction.
(c) Tax and credit aids to investment and expansion, as previously mentioned, are of importance, but are of
particular importance if they can result in the modernization of machinery which would bring lower prices and
additional consumption.
(d) We learned in the 30's that collective bargaining by labor organizations was an instrument for general
economic advance; and I believe that the Taft-Hartley Law must be amended to prevent undue restrictions on
such collective bargaining.
(e) Properly expanded international trade;
(f) Protection against the economic consequences of ill health, and
(g) Loans to bring small businesses through tight spots, are among the other items which must of necessity be
included in such a program. Of course, our present programs of
(h) Insuring mortgages and
(i) bank deposits, and
(j) curbing excessive or fraudulent speculation in securities, must be continued.
(k) In addition, Congress should reexamine and strengthen the Employment Act of 1946, in order to make it a
true "full employment" act.
Consideration should be given to providing comprehensive powers to deal with such a situation on a stand-by
basis, to be utilized when conditions warrant. I must confess my own disappointment in the lack of any new or
magic formula with which to meet these problems; but I nevertheless believe that, with these weapons, we can
meet the challenge of economic decline; and the growing businesses of which you are the chief executives will
continue to grow.
Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy at the

Introduction of Governor G. Mennen Williams of
Michigan to the Massachusetts Democratic Party at the
Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner, Boston, January 23, 1954
This is a redaction of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. One copy of this speech
Library. A link to page images of this speech is given at the bottom of this page.
It is a great privilege to welcome to Massachusetts as speaker for the evening, Governor G. Mennen Williams of
Michigan. It is my pleasant task to serve in a dual capacity, and not only introduce Governor Williams to the
Democratic Party of our state, but also to introduce the Massachusetts Democratic Party to Governor Williams.
Governor, I want you to meet the Democrats of The Bay State. Perhaps you have heard from the Democratic
National Committee, as was reported in the January issue of Fortune magazine, that this is the "worst state in the
Union to deal with because there is no one to deal with." In short, the Democratic Party here, its leaders and its
members, wear the brand of no man, no boss and no machine. Such courageous and fighting leaders as Ex-
Governor Dever, Congressman McCormack, Ex-Mayor Curley, and the late Maurice Tobin have all maintained
their individual independence regardless of any attempts to control their votes, their actions, and their minds.
Such a diversity may be a cause for despair to the Democratic National Committee and those interested in the
smooth dispensation of patronage - that is, back in the days when patronage was a subject of interest in to the
Democrats. But it is not a source of despair or shame to the Massachusetts Democrats; on the contrary, we are
proud of our independence and we intend to maintain it regardless of what others may say or write about us.
Such a course is not always easy; for, as pointed out by Edmund Burke many years ago: "Those who would carry
on the work of the public must be hardened to expect the most grievous disappointments, the most shocking
insults, and what is worst of all, the presumptuous judgment of the ignorant upon their actions."
I have no doubt, Governor Williams, that you too have been subjected to attacks by those seeking to control your
office or your party. But I know from your record that you have always maintained the principles of political
freedom and integrity which are fundamental to the vigor and progress of the Democratic Party. I know of your
courage, and your service overseas as a Lieut. Comdr. in the Navy, and of your decoration of the Legion of Merit
and the Presidential Citation. I know of your experience in Washington, as a Government lawyer for the Social
Security Board and the Department of Justice before the war and Deputy Director of OPA shortly after the war.
We all know that as Governor of Michigan since your election in 1948, you have given inspired leadership to the
problems of unemployment which have, form time to time, affected areas within your state. It is therefore with
great pleasure that I welcome you here tonight on behalf of all of the citizens of Massachusetts; that I have
introduced to you, Governor, our fighting, independent and progressive Democratic Party; and it is with great
pleasure that I introduce to the Democratic Party, the fighting, independent and progressive Governor of
Michigan, Governor G. Mennen Williams.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy to the American

Federation of Labor National Legislative Council on
Tuesday, February 16, 1954
exists in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Library. A link to page images of the draft is given at the
bottom of this page.
One week ago the American Federation of Labor, through its Executive Council meeting in Miami, Florida,
reached an historic decision: to do battle against that current practice which undermines the stability of our
economy and the security of our wage earners - the runaway shop. 1500 hat workers in South Norwalk,
Connecticut, have been on strike for more than 6 months because their employer refuses to include in their
contract a job security clause protecting the income of the workers should the company continue its transfer of
operations elsewhere. Last year, despite the recurrent optimism voiced by many New England organizations,
over 4,000 workers in one industry alone - the textile industry - lost their jobs due to the southward migration of
textile mills from New England, New York and Pennsylvania. Last year, workers in a score of industries
throughout the New England and Middle Atlantic states, and to a lesser extent other parts of the country, were
told that they would be forced to take wage cuts in order to meet low wage competition from other areas, or else
face the prospects of a move by their employers to such low wage areas.
The American Federation of Labor and other organizations who seek to do battle against this industry migration
are doing what is only right and necessary. This is not an issue between North and South, nor between labor and
management. Instead it is an issue that concerns the stability and integrity of our entire national economy. When
I spoke in Chattanooga, Tennessee last December on this problem, I discussed as a prime example of the unfair
competitive practices utilized in moving industry from one section of the country to another the issuance of tax-
free municipal bonds, a practice I shall discuss with you shortly. That very week, the citizens of Knoxville,
Tennessee discovered that their state law permitting this practice could be turned against them when a large mill
in Knoxville was induced to abandon that location for a tax-free plant in a small Tennessee community. North
Carolina has experienced an outmigration of hosiery mills to lower wage areas. Businessmen and labor officials
in all parts of the country have indicated to me their concern over the problem of runaway plants which affect
the prosperity of their community, the payrolls of their workers and the fairness of competition in all parts of the
country.
It is only rare that an obvious example of a runaway plant presents itself. More often, the process is more subtle
and indirect than a simultaneous liquidation of a New England plant and a transfer of these operations to
southern plants. Instead, firms start by operating mills in both New England and the South, then tend to abandon
their northern plants in periods of decline and later expand their southern operations when prosperity returns.
This is true not only of movements from North to South, but movements within a region or even from this
country to locations in Puerto Rico or elsewhere.
Of course, natural advantages have been responsible for a large share of this industrial migration. A larger
supply of labor, primarily from the farms; nearness to raw materials and production factors; and greater space
are among the many advantages which attract industries to the South or rural areas away from the cities of New
England and the North. But you and I know that these are not the only reasons; and I am certain that the
National Legislative Council of the American Federation of Labor is interested in those Federal policies which
have a bearing upon this problem. Certainly we are justified in maintaining that the policies of the Federal
Government should not contribute to the practice of runaway shops. Neither should they be so inadequate, in
terms of standards or protection offered, that these serious abuses of fair competition, with all their consequences
upon the national economy and interstate commerce, may prevail.
The list of Federal programs and policies which affect industrial dislocation is a staggering one. Federal power
policies have enabled a manufacturer to move to Chattanooga where his annual electric bill is less than half of
what it would be in Boston. The Fulbright Amendment to the Walsh-Healey Act permits southern cotton mills to
pay outrageous low wages on Government contracts, far below the level paid by New England textile
manufacturers. The newly announced policy on channeling defense contracts to distressed areas of substantial
labor surplus, recently endorsed by President Eisenhower, does nothing to permit New England textile mills to
gain an equal footing with the runaway shops and other southern plants in obtaining such contracts. The use of
the capital gains tax as an incentive for liquidation, and the tax-exempt status of charitable organizations as a
method of tax avoidance, have both been used by those engaged in moving industry to the low wage areas. The
developing markets and industry in the South, which we should not oppose, have been due to a great extent to
RFC loans, Federally constructed or financed power projects, soil conservation programs, farm price supports,
grants-in-aid, construction projects, military installations, tax amortization certificates, and other policies and
programs of the Federal government. Moreover, if we are to expand and diversify industry in our older areas in
order to replace the traditional industries lost through migration, we must consider a program which might well
include providing loans and assistance to small business, retraining unemployed industrial workers, providing
tax amortization benefits for industries expanding in areas of chronic unemployment, developing natural
resources, and aiding local industrial development agencies. We must provide more adequate security for the
jobless and aged who are the victims of industrial dislocation. Equal consideration must be given to all areas in
the administration of policies dealing with tax write-offs, transportation rates, and government contracts and
projects; for these should not be factors inducing plant migration.
The average hourly wage paid most of the workers in your organizations are far in excess of $1.50 an hour; but
because the Federal minimum wage is only half of that figure, an outdated 75¢ an hour, many industries
migrating to rural communities of the South pay workers only that less than subsistence wage, and those
employees under learner permits even less. The President has seen fit to make no recommendation upon
increasing the minimum wage or expanding its coverage at this time. But current economic uncertainty, far from
justifying a delay in taking this step, requires immediate action in order to bring a more realistic floor beneath
the purchasing power of our workers. The old fears of unemployment, and price increases repeated by the
President's message have been amply disproven by experience under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the most
recent data on wage rates. I have previously mentioned the practice of building plants with tax-exempt municipal
bonds as an inducement to runaway plants. Those of us, including your organization, who have pointed out the
destructiveness of this practice to those who utilize it and those at whom it is aimed, were gratified by the decision
of the House Ways and Means Committee to repeal the Federal tax exemption on the interest from such bonds;
even this small step was modified so as to permit such bonds to remain tax free, and merely prevent the
manufacturer who receives such plants from deducting the rent he may pay on them to the municipality. Such a
provision is, of course, inadequate to meet this problem, particularly where a lease of the tax-free plant is not
involved.
As many of you know, I discussed each of these items in some detail in a series of three speeches delivered to the
Senate last May, wherein I set forth the problems of the older area and the area hit by industrial dislocation; and
suggested some 40 proposals to help meet these problems. Time does not permit an examination of each of these
this morning; but I would like to mention briefly one Federal policy which is of primary importance in this field,
and which will be considered by the present session of Congress: The Taft-Hartley Law.
First, let us consider the effect of the Taft-Hartley Law upon the problem of runaway plants. I am frequently told
that no one can demonstrate that the Taft-Hartley Law has in any way affected the organization of southern
industry or the movement of industry from North to South. I am sure you would not agree with that conclusion.
Statistics with respect to the unionization of our non-agricultural labor force, and with respect to the
organizational attempts of individual unions in the South, indicate very clearly that the passage of the Taft-
Hartley Law has frozen unionization to the disadvantage of New England and the cities of the North, and to the
advantage of those employers who seek to avoid unions by moving South. The degree of unionization, as you well
know, affects wages, fringe benefits, workloads, the cost of working and safety conditions, and managerial
prerogatives. Thus a non-union plant is able to operate at a cost differential which threatens the competitive
position of the employer and his workers in a unionized plant; and a non-union area offers this feature as an
added inducement to industrial migration. Indeed, the National Labor Relations Board has recently held that
employer statements which threatened plant migration if the workers supported a union was not a threat and
therefore not in violation of the so-called "free speech section."
Many sections of the Taft-Hartley Act are of concern to us here, not only in general but also because of their
effect upon industrial dislocation. The complete elimination of the closed shop, provisions for decertification of
weak unions and the encouragement of empty and evasive collective bargaining have all made more difficult the
organization of more newly industrialized areas. The sweeping ban on secondary boycotts requires garment
workers to handle textiles from runaway or substandard plants, a defect not corrected by the President's minor
recommendations on this point. The lengthy and tangled procedures and filing requirements of the Taft-Hartley
Law have led to unnecessary delays and expenditures and in effect nullify the protection of the Act for weak
unions in hostile atmospheres. The ban on participation of economic strikers in representation elections, which
will be felt even more heavily during a time of surplus labor and unemployment, has already broken the union in
those cases where strike breakers have replaced 51% or more of the strikers. Again, the recommendation of the
President falls short in attempting to correct this abuse.
However, the two sections of the Taft-Hartley Law which have probably done more damage in this field than any
others are those dealing with the pre-election and "free speech" rights of employers and employees; and those
dealing with the priority and jurisdiction of state anti-labor laws. With respect, first of all, to the free speech
section, many examples could be cited to show the effects upon labor union organization and elections of hostile
speech which, under the Act, could not even be considered as evidence of an unfair labor practice. I know of no
other field of law where a man's statements cannot be introduced as evidence to show his motives for performing
a subsequent act, simply because such statements were worded in such a way as to refrain from directly making
threats or promises. Moreover, the recent decisions of the NLRB in the Livingston Shirt and other cases indicate
that a still wider latitude will be given to the immunity afforded such statements, regardless of their effect upon
representation elections, and unions will not be permitted an equal chance to reply. The Smith Bill, which
purports to represent the President's views on Taft-Hartley, seeks to write into the statue the application of this
doctrine to representation elections. This is far different from the amendment which is needed, which would
permit the use of such statements as evidence in the light of the context in which they were uttered and similarly
prevent interference in representation elections by outside pressure groups who do not directly represent the
employer but further his interests.
With respect to the issue of Federal-state jurisdiction, the Taft-Hartley Law again adopts a position which
discourages union security and encourages industrial migration. Under section 14(b), state laws prohibiting the
union shop or other union security agreement take precedence over the Taft-Hartley Act, which permits a
modified form of union shop, as long as they are more restrictive than Taft-Hartley. These so-called right-to-
work laws apply to all plants within the state where such laws are on the books, regardless of whether the plants
are in interstate commerce and regardless of whether a union shop has been agreed upon by a national employer
and union, each of whom has units in several states. At least 16 southern or agricultural states were encouraged
by section 14(b) to adopt these more restrictive state laws. In states such as Massachusetts, on the other hand,
union security provisions more liberal than Taft-Hartley are not permitted to prevail. Thus a company may
avoid a union shop, and frequently as a result any union at all, by moving from Massachusetts to one of these 16
states.
Any doubt as to the effect upon industrial migration of this provision of the Taft-Hartley Law, and the state
right-to-work laws which it engenders, was removed in my opinion by the message sent to the South Carolina
Legislature on January 19th of this year by South Carolina's Governor James F. Byrnes. Permit me to quote
from the text of that message:
"South Carolina is engaged in free but serious competition with other southern states to secure new industrial
plants and the expansion of existing plants. The competition is keen. It will become keener in the days ahead of
us. New plants will come here because we have an abundant supply of loyal and intelligent workers….In our
effort to increase the number of industries and thereby increase the number of jobs for wage earners we have one
handicap. Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Texas, Tennessee, Arkansas, Arizona, Iowa,
Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota and South Dakota. Each has a "right-to-work statute". It declares the policy of
the state is that no person shall be denied the right to work because he is a member of a union or because he is
not a member of a union. But in South Carolina there is no right-to-work statute. Thus, South Carolina's natural
advantage of willing and competent workers has been lessened by the recent enactment of right-to-work
legislation in other southern states are actively engaged in having South Carolina manufacturers move plants to
their states."
Certainly Governor Byrnes' statement is clear evidence of the inducements to runaway plants encouraged by the
Taft-Hartley Law. Not only should section 14(b) be eliminated, but an amendment should be added making clear
that Federal law in matters of union security and other rights protected by the Act should prevail in interstate
commerce. Such an amendment, you may recall, was included in Senator Taft's Bill unanimously reported by the
82nd Congress' Senate Labor Committee with respect to union security in the building trade.
Unfortunately, the recommendation of the President was again in the opposite direction. Instead of asserting the
superiority of Federal law in regard to this Federal problem, the Senate bill proposes to permit any state to take
any action of any kind in any strike that it deems to be an emergency. This can mean compulsory arbitration,
labor injunctions, imprisonment of strikers, and a number of other remedies which a state may choose to exercise
if it decides to label a strike as an emergency. The enactment of the states' rights and free speech provisions of the
Smith Bill, even if accompanied by all of the other minor improvements recommended by the President, would
make the Taft-Hartley Law far worse than it is today, and accentuate the movement of plants from organized to
unorganized areas. As pointed out by President Meany in his statement to our Committee a week ago, "The bill
falls far short of the general overhauling of the Act which is necessary before it can be called fair to the workers
of this country."
In view of the widespread interest which has recently been expressed in this problem of runaway plants, and the
many serious questions it raises for our economy and its stability, particularly as a general economic decline gets
under way, I suggest to you that the American Federation of Labor, together with the C.I.O. and other interested
organizations, call a conference in Washington on the problem of industrial migration. Such a conference, with
experts and leaders from all fields and all parts of the country, could perform a valuable service, not only by
alerting the public and our Government officials to this problem, but also by examining public and private
methods of preventing such migration from occurring, and of alleviating the problems which such migration
creates. I submit this suggestion to you for your consideration; and I appreciate the opportunity to be with you
today to discuss this matter.
The Taft-Hartley Law and Industrial Migration
1. The Taft-Hartley Law has frozen unionization. The degree of unionization affects wages, fringe benefits,
workloads, the cost of working and safety conditions, and managerial prerogatives.
2. Harmful provisions of Taft-Hartley: In general.
a. The complete elimination of the closed shop, provision for decertification of weak unions, and the
encouragement of empty and evasive collective bargaining, have all made more difficult the organization of more
newly industrialized areas.
b. The sweeping ban on secondary boycotts requires, e.g., garment workers to handle textiles from runaway or
substandard plants.
c. Unnecessary delays and expenditures.
d. The ban on economic strikers voting.
3. Harmful provisions of Taft-Hartley: In particular.
a. Free speech.
-hostile statements cannot be considered in their context as evidence of an employer's motive in committing a
subsequent act.
-Smith bill seeks to incorporate Livingston Shirt decision and extend "free speech" to representation elections.
-Amendment which is needed: permit the use of such statements as evidence in the light of the context in which
they were uttered, and similarly prevent outside pressures.
b. Federal-State jurisdiction.
-Under Section 14(b), state laws prohibiting the union shop or other union security agreement take precedence
over the Taft-Hartley Act, which permits a modified form of union shop, as long as they are more restrictive than
Taft-Hartley, regardless of whether a union shop has been agreed upon by a national employer and union (at
least 16 states).
-Message of Gov. Byrnes (See attached statement)
-Amendment needed: (Like Senator Taft's Building Trade Bill of 1952)
-Smith Bill: worse on emergencies - injunctions, compulsory arbitration, imprisonment of strikers, etc.
CONCLUSION: Recommend a Washington conference.
Speech by Senator John F. Kennedy on H.R. 5173 before

the Senate Finance Committee, March 10, 1954
exists in the Senate Press Release file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F.
Kennedy Library. Links to page images of the press release are given at the bottom of this page.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Senate Finance Committee:

I appreciate this opportunity to appear before your Committee in opposition to H.R. 5173, the Reed Bill on
unemployment compensation. It seems to me unthinkable that, during a time when the rate of unemployment
under this Act has nearly doubled from what it was one year ago, and the rate of new claims has increased by
nearly 80%, Congress would take steps to weaken instead of strengthen our jobless insurance program.
Massachusetts has a special interest in this bill - for, like Rhode Island, it has long suffered from chronic and
seasonal unemployment, insufficient diversification of industry and heavy dependence upon manufacturing
employment. Although our benefit and eligibility standards are not excessive and we were the only state besides
Rhode Island which charged the full unemployment tax in 1953, Massachusetts has on the average paid out more
than $0.80 for each dollar collected; and our state unemployment compensation reserve at the close of fiscal 1953
was less than 5 times as great as the benefits paid during the previous year, and barely twice as great as that
year’s unemployment tax collections. Inasmuch as the 1948-1950 slump cut this state’s reserve nearly in half, a
serious recession tomorrow could endanger its solvency. The latest data indicate that only 22% of Massachusetts
workers covered by this Act could be paid benefits for the maximum 26 weeks out of the funds available.
Inasmuch as the number of Massachusetts claimants has increased in one year by more than 85%, and the rate of
new claims has jumped more than 50%, the adequacy of this program is of concern not only to the workers
whose benefits may be reduced or with-held, or to those employers whose taxes may be raised; it is of concern to
the whole state. Business Week on May 7, 1949, for example, stated that the paradox of depression
unemployment rates in Lawrence, Massachusetts, without a business depression was due, according to Lawrence
businessmen, to unemployment compensation, which they said had “proved to be an effective cushion for
business - as well as workers - against the impact of layoffs.”
What has been true in Massachusetts has also been true on a national level, where in 1949 $1.7 billion - more
than twice the 1948 level - was paid to maintain the purchasing power of unemployed workers. For fiscal 1954,
benefits will undoubtedly again exceed $1 billion. In addition to Massachusetts and Rhode Island, other state
unemployment compensation reserves may meet difficulties, if present economic trends continue to worsen, in
both large states - such as New York, Pennsylvania, California, Illinois, Michigan and New Jersey - and less
wealthy states - such as New Hampshire, Alabama, Maryland, Washington, Delaware and Alaska.
For these reasons, your Committee might consider several improvements in our unemployment compensation
system, instead of the weaknesses proposed by this complex and misunderstood bill. As President Eisenhower
pointed out, what he termed our “valuable first line of defense against economic recession . . . needs
reinforcement” if it is to play its proper role in just the type of downturn we now face. These improvements are
not contained in H.R. 5173.
A. Coverage. As pointed out by the President, Congress should act to cover 3.4 million employees of businesses
with fewer than 8 workers, 2.5 million Federal civilian employees and 200,000 agricultural processing employees,
among others, who presently face relief instead of social insurance.
B. Benefits and Duration. The President also pointed out that the present level of benefits is inadequate, having
fallen from the original goal of 50% of weekly wages to an average of 33%; and the duration of the benefits is
similarly inadequate, having permitted almost 2 million persons to exhaust their rights in a short time in 1949.
Although the President recommended state action, I favor nationwide minimum standards to prevent any
incentive for one state to undercut the standards of another.
C. Tax Base. Consideration should be given to raising the taxable wage base under unemployment compensation
from $3,000 to 3,600, in order to keep to keep it on par with OASI, enable easier bookkeeping for employers, and
strengthen reserves in states such as Rhode Island and Massachusetts.
D. Earmarking. The excess of Federal collections under the Act for administrative purposes over the
expenditures for such purposes over the expenditures for such purposes, presently about $60 million a year,
should be earmarked for strengthening the unemployment compensation program, instead of using this payroll
tax to support the Government. Such earmarking is proposed in H.R. 5173; but it proposes to use such funds in a
manner detrimental, not beneficial, to the unemployment insurance system.
I. THE LOAN FUND PROVISIONS OF H.R. 5173 WOULD NOT OFFER SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE TO
DEPLETED STATE RESERVES
General Limitations of Loan Programs.
Lending money to a state fund imperiled by heavy unemployment is unlike any other Federal aid program. When
Congress is concerned with national problems of health, public assistance, education and other programs
familiar to this Committee, it grants aid to the states on the basis of their need, and does not require such aid to
be repaid.
A Federal repayable loan fund can only hope to deal with temporary crises at most. Instead of preventing
disaster to a state reserve suffering from heavy and chronic unemployment, it merely postpones emergency
taxation to pay back the loan.
For a long-term problem such as the decline in textile employment or a serious recession, a repayable loan is not
sufficient. If a state struck by such an economic catastrophe must raise its rates to safeguard its fund or repay a
loan, it loses more industry unable to compete with other low-tax areas, and thus is faced with both dwindling tax
collections and mounting unemployment claims. Requiring such a state to be able to repay a loan under such
circumstances increases the competitive disadvantages of some employers, - contrary to the original purpose of
the Law; and improperly distributes costs over the business cycle, by requiring a state to raise its tax rates to
repay the loan at the very time when its payrolls are diminishing and its businesses need help. Finally a very basic
objection to any loan program is the fact that as many as 26 states, including Rhode Island, appear to be bound
by constitutional restrictions in seeking loans.
One purpose of our unemployment insurance program is to share the risk; for, if the tax rate on each employer
were to cover the full burden of unemployment in his industry, his tax might be as high as 20%. By pooling this
risk within the state, its burden is more evenly distributed. Similarly, risks should be pooled on a Federal-State
basis, whereby state funds which fall to a dangerously low level through no fault of their own would receive
“insurance payments” from a reinsurance reserve to which all states contribute. I support S. 710 for this purpose,
introduced by the Senators from Rhode Island, although I realize that there are alternative methods of
establishing such a reinsurance program for this Committee to consider; but certainly a loan does not fulfill this
principal of sharing the risk among all states.
Limitations of Loan Program of H.R. 5173.
The loan features of the bill before your Committee are particularly unhelpful. Compare, if you will, these
provisions with the lending provisions of the George Loan Fund, Title XII of the Unemployment Compensation
Act, which you originally recommended in 1944, and which expired on January 1, 1952.
A. First, the size of the loan fund in H.R. 5173 is limited to a maximum of $200 million, little more than New
York’s claims in a normal year. No maximum was included in the George Fund.
B. Secondly, the eligibility provisions for a loan under H.R. 5173 are too restrictive, requiring the state reserve to
be lower than the total benefits paid out during the previous 12 months (although the loan itself cannot exceed
the amount of benefits paid during the highest of the preceding 4 quarters). Under the George provision, a state
was eligible whenever its reserve fell below its annual rate of collections during the higher of the two previous
calendar years, a situation which is more likely to occur unless the state is already paying out more than it takes
in under a full tax rate.
C. Third, and most important, the repayment provisions of H.R. 5173 are too harsh. The bill provides that
employers in a state which has not repaid a loan after a period of from 13 to 24 months (on the second January 1)
face a 5% Federal penalty tax increase, and another 5% each year until the loan is repaid. This penalty applies
even though the reserve fund continues to decline, even though the state must continue to seek new loans, and
even though the excessive unemployment compensation tax is contributing to the deterioration of employment.
Such a state would be required to reduce its benefits and increase its tax rates above the normal rate of 2.7%; or
face collapse of the state system. Contrast these harsh provisions with the George Loan Fund, which contained no
penalty and required repayment only whenever, and to the extent that, the balance in the state fund exceeded the
higher of the annual tax collections during the two previous calendar years. President Eisenhower, in
recommending a loan fund, specified that repayment by a hard-hit state should not begin for 4 years “in the
interests of allowing a state a reasonable interim to readjust its economy and attract new industries.” For these
reasons, I believe the loan fund provisions of H.R. 5173 do not offer substantial assistance to depleted state funds.
II. H.R. 5173 WOULD WASTE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FUNDS NEEDED FOR BENEFIT
PAYMENTS
The second feature of H.R. 5173 distributes to the states on the basis of their covered payrolls those funds not
expended each year on administration or the loan fund. This, in my opinion, is one of the most extraordinary and
fiscally irresponsible propositions ever to come before this body. Under this provision, states would receive
monies raised by a Federal tax regardless of their need for such funds, regardless of the amounts they
contributed to such funds and regardless of the amount they may have already received for similar purposes.
Here is a bill which is extremely stringent in lending money to states in need; but which then distributes far
larger sums, without any standards, to all states regardless of need. Surely no Federal grant-in-aid program
could be approved on a basis whereby New York would receive 40 times as much as Delaware regardless of need.
The bill does not require that these funds be used for benefits; and most states today clearly would use the
Federal gift for administrative expenses. Yet Congress already appropriates all administrative expenditures
under this program, as determined by each state and reviewed by the Department of Labor and Congress; and if
the amount appropriated proves to be insufficient, Congress provides a supplemental appropriation. But this bill
requires the distribution of these funds for administrative purposes above and beyond what Congress determines
to be necessary appropriations for those purposes, and thus renders meaningless the congressional function. The
bill also requires state legislatures to appropriate the funds which Congress has raised. As stated by the Treasury
Department:
“Sound administration counsels against a system whereby a legislative body appropriates funds it has no
responsibility for raising. It is all the more undesirable if it occurs after the Congress has already appropriated
what it deems to be necessary for proper and efficient administration.”
This provision, permitting the reduction of taxes during prosperous periods, and then eliminating this aid during
recession, is in addition unsound. Moreover, a period of heavy unemployment may require more Federal and
State administrative expenses than the 0.3% tax collects; but instead of establishing a contingency fund for such
years, the Reed Bill requires each year’s surplus to be distributed in full, so that general Treasury expenditures
would be required in such a year. Certainly this Committee, which is concerned with the cash budget and the
statutory debt limit, should question a proposal encouraging the states to find new ways to spend monies which
would otherwise be retained in the Federal Treasury, including those states - and there have been about 30 of
them so far - who may already receive more in congressional appropriations for administrative expenses than
they have paid in. Such funds should be saved for benefit payments in those states today or in the future whose
reserves are threatened by serious unemployment; or at least in a contingency fund for years of heavy
administrative expenses.
III. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me add that this bill increases the prospects for complete federalization of
unemployment compensation. It provides for excessive payments of Federal funds to all states. It requires state
legislatures to appropriate funds raised by Federal tax. It encourages state employment agencies to expand their
various administrative services to be subsidized by Federal funds. Its lending provisions require a change in the
constitutional structure of many states. Its harsh provisions for repayment would keep some states continually
dependent upon Federal loans to replenish the state reserves they are unable to build up. And finally, those states
whose reserves are not adequately aided by this bill, whose benefits may have been sharply reduced and taxes
sharply raised in order to prevent a collapse during heavy unemployment, will certainly demand complete
federalization of the entire unemployment compensation system.
For these reasons, if the Congress does not now see fit to safeguard state funds by a program of reinsurance, I
believe it would be preferable to have no action at all than to enact the Reed Bill which would waste these badly
needed funds. If the lending provisions could be liberalized, and the provision for distribution of surplus funds
stricken or at least restricted to benefit payments, that would constitute some improvement; but it would be far
more logical to adopt the suggestion of the Administration and the House Minority Report that the George Loan
Fund provision be re-enacted until more comprehensive legislation along the lines outlined is possible; and until
the Commission on Intergovernmental Relations - whose establishment was recommended by the Senate
Committee on Government Operations, of which I am a member, - completes its study of this subject. This
present bill is an unjustifiable raid on our unemployment compensation benefits, and it would impair our jobless
insurance program at a time when it is in critical need of improvement.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy during his

Western Tour, Washington, April 1954
This is a transcript of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. This speech exists in the
Senate Press Release File of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy
Presidential Library. Links to page iimages of this draft are given at the bottom of this page.
I come from a beachhead on the Atlantic Ocean where this country began. To come from old New England to the
roaring Northwest for the first time is an impressive experience. Much is different - much is the same. You
border on the smoky Pacific - we on the cold Atlantic. You fish for salmon - we for cod. Your rivers are torrents
which you have harnessed - ours are only ribbons to the sea. You have great forests of high fir and spruce - our
trees fight for existence on the marginal soil of our rocky countryside. Much is different - but much is the same;
the industry of our people, their self reliance, their self respect, their character and their courage - these are the
qualities, more important than natural resources, which we hope are typical of life in the Northwest and in the
Northeast.
This trip is, as I have said, a great experience; but I am not sure that it is necessary - except for my own
enlightenment. For I have come to preach the doctrine of Democracy in the State that has prospered under its
administrations, which has sent two of its ablest exponents, Senators Jackson and Magnuson, to represent it in
the United States Senate, and which will I am confident return Democratic majorities in 1954 and 1956. For this I
believe to be essential if the fullest potential of your vast natural, economic and human resources is to be realized.
I find the atmosphere out here very different from that prevailing in Washington today. Here you are
enthusiastic about moving ahead, about building new dams, developing new industries, creating new jobs and
providing a more abundant life. With youthful vigor and vision, you are not content to stand still, and you
recognize the dangers of falling back. After all, why stand still in the country where Paul Bunyan could blow out
the lamp in the bunkhouse and be in his bunk asleep before the room was dark.
But in Washington, the Republicans are talking in an entirely different vein. They say that this year won't be as
prosperous as 1953, but it will still be good. They say that unemployment is rising, but that it isn't enough to hurt.
They say that our gross national product and our capital investment in new plants and equipment will decline
from the levels of one year ago; but they explain this by saying that our economy cannot set a new record every
year.
It is this sort of sterile, stand-still, status quo philosophy that is threatening our economic prosperity today. In my
own New England area, we need new jobs and new orders in order to hold our own and replace industries lost to
other areas. Here in the Northwest, you need new jobs and new capital in order to keep moving ahead, to provide
markets for your farms and forests, to continue the development of your resources, and to halt the waste of your
water power and the failure to utilize your minerals now lying idle in the ground. Nationwide, we need to provide
jobs every year for 700,000 additional persons. We need to provide hundreds of thousands of American families
with the goods and services which make our standard of living the greatest in the world, not to mention the
millions of the world whose markets and needs for our goods and foodstuffs are barely tapped.
To adopt the static attitude of the Republicans is to abandon faith in the potential strength of our nation. It is to
fail to understand the nature of our economy as one which must be constantly expanding and constantly more
prosperous.
We learned in 1952 that we could no longer campaign against a Hoover depression; but we know that in 1954 we
must campaign and take action against a Republican "readjustment'. Despite the many clouds now appearing on
the economic horizon, which have already seriously affected the workers and farmers in your State, the
Republicans have failed to carry out a single one of their pledges in this field. Thus it seems to me that the
Democratic Party both in the Capitol and throughout the country is faced with a most serious responsibility - to
endeavor, though a minority party, to fill the vacuum left by the Republican abrogation of leadership in this most
critical time in the life of the American Republic. In a two-party system in a country as large as ours, there must
of necessity be included within each party's ranks groups that are mutually hostile. This is the source of our
strength; without it we should be atomized into many small parties all representing a particular region or
economic interest. Thus, it is vital that the groups within each of the parties submerge their special interests to
support a general course of action. The Democratic Party did this for nearly two decades, a period during which
we changed the face of our nation and wrote into the statute books the legislation that has made easier the lives of
countless millions of Americans.
But the strange alliance of the various groups within the Republican Party which has now been given
responsibility by the American people scarcely endured a year before the centrifugal force of its warring factions
broke it apart - indeed it did not survive the death of Senator Robert Taft.
Thus today we find President Eisenhower at the head of a crusade which party storm and strife has broken and
washed upon the beach. His supporters in the Senate have deserted him on crucial issues - powerful elements in
his own party have challenged his leadership - legislation which he has opposed has been enacted - legislation
which he has supported has been ignored - and in order to carry out a minimum legislative program, he has been
forced to rely upon the party against which he led the great crusade little more than a year ago.
All this has happened at a time when the problems facing us at home and abroad are reaching maximum
intensity. The sharp increases nationally in unemployment, increases which you have experienced in this area as
well, should serve to stimulate action on a variety of fronts to strengthen our built-in stabilizers against further
recession. Yet the Republicans have failed to write into law a single one of their pledges in this field.
The functions of the RFC, which made loans to the State of Washington alone, for example, of over three
hundred and fifty million dollars have been taken over in part by the Small Business Administration, which in
the nine months of its existence has made fewer than one hundred and fifty loans, totaling less than ten million
dollars for the entire country. Instead of strengthening the Unemployment Compensation system at this critical
time to provide larger benefits over a longer period of time - the Republicans in Congress seek to enact the Reed
Bill, which dissipates the jobless trust fund upon which the buying power of our unemployed ultimately depends.
The same is true for Social Security. Near the end of the last session, some members of the Democratic Party,
including Senators Jackson and Magnuson, introduced a bill to expand and improve our program to give more
adequate protection against the hardships of old age. The President himself in his most favorable message to date
made recommendations for lesser improvements in the law; but the doors of the Republican Ways and Means
Committee are still shut - the only sign of life being when they threw on to the Senate Floor a tax bill to give relief
primarily to those who have stock in corporations.
All of these measures and many more need to be acted upon and acted upon right away. Our minimum wage
laws must be brought up-to-date, for $0.75 an hour or $30 a week does not in 1954 provide a minimum standard
of living. The Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act must be strengthened; and the Taft-Hartley Law replaced by a
new and fairer statute, if our workers are to maintain their present wage levels.
Our farm program must be revitalized, not plowed under, for farm prosperity in the Northwest means jobs in the
factories of New England; and factory jobs in New England mean farm prosperity in the Northwest. All of these
Democratic dinners have been helping Secretary Benson "eat our way out of the livestock surplus"; but they
haven't caused the voters to forget what General Eisenhower said when campaigning, that "the Republican Party
is pledged to the 90% parity price support and it is pledged even more than that to help the farmer obtain his full
price, 100% of parity." The President now says that he never promised 100% of parity; and if you read his
speeches carefully enough, you have to agree. It just sounded that way around election time.
Another example of where the General's pledge has resulted in nothing more than a general hedge has been
public power. Out here in October 1952, he said that any claim that he opposed Federal participation in power
development was creating "imaginary devils." Now that the campaign's gone - and forgotten, at least in
Washington, D. C. - the Department of the Interior and the Federal Power Commission suddenly seem to be full
of these anti-public power "devils", and I don't think they're figments of your imagination. That same static "do
nothing" policy is delaying construction of your big dams on the Columbia, eliminating new transmission lines,
and giving away the great Hells Canyon dam site on the Snake River. Perhaps I should be careful in criticizing
the operations of the Idaho Power Company at Hells Canyon, inasmuch as I am told that some of the major
owners of this corporation - which is profiting from the new policy of "local interests" development - are
residents of New England, not Idaho. I wish that, instead of using their efforts to prevent the people of the
Northwest from developing your power resources, they would use it in New England where our power costs are
three times as high and where we don't have a single Federal hydroelectric project.
New England is envious but not resentful; we want to see the Northwest develop, to see your power costs reduced,
your factories expanded and your minerals utilized. Those of us who reject the stand-still policy of the
Republicans believe in the future greatness of this country; and we know that new ideas, new leaders, new
industries, and new economic developments are going to come out of the West. For these reasons we refuse and
you should refuse to be satisfied with a mild readjustment; we want action by the Federal Government that will
keep more factories humming and more power turbines singing.
Perhaps the President is right when he says it is not yet time for any "slam-bang" action, such as a large public
works program. But when will that time come? First, we were promised action if there was no upturn by the
middle of March. Now we are told that the March figures won't be available until the middle of April. Then no
doubt we will be told that these figures won't be properly interpreted until the middle of May. It seems to me that
anyone who understands the dynamic and progressive nature of our economy could not fail to see that action is
needed today to keep us moving ahead. It may not be "slam-bang", but we can certainly use a little shove.
We need something more then a program of psychological confidence; and something more than a program
aimed primarily at benefiting investors and others in higher income brackets, as the current Republican tax bills
propose. For unless we increase the purchasing power of the consumer, and his demand for the goods and
services of our factories, there is little value in stimulating greater industrial capacity when today's capacity is not
being used.
The Republicans today are carrying on a psychological warfare the intention of which is to conceal inaction by
giving the impression of action. It thus becomes difficult for us to criticize a policy which is known as the "new
look"; which says that we are "seizing the initiative" in foreign policy. It is difficult to criticize domestic policies
which emphasize such popular slogans as "states rights", "federal-state partnership" and "middle-of-the-road".
It is not easy to arouse people to action against a "rolling readjustment" which needs no "slam-bang" action. It is
difficult to be on the side of "creeping socialism", "prophets of doom and gloom" and, what is worst of all, "egg
heads". The fact is that the American people have more frequently been the victims of the administration's
stepped up psychological warfare than have our enemies abroad. Some of the ashes from its detonations have
fallen upon us and our policies have suffered.
I am confident of the future success of our Party - our victory is as certain and inevitable as the changing tides.
But for the country's sake and for our own, I do not want the Democratic Party to gain office on the basis of
cleverly worded promises or by raising false hopes. As Adlai Stevenson so wisely stated, and as the Republicans
by now should realize: "It is better that we should lose the election than to deceive the people." For victory won
in this fashion contains the seeds of subsequent disaster. We must indeed "talk sense to the American people",
make only those promises we can carry out, and frankly state the difficulties and dangers which confront us. If
we now make promises we can not carry out the people will see we are no different than the Republicans. If we
now blame the Republicans for ills that time and circumstance have brought, the people will expect the
impossible from a Democratic victory. If in seeking office, we now make charges or state facts which exceed the
limits of fairness and validity, then the people will soon find us out, too. We would be deceiving the people to
claim that the problems of expanding our economy and maintaining our national security are not difficult tasks.
They will require the unified effort of our own Party, North and South, East and West. But as Democrats, we
know where we are going. We cannot promise the American people easy solutions to difficult problems, but we
can offer them action and specific proposals.
The Democrats will provide in 1954 and 1956 a factor which has been generally lacking under the Republican
regime and that factor is leadership; in our case, positive, purposeful and progressive leadership; a leadership
which this nation badly needs.
The old catch words and slogans which brought us success in the 30's and 40's have worn thin with the passing
years. But the Democratic faith that holds government to be the servant of the many and not the few still burns
brightly. With that faith we can tackle the new problems that are demanding new solutions. If today we use the
years of our minority for the best interests of the American people, then tomorrow it is certain that we will be
called upon again to assume positions of responsibility and leadership. And that leadership will be to further the
interests of America as a whole and not a favored few.
Let us demonstrate to a disillusioned nation that promises can mean performance - that responsible opposition
can mean constructive legislation - and that the Democratic Party does not forget the people. If we remain close
to the people, the people will remain close to us, and together we shall again make real and meaningful the
promise that for all of us is America.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy on Indochina

before the Senate, Washington, D.C., April 6, 1954
Mr. President, the time has come for the American people to be told the blunt truth about Indochina.
I am reluctant to make any statement which may be misinterpreted as unappreciative of the gallant French
struggle at Dien Bien Phu and elsewhere; or as partisan criticism of our Secretary of State just prior to his
participation in the delicate deliberations in Geneva. Nor, as one who is not a member of those committees of the
Congress which have been briefed - if not consulted - on this matter, do I wish to appear impetuous or an
alarmist in my evaluation of the situation. But the speeches of President Eisenhower, Secretary Dulles, and others
have left too much unsaid, in my opinion - and what has been left unsaid is the heart of the problem that should
concern every citizen. For if the American people are, for the fourth time in this century, to travel the long and
tortuous road of war - particularly a war which we now realize would threaten the survival of civilization - then I
believe we have a right - a right which we should have hitherto exercised - to inquire in detail into the nature of
the struggle in which we may become engaged, and the alternative to such struggle. Without such clarification
the general support and success of our policy is endangered.
Inasmuch as Secretary Dulles has rejected, with finality, any suggestion of bargaining on Indochina in exchange
for recognition of Red China, those discussions in Geneva which concern that war may center around two basic
alternatives:
The first is a negotiated peace, based either upon partition of the area between the forces of the Viet Minh and
the French Union, possibly along the 16th parallel; or based upon a coalition government in which Ho Chi Minh
is represented. Despite any wishful thinking to the contrary, it should be apparent that the popularity and
prevalence of Ho Chi Minh and his following throughout Indochina would cause either partition or a coalition
government to result in eventual domination by the Communists.
The second alternative is for the United States to persuade the French to continue their valiant and costly
struggle; an alternative which, considering the current state of opinion in France, will be adopted only if the
United States pledges increasing support. Secretary Dulles' statement that the "imposition in southeast Asia of
the political system of Communist Russia and its Chinese Communist ally…should be met by united action"
indicates that it is our policy to give such support; that we will, as observed by the New York Times last
Wednesday, "fight if necessary to keep southeast Asia out of their hands"; and that we hope to win the support of
the free countries of Asia for united action against communism in Indochina, in spite of the fact that such nations
have pursued since the war's inception a policy of cold neutrality.
I think it is important that the Senate and the American people demonstrate their endorsement of Mr. Dulles'
objectives, despite our difficulty in ascertaining the full significance of its key phrases.
Certainly, I, for one, favor a policy of a "united action" by many nations whenever necessary to achieve a
military and political victory for the free world in that area, realizing full well that it may eventually require
some commitment of our manpower.
But to pour money, materiel, and men into the jungles of Indochina without at least a remote prospect of victory
would be dangerously futile and self-destructive. Of course, all discussion of "united action" assumes that
inevitability of such victory; but such assumptions are not unlike similar predictions of confidence which have
lulled the American people for many years and which, if continued, would present an improper basis for
determining the extent of American participation.
Permit me to review briefly some of the statements concerning the progress of the war in that area, and it will be
understood why I say that either we have not frankly and fully faced the seriousness of the military situation, or
our intelligence estimates and those of the French have been woefully defective.
In February of 1951, for example, the late Brig. Gen. Francis G. Brink, then head of the United States Military
Advisory Group, in Indochina, told us of the favorable turn of events in that area as a result of new tactics
designed by Gen. Jean de Lattre de Tassigny. In the fall of that same year, General De Lattre himself voiced
optimism in his speech before the National Press Club here in Washington; and predicted victory, under certain
conditions, in 18 months to 2 years, during his visit to France.
In June of 1952, American and French officials issued a joint communique in Washington expressing the two
countries' joint determination to bring the battle to a successful end; and Secretary of State Acheson stated at his
press conference that -
"The military situation appears to be developing favorably. ... Aggression has been checked and recent
indications warrant the view that the tide is now moving in our favor. ... We can anticipate continued favorable
developments."
In March 1953, the French officials again came to Washington, again issued statements predicting victory in
Indochina, and again joined with the United States in a communique planning military action and United States
support which would achieve their new goal of decisive military victory in 2 years.
In May of 1953, President Eisenhower and Secretary of State Dulles told the Congress that our mutual security
program for France and Indochina would help "reduce this Communist pressure to manageable proportions." In
June an American military mission headed by General O'Daniel was sent to discuss with General Navarre in
Indochina the manner in which United States aid "may best contribute to the advancement of the objective of
defeating the Communist forces there"; and in the fall of last year General O'Daniel stated that he was
"confident that the French-trained Vietnam Army when fully organized would prevail over the rebels."
In September of 1953, French and American officials again conferred, and, in announcing a new program of
extensive American aid, again issued a joint communique restating the objective of "an early and victorious
conclusion."
On December 2, 1953, Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs Walter S. Robertson told the Women's
National Republican Club in New York - in words almost identical with those of Secretary of State Acheson 18
months earlier - that "In Indochina…we believe the tide now is turning." Later the same month Secretary of
State Dulles state that military setbacks in the area had been exaggerated; and that he did not "believe that
anything that has happened upsets appreciably the timetable of General Navarre's plan," which anticipated
decisive military results by about March 1955.
In February of this year, Defense Secretary Wilson said that a French victory was "both possible and probable"
and that the war was going "fully as well as we expected it to at this stage. I see no reason to think Indochina
would be another Korea." Also in February of this year, Under Secretary of State Smith stated that:
"The military situation in Indochina is favorable. ... Contrary to some reports, the recent advances made by the
Viet Minh are largely "real estate" operations. ... Tactically, the French position is solid and the officers in the
field seem confident of their ability to deal with the situation."
Less than 2 weeks ago, Admiral Radford, Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff, stated that "the French are going
to win." And finally, in a press conference some days prior to his speech to the Overseas Press Club in New York,
Secretary of State Dulles stated that he did not "expect that there is going to be a Communist victory in
Indochina"; that "in terms of Communist domination of Indochina, I do not accept that as a probability"; that
"we have seen no reason to abandon the so-called Navarre plan," which meant decisive results only 1 year hence;
and that the United States would provide whatever additional equipment was needed for victory over the Viet
Minh; with the upper hand probably to be gained "by the end of the next fighting season."
Despite this series of optimistic reports about eventual victory, every Member of the Senate knows that such
victory today appears to be desperately remote, to say the least, despite tremendous amounts of economic and
material aid from the United States, and despite a deplorable loss of French Union manpower. The call for either
negotiations or additional participation by other nations underscores the remoteness of such a final victory today,
regardless of the outcome at Dien Bien Phu. It is, of course, for these reasons that many French are reluctant to
continue the struggle without greater assistance; for to record the sapping effect which time and the enemy have
had on their will and strength in that area is not to disparage their valor. If "united action" can achieve the
necessary victory over the forces of communism, and thus preserve the security and freedom of all southeast
Asia, then such united action is clearly called for. But if, on the other hand, the increase in our aid and the
utilization of our troops would only result in further statements of confidence without ultimate victory over
aggression, then now is the time when we must evaluate the conditions under which that pledge is made.
I am frankly of the belief that no amount of American military assistance in Indochina can conquer an enemy
which is everywhere and at the same time nowhere, "an enemy of the people" which has the sympathy and covert
support of the people. As succinctly stated by the report of the Judd Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee in January of this year:
"Until political independence has been achieved, an effective fighting force from the associated states cannot be
expected. ... The apathy of the local population to the menace of the Viet Minh communism disguised as
nationalism is the most discouraging aspect of the situation. That can only be overcome through the grant of
complete independence to each of the associated states. Only for such a cause as their own freedom will people
make the heroic effort necessary to win this kind of struggle."
This is an analysis which is shared, if in some instances grudgingly, by most American observers. Moreover,
without political independence for the associated states, the other Asiatic nations have made it clear that they
regard this as a war of colonialism; and the "united action" which is said to be so desperately needed for victory
in that area is likely to end up as unilateral action by our own country. Such intervention, without participation
by the armed forces of the other nations of Asia, without the support of the great masses of the peoples of the
associated states, with increasing reluctance and discouragement on the part of the French - and, I might add,
with hordes of Chinese Communist troops poised just across the border in anticipation of our unilateral entry
into their kind of battleground - such intervention, Mr. President, would be virtually impossible in the type of
military situation which prevails in Indochina.
This is not a new point, of course. In November of 1951, I reported upon my return from the Far East as follows:
"In Indochina we have allied ourselves to the desperate effort of a French regime to hang on to the remnants of
empire. There is no broad, general support of the native Vietnam Government among the people of that area. To
check the southern drive of communism makes sense but not only through reliance on the force of arms. The task
is rather to build strong native non-Communist sentiment within these areas and rely on that as a spearhead of
defense rather than upon the legions of General de Lattre. To do this apart from and in defiance of innately
nationalistic aims spells foredoomed failure."
In June of last year, I sought an amendment to the Mutual Security Act which would have provided for the
distribution of American aid, to the extent feasible, in such a way as to encourage the freedom and independence
desired by the people of the Associated States. My amendment was soundly defeated on the grounds that we
should not pressure France into taking action on this delicate situation; and that the new French Government
could be expected to make "a decision which would obviate the necessity of this kind of amendment or
resolution." The distinguished majority leader [Mr. Knowland] assured us that "We will all work, in conjunction
with our great ally, France, toward the freedom of the people of those states."
It is true that only 2 days later on July 3 the French Government issued a statement agreeing that -
"There is every reason to complete the independence of sovereignty of the Associated States of Indochina by
insuring ... the transfer of the powers ... retained in the interests of the States themselves, because of the perilous
circumstances resulting from the state of war."
In order to implement this agreement, Bao Dai arrived in Paris on August 27 calling for "complete independence
for Vietnam."
I do not wish to weary the Senate with a long recital of the proceedings of the negotiations, except to say that as of
today they have brought no important change in the treaty relationships between Vietnam and the French
Republic. Today the talks appear to be at an impasse; and the return from Paris to Saigon of the Premier of
Vietnam, Prince Buu Loc, is not a happy augury for their success. Thus the degree of control which the French
retain in the area is approximately the same as I outlined last year:
Politically, French control was and is extensive and paramount. There is no popular assembly in Vietnam which
represents the will of the people that can ratify the treaty relationship between Vietnam and the French.
Although the Associated States are said to be "independent within the French Union," the French always have a
permanent control in the high council and in the Assembly of the Union and the Government of France guides its
actions. Under article 62 of the French Constitution, the French Government "coordinates" all of the resources
of the members of the Union placed in common to guarantee its defense, under policies directed and prepared by
the French Government. French Union subjects are given special legal exemptions, including the privilege of
extraterritoriality. The French High Commissioner continues to exercise powers with respect to the internal
security of the Associated States, and will have a similar mission even after the restoration of peace. When
Vietnamese taxes affect French Union subjects, there must be consultation with the representatives of the
countries concerned before they are imposed. The foreign policy of Vietnam must be coordinated with that of
France, and the French must give consent to the sending of diplomatic missions to foreign countries. Inasmuch as
the French did not develop experienced governmental administrators before World War II, they have guided to
some degree actions within the local governments by requiring the Vietnamese Government to turn to them for
foreign counselors and technicians.
Militarily, French control is nearly complete. The United States has in the past dealt primarily with the French
military authority, and these in turn deal with the Associated States. Our equipment and aid is turned over to the
French who will then arrange for its distribution according to their decision. The French are granted for a period
of time without limit facilities for bases and garrisons.
Culturally, the French are directly in contact with the training of intellectual youths of Vietnam, inasmuch as
France joined in the establishment of the university, installed a French rector, and provided that all instructions
should be in French.
Economically, French control of the country's basic resources, transportation, trade, and economic life in general
is extensive. In Vietnam, estimated French control is nearly 100 percent in the field of foreign commerce,
international and coastal shipping, and rubber and other export products. The French control 66 percent of the
rice export trade. Moreover, possession of property belonging to the French cannot be changed without
permission of the French; and France shares the veto right under the PAU agreement on matters affecting
France's export and import trade.
All of this flies in the face of repeated assurances to the American people by our own officials that complete
independence has been or will be granted.
In February of 1951, for example, the American Minister to the Associated States, Donald Heath, told us that the
French colonial regime had ended and that "all Indochinese Government services were turned over to the
Indochinese States." This is untrue. In November of 1951, Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk again assured
us that -
"The peoples of the Associated States are free to assume the extensive responsibility for their own affairs that has
been accorded them by treaties with France."
Last year, the Department of States assured me that -
"France had granted such a full measure of control to the 3 states over their own affairs that ... these 3 countries
became sovereign states."
In February of this year, Under Secretary of State Smith stated that the representatives of the Governments of
Vietnam and of France would "meet in Paris to draw up the treaty which will complete Vietnamese
independence." As I have said, those conversations began in July, and broke off 10 days ago. And again Secretary
Dulles stated last week that -
"Their independence is not yet complete, but the French Government last July declared its intention to complete
that independence, and negotiations to consummate that pledge are underway."
They are underway 9 months after the pledge was originally given.
I do not believe that the importance of the current breakdown of these negotiations has been made clear to the
Senate or the people of the United States. Every year we are given three sets of assurances: First, that the
independence of the Associated States is now complete; second, that the independence of the Associated States
will soon be completed under steps "now" being undertaken; and, third, that military victory for the French
Union forces in Indochina is assured, or is just around the corner, or lies 2 years off. But the stringent limitations
upon the status of the Associated States as sovereign states remain; and the fact that military victory has not yet
been achieved is largely the result of these limitations. Repeated failure of these prophecies has, however, in no
way diminished the frequency of their reiteration, and they have caused this Nation to delay definitive action
until now the opportunity for any desirable solution may well be past.
It is time, therefore, for us to face the stark reality of the difficult situation before us without the false hopes
which predictions of military victory and assurances of complete independence have given us in the past. The
hard truth of the matter is, first, that without the wholehearted support of the peoples of the Associated States,
without a reliable and crusading native army with a dependable officer corps, a military victory, even with
American support, in that area is difficult if not impossible, of achievement; and, second, that the support of the
people of that area cannot be obtained without a change in the contractual relationships which presently exist
between the Associated States and the French Union.
Instead of approaching a solution to this problem, as Secretary Dulles indicated, French and Vietnamese officials
appear to be receding from it. The Vietnamese, whose own representatives lack full popular support, because of a
lack of popular assembly in that country, recognizing that French opinion favoring a military withdrawal would
become overwhelming if all ties were entirely broken, have sought 2 treaties: one giving the Vietnamese complete
and genuine independence, and the other maintaining a tie with the French Union on the basis of equality, as in
the British Commonwealth. But 9 months of negotiations have failed thus far to provide a formula for both
independence and union which is acceptable to the parties currently in the government of each nation. The
French Assembly on March 9 - and I believe this action did not receive the attention it deserved - substantially
lessened the chances of such a solution, through the adoption of a tremendously far-reaching rider which
declared that France would consider her obligations toward Indochinese states ended if they should revoke the
clauses in the French Constitution that bind them to the French Union. In other words, Mr. President, the French
Parliament indicated that France would no longer have any obligations toward the Associated States if the
present ties which bind them to the French Union - ties which assure, because of the constitutional arrangement
of the French Union, that the French Republic and its Government are always the dominant power in the union -
were broken.
I realize that Secretary Dulles cannot force the French to adopt any course of action to which they are opposed;
nor am I unaware of the likelihood of a French military withdrawal from Indochina, once its political and
economic stake in that area is gone. But we must realize that the difficulties in the military situation which would
result from a French withdrawal would not be greatly different from the difficulties which would prevail after
the intervention of American troops without the support of the Indochinese or the other nations of Asia. The
situation might be compared to what the situation would have been in Korea, if the Japanese had maintained
possession of Korea, if a Communist group of Koreans were carrying on a war there with Japan - which had
dominated that area for more than a century - and if we then went to the assistance of the Japanese, and put
down the revolution of the native Koreans, even though they were Communists, and even though in taking that
action we could not have the support of the non-Communist elements of country.
That is the type of situation, whether we like it or not, which is presented today in connection with our support of
the French in Indochina, without the support of the native peoples of Indochina.
In Indochina, as in Korea, the battle against communism should be a battle, not for economic or political gain,
but for the security of the free world, and for the values and institutions which are held dear in France and
throughout the non-Communist world, as well as in the United States. It seems to me, therefore, that the dilemma
which confronts us is not a hopeless one; that a victorious fight can be maintained by the French, with the
support of this Nation and many other nations - and most important of all, the support of the Vietnamese and
other peoples of the Associated States - once it is recognized that the defense of southeast Asia and the repelling of
Communist aggression are the objectives of such a struggle, and not the maintenance of political relationships
founded upon ancient colonialism. In such a struggle, the United States and other nations may properly be called
upon to play their fullest part.
If, however, this is not to be the nature of the war; if the French persist in their refusal to grant the legitimate
independence and freedom desired by the peoples of the Associated States; and if those peoples and the other
peoples of Asia remain aloof from the conflict, as they have in the past, then it is my hope that Secretary Dulles,
before pledging our assistance at Geneva, will recognize the futility of channeling American men and machines
into that hopeless internecine struggle.
The facts and alternatives before us are unpleasant, Mr. President. But in a nation such as ours, it is only through
the fullest and frankest appreciation of such facts and alternatives that any foreign policy can be effectively
maintained. In an era of supersonic attack and atomic retaliation, extended public debate and education are of no
avail, once such a policy must be implemented. The time to study, to doubt, to review, and revise is now, for upon
our decisions now may well rest the peace and security of the world, and, indeed, the very continued existence of
mankind. And if we cannot entrust this decision to the people, then, as Thomas Jefferson once said:
"If we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not
to take it from them but to inform their discretion by education."
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy for the Cook

County Democratic Dinner, Chicago, Illinois, April 20,
1954
This is a transcript of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. This speech exists in the
Senate Press Release File of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy
Presidential Library. Links to page images of this draft are given at the bottom of this page.
It is a great honor to be here this evening with the men and women of this famous Democratic County at the
beginning of the Democratic campaign for 1954. The Democrats here have been faithful supporters of their party
in good times and bad, and under the able leadership of Dick Daley, this year and in 1956, they will play a
decisive role in the coming Democratic victories.
This year the Democratic ticket in Illinois is led by Senator Paul Douglas. I not only sit next to him in the Senate
and on the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, but he was, as you know, born in the ancient city of Salem
in Massachusetts. All Easterners do not, as some mid-Westerners sometimes suggest, look only towards Europe.
Thoreau once wrote "Eastward I go only by force - but westward I go free. I must walk toward Oregon and not
toward Europe." As Senator Douglas is a free man - it was perhaps inevitable that he would come to Illinois.
I always attempt to invoke, when appropriation bills are before the Senate, a feeling of filial affection for old
Massachusetts in Senator Douglas and Senator Symington, who are both native sons - but it has never done much
good. When Senator Douglas recently voted against an appropriation to dredge out Salem Harbor - I knew that
we had lost him for good.
I presume that some of you may have read in LIFE Magazine this week an article about the United States Senate,
which said: "The United States Senate has often been called the world's most exclusive club. Its members are
quick to defend each other's rights and privileges and they like to go out of their way to extol each other's
abilities profusely, even in the face of wide party differences." I would like to give you an example of this
senatorial good fellowship as it involves Senator Douglas of Illinois and the Senator from Massachusetts. I read
from the Congressional Record; the Senator from Massachusetts is speaking: "The Senator from Illinois, Mr.
Douglas, with ignorance reviles me. I . . . brand him to his face as false. No person with the upright form of man
can be allowed to switch from his tongue the perpetual stench of an offensive personality. The noisome squat and
nameless animal to which I now refer is not the proper model for an American Senator. Will the Senator from
Illinois please take notice?" Senator Douglas gracefully responds: "I will - and therefore will not imitate you."
The Senator from Massachusetts - "Mr. President, again the Senator switches his tongue and again he fills the
Senate with its offensive odor."
I hasten to add, though I am sure unnecessarily, that this exchange of senatorial compliments occurred a
hundred years ago between Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts - and that
the feelings that this Senator from Massachusetts has for the present Senator from Illinois - though equally
sincere - are a good deal more fraternal.
The strength of his intellect in combating the forces of confusion and ignorance; the range of his vision in fighting
the forces of reaction and timidity; his sense of justice in opposing the forces of dishonesty regardless of political
dangers and partisan considerations - these are the qualities which make Paul Douglas one of America's
outstanding public servants today. He understands the underdog and the outsider and the overlooked. Without
his thorough comprehension of the economic and other issues which confront us, without his consistent battle for
economy and ethics and justice in government, without his presence on the Senate floor to take up the cudgels -
alone, if necessary - for what he believes to be the right, the Senate of the United States would be a dimmer, a
darker and a less hopeful place.
To write legislation that will aid the people, and at the same time keep the Government a partner and not the
master - to find legislative solutions for the wide range of problems that face us, requires more than good
intentions and the easy passing of appropriation bills. It demands detailed and technical knowledge possessed by
all too few men.
Senator Taft had this ability, even though we did not always agree with his conclusions. Senator Paul Douglas has
it now, and the country should be grateful that Illinois has been true to its long tradition of recognizing and
rewarding greatness, as it has done in the case of Governor Stevenson and Senator Douglas.
Senator Douglas' courage has been particularly noticeable in recent times in his leadership in alerting the nation
to the dangers of economic recession. Months ago he was saying, alone, what many are saying now; that this
nation need never have another serious depression, that our mills and farms should produce more, not less; that
to secure these goals, prompt and vigorous action by the Federal Government is necessary.
I think it fair to say that if it had not been for the legislation enacted by the Democrats during their twenty years
in office, that the present economic recession would have already commenced a spiral into a depression. Social
Security legislation and Unemployment Compensation have maintained consumer purchasing power among our
workers who have lost their jobs, and the elderly people who have been retired. The price support program has
maintained the income of our hard-hit farmers. The Deposit Insurance Program has protected the savings of our
people. The Securities and Exchange Commission has regulated short selling and speculation in the stock market,
which precipitated the crash in 1929. The Fair Labor Standards Act has prevented the successive cutting of
wages to meet those of the sweatshop employer.
This and related social legislation form a platform built by the Democratic administrations which has supported
the economy even during this period of decline. But we cannot be satisfied with what we have done in the past.
New times bring new problems. The failure therefore of the Republican Party to enact a single piece of new
constructive legislation in any of these fields, in the fifteen months that it has had responsibility, represents a
most unfortunate abrogation of leadership in a critical time in the life of the American Republic.
Thus it seems to me that the Democratic Party, both in the Capitol and throughout the country, is faced with the
most serious responsibility and opportunity - to endeavor, though a minority party, to fill this vacuum.
In a two-party system in a country as large as ours, there must of necessity be included within each party's ranks
groups that are mutually hostile. But it is expected that the groups within each of the parties submerge their
special interests to support a general course of action. The Democratic Party did this for nearly two decades, a
period during which we changed the face of our nation and wrote into the statute books the legislation that has
made easier the lives of countless millions of Americans.
But the strange alliance of the various groups within the Republican Party scarcely endured a year before the
centrifugal force of its warring factions broke it apart - indeed, it did not survive the death of Senator Robert A.
Taft.
Thus today we find President Eisenhower at the head of a crusade which party storm and strife has broken and
washed upon the beach. His supporters in the Senate have deserted him on crucial issues - powerful elements in
his own party have challenged his leadership - legislation which he has opposed has been enacted - legislation
which he has supported has been ignored - and in order to carry out a minimum legislative program, he has been
forced to rely upon the party against which he led the great crusade little more than a year ago.
All this has happened at a time when the problems facing us at home and abroad are reaching maximum
intensity.
Though the Democratic Party has never made foreign policy a partisan issue, I cannot close without saying a
word about our national security. The deterioration of the French position in Indo-China has caused the United
States to be faced with decisions both somber and complex, on which hang the future of the free world. For if
Secretary Dulles' and Vice President Nixon's words are to be taken at their face value, we are about to enter the
jungle to do battle with the tiger.
Under these conditions, no one would wish to do or say anything for partisan reasons that might make the
President's task more difficult, his burdens more onerous. But I do believe it both proper and necessary that
those who bear responsibility should indicate in advance the course of action that should be adopted, and not
confine themselves to laments after the nettle has been grasped, and the matter has passed from our control. It is
of no use for the Democratic Party, in order to win some future election, to say of Indo-China what the
Republican platform said of the Democratic administration in 1952 - "In Korea they committed this nation to
fight back under the most unfavorable conditions. In Korea they produced stalemates, and they offered no hope
of victory."
These charges were used to good advantage in the fall of 1952 - but since then the world has taken a couple of
turns and now it is a Republican administration which finds the door slowly opening and the tight rope awaiting.
It is my belief that the American people should be told the truth about the situation in the Far East. This has not
been done. Within the past two months, Secretary of State Dulles, Secretary of Defense Wilson, Assistant
Secretary of State Robertson, and Chairman Radford of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have all predicted a probable
military victory in Indo-China. In February of this year Defense Secretary Wilson said that a French victory
"was both possible and probable. I see no reason to think Indo-China would be another Korea."
Within the past ten days, General O'Daniel, who heads the Military Advisory Group in Indo-China, held a press
conference in which he repeated again the assurance of a military victory in Indo-China. Certainly the American
people have every right to franker and more accurate statements than these which simultaneously assert military
victory, military deterioration and the need for military support from ourselves and other nations.
The primary cause of the inability of the French Union forces to obtain a decisive military victory after eight
years of fighting, is due to the lack of popular support for the war among the peoples of the Associated States of
Indo-China and, consequently, the lack of a crusading and reliable native army with an effective officer corps.
France still maintains too strong a hold on the political, military, diplomatic and economic relationships which
bind the French Union to the Associated States of Indo-China, and therefore failing to possess the substance of
freedom, they have not joined wholeheartedly the war against the Communists. Political independence which
results from military defeats will not bring about miracles - but the immediate granting of independence is of
transcendent importance and is long overdue.
The emphasis placed in recent days on the building of a system of guarantees among some of the neighboring
countries, should not blind us to the fact that the war in Indo-China is an internal one - that the assistance given
to the Communist forces within the country by the Chinese is substantially less than what we are giving the
French Union forces - that the French Union forces outnumber the Communist armies - and that military
guarantees of assistance from other countries, in case of outright aggression by the Chinese, will be of little value
in a war that is primarily civil.
The support of the countries that Secretary Dulles visited last week - England and France - are of course essential
to effective united action, but Asia cannot be saved in Europe. The support of the Asians themselves is a primary
requisite to success - and not only of the Australians, New Zealanders and the people of the Philippines - who are
after all island people - but the masses of the continent of Asia itself, who have viewed the war because of its
colonial complexion, with a cold neutrality. Although the United States would be expected to bear its
proportionate share of the burden, we cannot save those who will not be saved. We cannot preserve the
independence of Indo-China and Southeast Asia, regardless of the extent of our effort, unless the people of India,
Burma, Indonesia, as well as the people of the Associated States, play their proper part in any united effort. This
support is not only desirable; it is essential for success. These are the hard facts that must be considered before
we undertake unilateral action in that area that could result in disaster or a bloody stalemate.
As to the Democratic Party, I am confident of its future success - our victory is as certain and inevitable as the
changing tides. But for the country's sake and for our own, I do not want the Democratic Party to gain office on
the basis of cleverly worded promises or by raising false hopes. As Adlai Stevenson so wisely stated, and as the
Republicans by now should realize: "It is better that we should lose the election than to deceive the people." For
victory won in this fashion contains the seeds of subsequent disaster. We must indeed "talk sense to the American
people", make only those promises we can carry out, and frankly state the difficulties and dangers which
confront us. If we now make promises we cannot carry out the people will see we are no different than the
Republicans. If we now blame the Republicans for ills that time and circumstances have brought, the people will
expect the impossible from a Democratic victory. If in seeking office, we now make charges or state facts which
exceed the limits of fairness and validity, then the people will soon find us out, too. We would be deceiving the
people to claim that the problems of expanding our economy and maintaining our national security are not
difficult tasks. They will require the unified effort of our own party, North and South, East and West. But as
Democrats, we know where we are going. We cannot promise the American people easy solutions to difficult
problems, but we can offer them action and specific proposals.
Let us demonstrate to a disillusioned nation that promises can mean performance - that responsible opposition
can mean constructive legislation - and that the Democratic Party does not forget the people. If we remain close
to the people, the people will remain close to us, and we can look forward to the future with confidence and hope.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy on the Boston

Army Base Pier to Senate, May 11, 1954
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. One copy of this speech
Mr. President, I have joined today with my colleagues, the senior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Saltonstall]
and Representative McCormack, in introducing a bill to prevent a scandal, which if permitted to develop would
cause a serious financial loss not only to the people of Massachusetts and New England, but also to the taxpayers
of the United States. The situation in brief is comparable to a parent abandoning his child because he does not
wish to pay for its medical expenses. He hope that someone else will care for the child, but intends to abandon it
whether such care is possible or not.
The child in this case is the Boston Army Base pier in South Boston, Mass., which was built by the Federal
Government in 1918 and which has been of tremendous value to the Army in the course of two world wars. Since
1921, except for the war years of 1942 to 1946, the Maritime Administration has held jurisdiction over the pier by
permit of the Army, in order to lease the area for commercial purposes to a public terminal operator, which at
the present time is the Boston Tidewater Terminals, Inc.
The Army continues to use the pier for all of its cargo shipments in the area, and the Maritime Administration
has consistently netted a sizable profit for the Federal Government through its lease of the property.
But the Department of Commerce has now told the Maritime Administration that it must return control of the
property to the jurisdiction of the Army. As the Army originally indicated that the pier was surplus to its needs,
if no other arrangements were concluded, the waterfront terminal section would be disposed of by the General
Services Administration as surplus property. The bill we have introduced today, and on which we urge prompt
action by the Congress, would provide for continued Army jurisdiction over these facilities, and their lease to the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The speed with which the Federal Government announced its intention to abandon these maritime facilities was
without question induced by the necessity of immediate costly repairs. In 1935, a one-half inch steel underwater
skirt and pilings were constructed around the pier to prevent the damage caused by wood-eating marine borers.
Rust and corrosion have now worn this steel to tin-can thinness, with hundreds of holes developing each year. A
report of a survey made for the Army by the engineering firm of Fay, Spofford, and Thorndike stated that
extensive rehabilitation would be necessary to prevent the steel from buckling at any time - even this very day -
the sand pouring out, the pilings collapsing, and the whole base sliding into the 30-foot deep channel in Boston
harbor. The Army states it has no funds available for such repairs; and the Maritime Administration is
apparently unable to undertake them.
While the Army base pier is presently in full use, the state of deterioration is not hypothetical or projected, but
very real. Prompt action must be taken if serious disaster, including the loss of many lives and much valuable
property, is to be averted.
I. The Value of the Boston Army Base Pier
1. The Value to the Army
If Congress fails to take action to prevent the abandonment of these facilities, it will be wasting a valuable
national asset in which the Federal Government has invested many millions of dollars since its original
investment of $28 million. The replacement value of this pier is estimated to be from $75 million to $100 million.
Only 2 years ago nearly $1 million was spent for additional improvements.
During World War II, the facilities were activated by the Army in 2 months; and because of Boston's proximity
to the major European ports - it is from 200 to 2,000 miles closer than other eastern ports - the Boston Army pier
handled millions of tons of military cargo and was in constant use as a port of embarkation in time of war. It has
a direct, spacious and uncongested approach from the city, and provides the same freedom of movement for
railroad cars and trucks. It has ample office and warehouse space. It has the more flexible quay type of pier. It is
the only pier with double shipside tracks for direct loading. The Army should also be interested in the fact that
some 5,000 reservists use the base as the only available training site. It might also be pointed out, in evaluating
the Federal Government's responsibility to maintain the property which has served it so well, that retention of
these commercial facilities as Federal property has cost the city of Boston more than $36 million in taxes.
2. The value to International Trade and the New England Economy
At a time when the administration seeks to expand international trade, it is important to note that the Army base
pier, if properly restored and maintained, is superior to all other facilities in Boston Harbor. Other commercial
piers in Boston offer mostly small one-story sheds. The Army base pier, on the other hand, has very ample
facilities, all of which are now fully in use. It is the only pier in Boston with shipside warehouse space, double
shipside tracks and the other advantages noted above with respect to its role as a port of embarkation. It can
handle more than 100 railroad cars or trucks; its upper floors have 550,000 square feet of storage space; and its 7
full-sized covered berths are matched only by the east Boston pier of the Boston & Albany Rail Road.
Moreover, the Army base pier is an integral part of Boston's shipping industry. In 1953, it was used by more than
300 general cargo ships, about 25 percent of Boston's total, carrying about 335,000 tons. This average of 6 ships a
week affected the jobs of thousands of railroad workers, truckers, and longshoremen. It is estimated that during
the war year of 1944 nearly 2.5 million tons were handled through these Army facilities. If the 326 ships berthed
at the Army base in 1953 had not come to Boston, the revenue loss to the port area would have been more than
$3.5 million. The Army pier provides approximately 30 percent of the berthing piers in Boston; and its
abandonment would leave Boston with only 22 covered berths, when in 1935 it had 35 such berths. The
administration has a real opportunity to fulfill its pledge of assistance to our economy.
For these reasons, it would be most unwise, even if it were possible to do so, for the Federal Government to turn
these facilities over to private commercial operation, either through an industrial lease from the Army or by its
dispersal as surplus property through GSA. A firm which converted the property for industrial purposes might
be able to amortize the heavy initial cost of rehabilitation; but this would impair the use of the facilities as a port
of embarkation to the Army and as a port of international trade for New England.
It seems to me, therefore, to be obvious that the Federal Government must be dissuaded from carrying out its
present plans to abandon or otherwise dispose of the Boston Army base pier. Toward this end, I toured the pier
on March 7 with the New England Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers; the deputy post commander and the
post engineer; and spokesmen for the Boston shipowners, longshoremen, the Port Authority, and the pier
operators. Again, on March 12, along with my colleague, the Senior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr.
Saltonstall], I discussed the question with a similar group which included representatives of the Maritime
Administration and the Army. Finally, on April 5, representatives of my office met with other interested parties
and agreed upon the course of action embodied in the bill we have introduced today.
II. Alternative Courses of Federal Action
There are three major courses available to Congress and the Federal Government:
First. The first is a hands-off, do-nothing policy. By taking no action to prevent further damage or to rehabilitate
the property, and vainly hoping for private acquisition in a manner consistent with national policies of defense
and international trade, the Federal Government is openly inviting the disaster which would occur when the
snapping of a single steel chain could cause the whole Army base to slide into the channel. This is an expensive,
not an economical, alternative - expensive in loss of life and property, expensive in loss of the facilities of the port
of Boston, and expensive in the cost of removing the collapsed wreck from the channel.
Second. The second major alternative available to Congress is to authorize the Government to take such steps as
may be necessary, including the removal of various parts of the wharf structures, to prevent their eventual
collapse and the resulting destruction and interference. By letter of March 29, the Corps of Engineers has
informed me that two such schemes would be possible:
A. The first would cost from $1.3 million to $1.44 million, but would provide a period of satisfactory safety of not
more than 10 years. This plan entails cutting the present bulkhead at approximately the low-water line, removing
the supporting rods and the outer 30 feet of the wharf apron, and placing fill on the water side of the bulkhead.
This would enable retention of the wharf and pier sheds for land storage, although with a very limited use
possible and although the water-side fill might be a hazard to navigation and would have to be strictly
maintained in order to insure the stability of the bulkhead.
B. The second scheme for preventing collapse of the pier would cost from $4.252 million to $4.325 million, and
would provide safety on a more permanent basis with a lesser annual maintenance cost. This plan entails far
more extensive removals, including removal of the entire sheet-pile bulkhead, the tie rods, the apron for a
distance of from 80 to 95 feet to the face of the pier, all timber piling within the area in which the apron was
removed, and all of the wharf sheds' superstructure. This would leave only the major portion of the pier shed for
land storage.
Obviously, the first or temporary plan is unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it simply means the problem must be faced
all over again in 10 years and that only a limited unsatisfactory use could be made of the pier. The second scheme
is more permanent, but, like any plan which emphasizes merely the prevention of collapse, it renders unusable
the piers themselves, and is thus unsatisfactory from a point of view of military and economic value.
Third. The third course of action available - and that adopted in our bill - is to authorize funds for the
rehabilitation of the pier, in order that these valuable maritime facilities may continue to serve the Nation in time
of peace and war. The Fay, Spofford & Thorndike survey considered a number of rehabilitation schemes and
rejected several. The Army has also eliminated as a practical alternative the partial restoration of the pier in
order to make usable only three of the covered berths. This would cost only $5 million, but it is doubtful that it
would be of assistance for more than 5 years.
As a result of this sifting, three fundamental plans for rehabilitating the pier are available:
A. Remove the present pier completely and install in its place a new open-deck wharf, at a construction cost of
$12.35 million and an estimated life of 40 years.
B. Install a new precast concrete sheet pile bulkhead outside the present structure. This would cost an estimated
$9.37 million; but its estimated life would be only 25 years, and its lower resistance and higher maintenance cost
make this steelplate scheme which contemplates something which is similar to what is now on the pier, less
advantageous.
C. Construct a gravity-type mass concrete seawall supported by steel-bearing piles to be located immediately
outside the present steel sheet pile bulkhead. The wharf would be widened by about 30 feet, which might be of
some inconvenience, although it would be basically practical. The channel would be deepened and new railroad
facilities would be added. Using cast-in-place concrete for the gravity wall would result in a total construction
cost of $10.5 million, and an estimated life of 60 years. If precast concrete blocks were to be used in constructing
the gravity wall, the cost would be $13.28 million for an estimated life of 75 years.
If these schemes are analyzed in terms of cost per year of life, scheme ( C ), cast-in-place gravity wall, with a
construction cost of only $10.05 million - which is only $700,000 more than the least expensive alternative, the
new concrete sheet pile bulkhead - and with an estimated life of 60 years, would have the lowest cost per year of
estimated life, $289,118. In addition, it presents an operation which would be practical and economical to
maintain, which would present the minimum amount of hazards and disturbance during construction, and which
would have a higher resistance to fire and explosion. This would appear to be the best of all possible schemes of
rehabilitation, and funds therefore are provided in the bill introduced today; and certainly rehabilitation is to be
preferred over the plans for removal, collapse, or inactivity, which are also of considerable expense.
III. The Cost of Rehabilitation
Mr. President, I hope that the Congress will recognize the responsibility of the Federal Government to undertake
the rehabilitation of this valuable national asset in the manner which I have discussed. Here is an asset in which
the Federal taxpayers have invested a substantial amount of money, which is valuable to the Nation in peacetime
as an aid to international trade and our general economy, and which in time of war or national emergency is of
critical importance to the national defense effort. An unwise step now could mean that our future mobilization
efforts would be delayed while such facilities were reconstructed or reconverted, a delay which could well be
crucial in the race to bring our pier facilities to the necessary level. The $75 to $100 million spent then would be
unnecessary if a reasonable maintenance and restoration expenditure were made today. The Congress has an
obligation to the taxpayers to eliminate unnecessary expenses; but we also have an obligation to be certain that
such economy does not jeopardize the security of the Nation; and we have the further obligation to be reasonably
certain that a present reduction of expenses will not result in a much greater expenditure in the future.
Certainly such expenditures would be consistent with the responsibility of the Army and the Maritime
Administration, the value they have obtained from the pier and their investment in it, and the present policies of
the Federal Government. Certainly such expenditures would not be too large in view of the amount of Federal
money allocated to Massachusetts and New England for such projects over the years. In the current Army civil
functions appropriations bill as it came to the Senate, for example, $560,000 will be spent in the State of
Massachusetts; and more than $281 million in the rest of the country. In fact, the total amount to be spent in the
six-State New England area is only $1,735,000, an amount less than that to be received by 24 individual States,
practically all of whom contribute less in tax revenues than Massachusetts alone. Similarly, the share of all six
New England States in the continental nonclassified projects to be authorized under the 1955 defense public
works bill is only 8 percent of a total of $575.2 million; while the three Southern States of Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina will receive 11 percent.
However, inasmuch as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is also vitally affected by the maintenance of these
facilities, I urged when first touring the pier on March 7 that it join in the financing of such rehabilitation; and
our bill so provides, as well as requiring the Commonwealth to pay all subsequent maintenance and repair costs.
We hear a great deal of talk these days about the partnership of the Federal Government with State and local
governments in the development of projects beneficial to both. Here is an opportunity for the Federal
Government to demonstrate on a worthy project that it means what it says; and to prevent the national disaster
which would result from either the collapse of the pier or its unavailability for military use in an emergency.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Princeton

University, May 11, 1954
This is a redaction of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. Two versions of the speech
Library. The redaction is based on the copy with the later date. There is also a copy labeled a "draft," which
differs in its wording and has a different date on it - April 29, 1954. Links to page images of the two versions are
given at the bottom of the page.
I appreciate this opportunity to participate in the Colloquium on the Eisenhower Administration before this
ancient and justly celebrated society. This society, and the University of which it is a part, have made singular
contributions to the advancement of truth and freedom. The lives of two former members, James Madison and
Adlai Stevenson, living at opposite ends of our historical span, give clear evidence of the nature and quality of the
public service rendered by the graduates of this society and this college.
I have been given the assignment tonight of discussing, from a Party point of view, the Eisenhower
Administration's conduct of foreign policy. The word "party" is derived, as you know, from the Latin word
"partire", meaning: part, portion, division or share. I speak, therefore, not as a neutral, but as an advocate of one
part of our political life; and while I will attempt to refrain from distorting the truth or unfairly condemning the
Republicans for failure to achieve results that are beyond human endeavor, I should warn nevertheless that in
fairness final judgment should be based also upon careful consideration of Senator Wiley's able speech last week.
My task is made more complicated by the fact that unlike domestic affairs, foreign policy does not lend itself
easily to factional dispute. But a bipartisan approach on basic issues does not preclude policy differences, free
from party rancor; and it would be an abrogation of responsibility if both parties did not set forth clearly what
course of action they feel should be pursued in order to achieve our common objectives. Republicans and
Democrats alike agree on the need for strengthening and unifying the free world, ending Communist aggression,
building our national security, and seeking international disarmament and atomic control. But there are areas of
disagreement and disappointment as well.
In considering the Eisenhower record, I feel it not amiss to point with some pride to the record compiled by the
Democratic Administration, a record which is still subject to almost unprecedented abuse by that substantial
element of the Republican Party which has opposed since the end of World War II the entire concept of a
bipartisan foreign policy.
There was, of course, one major blot on that Democratic record: China. I am not as sure as I once was that it ever
could have been saved. Nor is there any evidence that those who talked about it the most would have been willing
to take the hard steps - including the commitment of American troops - which were essential to success. As
Winston Churchill has said, the primary responsibility for the loss of China must rest with the Chinese
Government which lost it. But, nevertheless, considering what was at stake, we must regard our efforts in that
instance as wholly inadequate - lacking the vigor and single mindedness that might have permitted us to block the
Communist advance.
On the other hand, there is a solid record of accomplishment. Between 1945 and 1952 the United States gave
independence to the Philippines; supported the struggle for independence in Indonesia against our long-time
friends, the Dutch, thereby helping to prevent a repetition of Indo-China in those fertile islands; helped pressure
the Russians to evacuate Iran; stopped the Communists in Greece and Turkey under the Truman Doctrine;
checked the rise of Communism elsewhere through the Marshall Plan and Mutual Security Program; broke the
Berlin blockade; built a system of defensive alliances, including NATO, OAS and the Pacific Defense Pacts; gave
reality to the concept of collective security by stopping the Communists in Korea; laid the groundwork for the
Schuman Plan and EDC; took steps to bring Italy, Germany, Austria and Japan back into the family of nations;
created the Point IV concept; developed the thermo-nuclear weapon; sent military aid to Indo-China; created the
United Nations and its effectiveness against aggression, including the Little Assembly; and made similar progress
in a hundred ways in a hundred areas of the world. No one can claim that the Republicans were stepping into an
easy job on which the difficult work was all done; but certainly with the accomplishments of those challenging
years behind them, in many ways the Republican record in foreign policy is disappointing, its outlook depressing.
I submit that what Senator Wiley told you was "a policy of bold collective security" is not deserving of his
description: "more vigorous, more imaginative, more dynamic, more daring, than that of the previous
administration."
Any comprehensive review in the field of foreign policy for even a period of fifteen months is a difficult task.
But, to the extent time permits, let us review those items both large and small which form that entity called our
foreign policy, in terms of four battles: the battle for the "initiative" in the various areas of the world; the battle
for men's minds; the battle for economic gain; and the battle for national security.
I. The Battle for the Initiative
President Eisenhower, in this year's State of the Union Message, stated: "There has been a great strategic change
in the world during the past year. That precious intangible, the initiative, is becoming ours….As a major theme
of American policy during the coming year, let our joint determination be to hold this new initiative and to use
it."
Interestingly enough, the chastening experience of the past month have in no way diminished the vigor and
frequency with which administration spokesmen exalt publicly over this "initiative regained." But a survey of
our policies in the various areas of the world fails to support this boast.
In Asia, the events of the last month are too disheartening and involve us all too heavily for captious and partisan
criticism.
I do not blame Secretary Dulles for the failure of his desperate efforts since his "united action" speech five weeks
ago to build a collective framework to prevent Communist seizure of Indo-China. No man could have tried
harder or done more. But unifying the non-Communist forces of Asia, Western Europe and the United States on
a single course of action in a concentrated period of time - a course of action sufficient to give a promise of
success in the treacherous and swampy jungles of Indo-China - this was beyond human expectation. That it
stimulated French hopes for immediate assistance was perhaps inevitable, and we will now suffer the inevitable
charge of having let them down at their most crucial hour.
But it should have been no surprise that the British - living as they do on the bull's-eye in a hydrogen age - would
prefer to await the results of Geneva before commencing a hasty and ill-considered intervention which would
have internationalized the war on the worst possible battleground for the West and most obviously, it should
have been no surprise that the call for united action by a dominant Western power against a powerful ancient
and rapacious Asiatic nation, in a continent with a long history of Western exploration, has met with a hostile
reception in the East. Months of planning were required to build the NATO alliance, even in the fertile grounds
of Europe; to persuade the Asiatics to abandon their neutrality could not be done overnight.
Senator Dirksen, in speaking of Indo-China, said recently on the Senate floor that we should be grateful we have
a President who can read a battle map; but someone misread with dire results the battle map in Indo-China. Now
that we have suddenly become acutely aware of the dangers which confront the French in that area, can we
rightfully expect that every other power would either automatically, or through threats or economic pressure,
follow blindly the uncertain course we pursue in that area? The truth of the matter is that the administration's
real failure in Indo-China was not that of the last four weeks; but one which occurred throughout the months
since they assumed control, when the situation in Indo-China was deteriorating beneath the surface without any
real recognition of the facts by our top officials. It is apparent that our intelligence estimates of the situation in
Indo-China were woefully and inexcusably inaccurate. Within the past two months Secretary of State Dulles,
Secretary of Defense Wilson, Assistant Secretary of State Robertson and Chairman Radford of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff all predicted a probably military victory in Indo-China for the forces of the French Union. In February
of this year, Secretary Wilson said that a French victory "was both possible and probable. I see no reason to
think Indo-China would be another Korea." And in late March, Secretary Dulles said "We have no reason to
abandon the Navarre Plan", which called for decisive military results by the French in one year.
During the same period, our Indo-China policy for action fluctuated on all points between assurances of early
withdrawal of a few technicians to warnings of heavy commitments of American manpower. The statement by
Vice President Nixon concerning the intervention of American manpower was wholly at odds with prior
statements by the President, and with his own earlier assertion that massive retaliation was preferable to being
"nibbled" to death in localized conflicts. Mr. Dulles last Friday evening suggested his support of both positions,
however irreconcilable they may seem to you and me. The only change in the initiative, it seems, has not been
from East to West - but from the President to the Vice President to Senator Knowland to Secretary Dulles.
Before he insists on the support of our Allies, the President had better "seize the initiative" back so they will
know whose policies they are asked to support.
It is difficult to say today precisely what our policy should be in Indo-China or what course future events will
take, depending in great part on the reaction in France and Vietnam to the fall of Dien Bien Phu. Ideally, of
course, if the Communists turn down the terms proposed by M. Bidault for a cease fire, it is our hope that the
French, with additional assistance by the genuine independence to the people of Vietnam, and continue to fight
long enough to permit the native armies to be trained and equipped and eventually carry the major burden of the
struggle. This certainly will require possibly two years of fighting before, under the most favorable conditions,
large portions of the French Army could withdraw. The French people at the end of eight long years of fighting
and after a major disaster may well be unwilling to continue the struggle. If so, we will have to settle for terms far
less satisfactory, either a coalition government which would mean ultimate Communist domination, or a partition
along the 16th parallel with the forces of Vietnam still controlling the Delta area around Hanoi. The final
desperate alternative available, if worse comes to worse, is to draw a line at Cambodia and Laos, beyond which
the Communists would be warned not to move. In this way we might hope to seal off the Communist virus in
Indo-China from spreading through all Southeast Asia; and although they would hold an immensely strategic
and potentially powerful area in Indo-China, we might, on the basis of alliances with the other countries of Asia
and the British and French, maintain such a line and thus maintain some position in that vital area. Of course,
the Communists' recent claim on behalf of the shadow governments of Cambodia and Laos at Geneva indicates
that they are going to attempt in those States the same pattern of infiltration and subversion which worked so
successfully in Vietnam.
If we are to be successful in holding the line in Indo-China and Asia, we will need more than the Administration's
much-vaunted "massive retaliation" to strengthen the hand of the local governments against insurrection and
guerrilla warfare, and to meet other more subtle Communist methods of conquest of Asia short of the outright
aggression which they realize would bring on a world war.
Certainly an essential element in Western policy must be the granting of independence to all areas which are
prepared for self-government and which are now held under Western colonial domination. The failure of France
to give independence to the people of Vietnam precipitated the present crisis, and permitted the Communists to
seize control of the Nationalist movement. We cannot afford to give the Communists that advantage in future
struggles, just as we cannot overlook weapons in the areas of economic and technical assistance, propaganda, and
others I shall discuss in a moment.
But unfortunately, as a result of our relations with France, we have not firmly insisted that final independence be
granted; and thus in Asia - where the war will be won, not in London or Paris - the struggle has been regarded by
the Asiatic nations and the Vietnamese themselves with a cold neutrality. Perhaps this illustrates the ancient
maxim that a candid friend is the best of all.
Moreover, on this basic issue, again the American people and Congress were not told in time the hard truth. A
series of statements by our Department of State have insisted that the independence of the Associated States is
already complete or will soon be completed. In May of last year, for example, the Department of State in a letter
assured me that "France had granted such a full measure of control over their own affairs that…these three
countries became sovereign states." This hardly squares with the extensive political control still maintained by
the French Republic through its domination of the French Union and the lack of a Popular Assembly in Vietnam;
its extensive diplomatic control, through its coordination of Vietnamese foreign policy and diplomatic missions;
its extensive military control over the conduct of the war, the distribution of American aid, the location of French
facilities, and even the training of native armies; and extensive economic control, through ownership of the
country's basic resources, control of transportation and commerce, and special tax and extra-territorial
privileges.
It is my hope that before channeling American men and machines into what will otherwise be a hopeless
internecine struggle, the Administration will make certain that the independence now under discussion again will
be firmly and finally granted to the Associated States as a first step toward winning the full support of the
peoples of that land and the other nations of Asia.
Elsewhere in Asia, the initiative has likewise fallen from our grasp in our failure to develop affirmative, long-
range policies. The uncertain truce in Korea has brought no progress toward a final settlement satisfactory to the
security of the non-Communist world, but instead a buildup of Communist strength. The attitude of India, the
key to Asia because of her size, location and Nehru's prestige, has been increasingly alienated through our
political maneuvers in the UN concerning her participation in the Korean peace conference and Mrs. Pandit's
election, through our removal of Chester Bowles from his uniquely effective ambassadorship, and finally by our
decision to arm her neighbor across a tense and suspicious border - Pakistan. Much as we may deplore India's
unfortunate prohibition upon our use of her airways, threats of economic retaliation will not persuade her to
relax her concepts of sovereignty and neutrality. In Japan and elsewhere, we have fanned the flames of anti-
American and anti-military discontent through our hydrogen bomb tests in the Pacific. While these tests were
necessary, could they not have been more efficiently conducted - or at least could not their necessity in terms of
Russia's own experiments been more clearly explained to an anxious world?
In Europe, far from gaining the initiative, we have impaired western unity by being overbearing instead of firm;
by being indecisive instead of resolute; and by being hasty instead of deliberate. Fulfillment of NATO defense
goals continues to lag; and progress toward a European Defense Community remains static, unable to overcome
barriers in Italy and particularly in France.
Efforts to achieve peace treaties for Germany and Austria are at an impasse; and our haste in announcing and
then modifying our policy for Trieste gave neither aid nor comfort to either Italy or Yugoslavia, nor success to
our efforts.
We have embarrassed our closest friends in Europe by giving them inadequate notice and explanation in
announcing our "new look" foreign policy, our call for "united action" in Indo-China, and our H-bomb tests. In
what James Reston of The Times calls the "art of sudden diplomacy," we have continually confronted them with
the undesirable alternatives of either disagreeing publicly with the United States or undertaking far-reaching
military steps without prior mutual deliberation.
In the Middle East and Africa, we have been stymied in our attempts to join ancient enemies for military or
resource development purposes. The problems of Israel and the Arab States remain unsolved, with both groups
resentful of what they consider to be the prejudices of American foreign policy, and with increasing danger of
Soviet gains among the Arab States (as demonstrated by the recent action of the Jordan Parliament in thanking
Vishinsky). Our reputation as a friend of underprivileged areas and as an enemy of colonialism has been
damaged by our attitude toward the cases of Morocco before the UN and others, and by the broken trail of
abandoned Point IV projects which stretches across those vast areas.
And, finally, in the Western Hemisphere, we have handed the initiative to anti-American propagandists instead
of seizing it for ourselves. Canada and Latin America are alarmed by threats of new tariff restrictions. The
operations of the Export-Import Band, which supplied badly needed capital for the development of South
American resources, have been sharply curtailed.
Canada has become resentful at charges made in the United States against her Foreign Minister, Lester Pearson;
and there is no evidence that Senator Jenner's interview with Mr. Gouzenko yielded results commensurate with
the ill-feeling it developed.
When Mexican-American negotiations on a wetback labor treaty bogged down, the President in un-neighborly
fashion asked Congress for a law authorizing American recruitment of Mexican labor without Mexico's consent;
and signed it for future use even though an agreement had been concluded by that time! The recent attack in
Costa Rica upon our proposed arms aid to Nicaragua, the gains of the Communists in Guatemala and the
continued attacks upon the United States in Argentina and other nations of the Western Hemisphere do not
demonstrate that this nation has firmly seized the initiative; and the extension of our traditional three-mile limit
into what has heretofore been considered international waters I the off-shore oil bill further muddled that
antagonistic situation whereby our fishing boats have been seized and all jurisdictional limits challenged.
All of these unfortunate events cannot be laid, in fairness, to the door-step of those now in responsibility, even
though there was little hesitation in the past in charging Mr. Acheson and Mr. Truman with incompetency and
worse. This is a time of strife and tension the world over. Trouble is now and will long be our constant
companion. But it is difficult to see how this record squares with the oft-reiterated boast that under the new team
the initiative has been regained. Let us hope that we can seize the initiative in a meaningful sense in world affairs
- with positive policies, comprehensive programs and consistent principles.
II. The Battle for Men's Minds
We now turn to an examination of that second battle - the battle for men's minds. The Republican platform of
1952 promised "We shall again make liberty into a beacon light of hope that will penetrate the dark places. That
program will give the Voice of America a real function…We favor international exchanges of students" and
similar programs. But what have the Republicans done to implement this far-reaching promise?
Our overseas information programs, including our overseas libraries and the Voice of America, have been
harassed, defamed, reorganized, and heavily cut. Last year, the Information Agency's budget was cut 37% from
$123 million to 475 million; and this year, the House of Representatives cut 15% from the administration's
request. As a result, the Voice of America has been reduced to a bare whisper. Our small but vitally effective
Fulbright Program for international exchange of students and teachers was cut this year by the House of
Representatives some 40%, a reduction of $6 million from the $15 million requested.
But world opinion of the United States and the way of life it represents is not based only on our information and
educational activities. To the disappointment of those underprivileged areas which constitute the greatest bloc of
opinion yet to be won, the Republican administration has officially de-emphasized our Point IV Technical
Assistance Program, merged it with military aid and short-term goals, and in brief, reduced Point IV to a pale
and non-intoxicating 3.2. Our contribution to the Multilateral Technical Assistance Program of the United
Nations was cut last year by more than one-third of the amount requested. Our contribution to the UN
International Children's Emergency Fund, aiding the impoverished future leaders of every land, was similarly
cut nearly in half. We have announced to a disillusioned world that we will do nothing more in the field of
genocide and international human rights. Our failure to deal decisively with racial discrimination, and our well-
publicized abuses in the granting of visas and passports, provide further grist for the Communist propaganda
mills.
As a substitute for fulfillment of campaign promises to revise the discriminatory McCarran Immigration Act,
and to excuse consistent failure to even include it in the administration's legislative program, an emergency
refugee law was finally passed last year which would at least permit the admission of 209,000 refugees over a
period of three years. But do you know how many have admitted under this program? Eight! Eight refugees out
of 209,000!
Suspicions have been permitted to develop that our new military and foreign policies concentrate upon military
might, instead of utilizing economic and technical assistance, propaganda and diplomatic negotiations as well.
Too frequently, the Soviets have successfully created the impression that it was the United States who was closing
the door to high-level negotiations, and who is equating negotiation and compromise with appeasement. We have
not, I believe, taken into full consideration the fact that many people whose support we seek, now regard,
unreasonable as it may be, the United States and the Soviet Union as equal dangers to world peace. In addition,
the disunity and dissension which we have witnessed at home has not contributed to the confidence in ourselves
which we seek abroad in the losing battle for men's minds.
III. The Battle for Economic Gain
Third, what of the battle for economic gain? The President's State of the Union Message in 1954 promised "our
foreign policy will recognize the importance of profitable and equitable world trade." Instead, powerful
Republicans have sought legislation to destroy the philosophy of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, even
after the Administration promised no reciprocal trade agreements for a year. High tariff personnel have been
appointed to the Tariff Commission and other agencies, and the Buy American Act has been stretched to shut out
the low bides of friendly nations. Legislative action on the report of the Randall Commission is given little hope.
In 1952, the Export-Import Bank made $275 million worth of long-term development loans, compared with $40
million in 1953. Against a background of generous promises, we have encouraged disillusionment among our
Allies and stimulated their interest in the active Soviet trade missions and in developing closer economic ties with
countries behind the Iron Curtain.
IV. The Battle for National Security
Finally, we review that battle which may be of most concern to you and me and our families, the battle for
national security. The President, in his State of the Union message in 1953 said, "We owe ourselves and the world
a candid explanation of the military measures we are taking to make that peace secure…our military power
continues to grow…(our) air power is receiving heavy emphasis…this new program will make and keep America
strong in an age of peril."
These statements are not supported by the facts. Today, when the Soviet Union possesses many thousand mare
first-class jets than the United States and its combined Allies, when its best planes have proven in Korea to be the
equal, if not superior, of our fighters at normal combat altitude, when it possesses long-range bombers with
which to loose devastation upon American cities - and most important of all when it possesses the atomic and
hydrogen bombs capable of leveling the urban and industrial might of our nation - it is unthinkable that our
basic policies appear to underestimate the strength of the enemy and its gains in thermo-nuclear developments.
Proposed improvements in our continental defense are not comparable to improvements in the enemy's capacity
to penetrate that defense. Dangerous budgetary limitations and general inertia make our Civil Defense Program
of negligible value.
Last year, the administration cut our Air Force funds by over $5 billion dollars. This was a wring-out rather than
a stretch-out of Air Force strength. Although we were assured that our actual air power would not be affected by
these cuts, the Department of Defense announced several months later that 950 planes, including 748 combat
planes, were being eliminated from the aircraft procurement program. The result will be that the United States,
instead of possessing 143 wings by 1955 - the amount considered to be the minimum considered for national
security by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1951, will not have more than 115 wings by June 1954, and not more than
137 by 1957.
This year, unable to cut our air strength further, the Republicans proposed instead to cut substantially the funds
for the other branches of the service. The current defense appropriations bill provides a cut of $5 billion dollars
in the Army budget compared with last year. This slash, which will result in a reduction from 20 to 17 divisions,
and presupposes a cut the following year to 15 divisions, was based on the assumption, which has not stood the
test of time, that the United States will not have its overseas commitments increased; on the assumption that we
would continue a withdrawal of our ground forces from various parts of the world, including the Far East, a
judgment which I predict again will prove to be incorrect; and on the assumption that our "massive retaliatory
power", including "a great capacity to retaliate, instantly, by means and at places of our own choosing," will give
us security on the cheap.
I am not convinced that this "new look" can withstand exhaustive analysis. It should of necessity rely on, in
addition to a non-existent hydrogen and atomic monopoly, an air power second to none, a goal impaired by the
serious cuts we made in air power last year. In addition, by announcing a decrease in the strength of our
conventional forces for resistance in so-called "brush fire" wars, while threatening atomic retaliation only
against "very substantial overt acts" which "threaten our freedom", we in effect invited, rather than deterred,
expansion by the Communists in those areas - such as Indo-China - and through those techniques which they
deem not sufficiently offensive to induce us to risk the atomic warfare for which we are so ill-prepared
defensively. Thus intensified Communist expansion through indigenous forces, subversion and other methods
short of military invasion will require us to respond with either inadequate aid, or aid which would alienate those
who would consider the remedy worse than the disease.
The limitations of the "new look", and its massive retaliation theory, can be seen in Indo-China. It was not allied
disunity alone that caused us to refrain from intervention. It was also the realization that such intervention, short
of world war, would be of limited value as the result of the wide dispersal of our ground strength, and as a
consequence of the direct Chinese invasion almost certain to follow. To attack those questioning this program as
wishing to "force us into bankruptcy" is a reckless charge, and one which fails to look at the Federal Budget in
the framework of our national security.
To be secure we must spend enough to give a clear margin of superiority over our enemies. Any other policy is
dangerous, possibly fatal. Our defense appropriations for last year and this will not give us that superiority. The
economies that we have achieved, in my opinion, will be paid for by weakening the effectiveness of our foreign
policy, which in any nation depends to a large extent on the potency of the military power behind it, as the
Russians have repeatedly demonstrated. If the weaknesses resulting from these economies invite an attack in
Indo-China or Korea, our "savings" would be paid for many times over. To gear our national defense to the
Federal Budget "over the long haul" is to emphasize secondary objectives over our responsibilities for world
leadership.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the generous promises the President made at the beginning of his administration have most
certainly not been implemented by successful action. An argument can be made that the administration's record
under the circumstances if not wholly unsatisfactory; but compared to the promises that were so casually made
to win an election, and the confident assurances that marked this administration's reign, the record is
disheartening.
To those who have carried the practice of campaign utterances beyond election day, I would refer these words of
John Galsworthy, written many years ago - "I have just one rule for politicians all over the world, do not say in
power what you say in opposition; if you do, you only have to carry out what the other fellows have found
impossible." The Republicans have not yet learned this lesson.
For those who once criticized the Truman Administration for not "going it alone", now criticize their own
administration for not achieving "united action". At the same time, those "narrow-minded critics" as Senator
Wiley called them - and he knows them better than I - threaten withdrawal of support from the United Nations.
Those who criticized the setbacks of the Truman Administration now criticize their own for attempting to
prevent further setbacks. They criticize any possibility of American military commitment and at the same time
condemn any possibility of negotiated settlements. In this context of domestic politics, with its handicaps on an
effective foreign policy and with the difficulties not unexpectedly resulting from Soviet intransigence and allied
weakness, our prestige and control of events in the world has fallen to a dangerous low.
The truth is that the inexorable force of circumstance has forced the Republicans to adopt many of the courses
for which they attacked their predecessors. This in turn has led to that mild case of political schizophrenia that
Adlai Stevenson so accurately predicted. This was clearly illustrated by the debate on the Bricker Amendment,
when the President rightfully opposed infringement upon his constitutional powers, but continually led his party
to believe that it was a matter for compromise, thus stimulating the desires of powerful members of his own
party.
Did Senator Wiley address you as a representative of the Republican party? If the Wiley wing demonstrated its
full strength on the vote to recommit the Bricker Amendment, the it is a very lonely wing indeed. For on that
basic issue the President's Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee voted for recommittal; but not a single
other Republican voted with him.
Certainly it is difficult for the Republican leadership to formulate a strong and effective foreign policy, when the
Secretary of State and his co-workers are frequently subjected to sharp tongue lashings by the "leaders" of their
party in the Senate. (Possibly this is what is meant by "massive retaliation".)
In spite of this record, with all of its short-comings and errors, despite the criticism which was and still is
showered upon their administration, the Democrats have not found it easy to criticize a policy which emphasizes
such slogans as the "new look" - which says that we are "seizing the initiative" in foreign affairs. It is difficult for
a Democrat not to rise to his feet and cheer with the Republicans when the President speaks of "unleashing"
Chiang Kai-shek or when he calls on Congress to renounce secret and evil international agreements. We feel
warmly reassured when we hear such terms as "security for the long haul" and "massive retaliation". The fact is
that we have felt in the last 15 months the rhetoric but not the reality of action; and the American people have
more frequently been the victims of the administration's stepped-up psychological warfare than have our enemies
abroad.
Some will say that these obstacles imposed by the Republicans upon their own foreign policy activities may be
explained and therefore excused by one word: "politics". But even in a society so immersed in the political
struggle as ours, this is not an adequate defense; for as Plutarch once wrote: "though the boys throw stones at
frogs in sport, yet the frogs do not die in sport, but in earnest."
In all fairness I should say that I have not attempted to set down in detail the accomplishments of this
Administration - for I know Senator Wiley did so adequately. Nor could I honestly maintain that the difficulties
faced by the Eisenhower administration today did not and would not, in many instances, trouble Democratic
leadership as well.
Communist development of the hydrogen bomb and the increasing military power of the Chinese have so altered
the balance of power in the world that many who once followed our leadership now wonder whether neutrality
does not offer them more complete security than the hard struggle against the enemy. Thus the fact is that we -
160 million people regardless of party - are the real bulwark against the steady march to world power of the
communists.
We are the leaders - and we must recognize the disadvantages that go with leadership of a loosely knit
confederacy against a monolithic power. Neither the United states nor our allies can afford the luxuries of the
past in the difficult days ahead.
As the leaders of the Grand Alliance, we can and must - Republicans and Democrats alike - learn from the
mistakes and failures of the past, and promulgate a foreign policy which can win the minds and hearts of people
everywhere, which can command the support of our allies and the respect of our enemies, and which can provide
a sword and a shield for the defense of these United States.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy before the

Vermont State Holy Name Rally at St. Michael’s
College, Burlington, Vermont, May 16, 1954
This is a redaction of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. Three drafts of the speech
Library. The version labeled "draft 1" actually appears to be a carbon of "draft 2," but has been assigned an
earlier status because draft 2 has handwritten changes whereas draft 1 is uncorrected and thus represents an
earlier state of the speech. The third draft is a separate typescript with significant differences and handwritten
changes. There is no way of knowing which if any of the drafts best represents the speech delivered, but a decision
was made to base the redaction on draft 2. Links to page images of the three drafts are given at the bottom of this
page.
The great fundamental principles to which we rededicate ourselves today have meaning beyond the church and
beyond this state and nation. They are the fundamental concepts of morality and truth which have brought
civilization through a series of dark ages, each one with its own particular form of stultification upon man's
aspirations and achievements in literature, government, religion, human welfare and international goodwill. We
are confronted today with the possibilities of an age far darker than any of those of years gone by, an age in
which the political, religious, economic and social institutions and values which we hold dear may well be wiped
away.
There is, of course, nothing new about this warning. On all sides we see grim evidence of the fierce struggle for
world domination by the Communists whose dogma teaches that for them there is no real security in a world
which they do not control. At the same time we see our own desperate effort to secure that balance of power in
the world on the side of those countries whose national independence still survives. What is called the structure of
containment is cracking in many areas; and our horizons are lit by the flashes of distant conflicts. Young
Americans now occupy a hundred far-flung garrisons stretching from the Rhine across a great half circle to
Southeast Asia.
This nation is devoting its fortunes and its energies to the efforts of the free world to contain Communist
expansion, to resist out-right aggression, and to build strength in those countries on the periphery who may next
fall victim to the hidden but unrelenting march of the Communists. Such efforts on our part have required
sacrifices by our citizens, and raise fundamental questions on maintaining a healthy economy and a free citizenry
while at the same time achieving maximum national security.
This is a struggle of men and arms - of stockpiles of strategic materials and nuclear weapons - of air bases and
bombers - of industrial potential and military achievements. This is the physical struggle; and the central
problem here is to be equal to the sacrifices and willing to pay the price of ultimate victory. But serious as this
material challenge is, of far deeper significance is the moral struggle. This is the "stern encounter" of which
Cardinal Newman so prophetically wrote: "Then will come the stern encounter when two real and living
principles, simple, entire, and consistent, one in the church and the other out of it, at length rush upon one
another contending not for names and words or half views, but for elementary notions and distinctive moral
characteristics."
Cardinal Newman spoke of this conflict as yet to come. Doubtless its climax is yet to come, but in essence the
conflict has been going on for 2,000 years. It has not been limited to one nation or one form of government. The
issues, the slogans, the battle flags, the battlefields and the personalities have been different. But basically it has
been the same encounter of opposing principles, of good and evil, of right and wrong.
This ancient struggle is more comprehensive, more deep-rooted and even more violent than the political and
military battles which go on today as they have in the past. And yet it is very nearly a silent struggle, with a din
not heard in the streets of the world, and fought by weapons more subtle and more damaging than cannons and
shells. The encounter of which I speak makes no such uproar. It makes no more noise than the inner process of
disintegration which over a period of several hundred years may hollow from within some great tree of the forest,
until it is left standing an empty shell, the easy victim of some winter gale.
We can barely hear the stern encounter, and thus too often we forget it. Our minds are intent upon the present
and future conflicts of armed might, and upon the brutal, physical side of that ominous war upon which we have
bestowed the strange epithet "cold". We tend to forget the moral and spiritual issues which inhere in the fateful
encounter of which the physical war is but one manifestation. We tend to forget those ideals and faiths and
philosophical needs which drive men far more intensely than military and economic objectives.
As the leader of the Grand Alliance, we must frequently adjust our day-to-day programs in order to maintain the
unity which is so important to our success. But in matters of fundamental moral principle, our experience in
Indo-China should conclusively demonstrate to use that in the long run our cause will be stronger if we adhere to
those basic principles which have guided this nation since its inception. We cannot overlook the moral and
idealogical basis of our own policies and of the struggles taking place in the world today in our emphasis upon the
military and physical side of the war. If this nation ignores the continuing moral struggle; if we fail to recognize
those inner human problems which lie at the root of the great world issues of the day; then we cannot succeed in
the maintenance of an effective foreign policy, no matter how many new weapons of annihilation our modern
science can assemble, and no matter how many men we pour into the jungles and beachheads of battlegrounds all
over the world. Unless the United States bases its foreign policy upon a recognition of moral principles and the
idealogical struggle, we cannot hope to win the hearts and minds of those peoples of the world whose support is
essential to our success.
Permit me to mention four examples of the moral challenge which we face: First, the unswerving fanaticism of
the Communists; second, the weary indifference of so much of the West; third, the anti-Western nationalism of
Asia; and finally, the despairing hopes of freedom-loving partisans behind the Iron Curtain.
1. It will take more than force of arms to dispel the fervid fanaticism of Communist troops. No matter how much
we may hold them in contempt, we must admit that the Communists have instilled into their people a philosophy
that shows itself in the most extraordinary acts of dedication and self-sacrifice. At Dien Bien Phu in Indo-China,
hordes of Communist troops hurled themselves to inevitable death on the approaches of that fortress in order
that their comrades might achieve victory once the bullets of the French Union forces had been spent. In the Koje
prison riots, unarmed Chinese and North Korean prisoners of war marched to certain death in order to give
their cause a propaganda weapon in the struggle of the West, and cannot help but marvel, however much we may
hate their cause, at the constancy of the guerrillas of Indo-China's leader Ho Chi Minh, who fought for well over
a decade first against the Japanese, and then against the French, in the swamps and jungles of Southeast Asia.
In contrast to this devotion to a single cause - which we find repugnant, there exist problems of the spirit in our
own camp which the leaders of the West dare not fail to recognize: problems which include the indifference and
cynicism with which so many in the West regard a cause which seeks to establish the dignity of man and the
supremacy of the moral order; problems which include the disintegration of our common social order and the
slow attrition of our religious, ethical and cultural foundations; problems which include the inertia and escapism
which characterize those rightfully weary after long years of war and sacrifice. But it is in this matter of devotion
to moral principles that the Communists extend to us our greatest challenge. For we must match their fanaticism
with our own self-sacrifice if we are to strengthen the ties which bind all free people together.
3. But the great masses of the peoples of Asia and Africa, on whose support our success must ultimately depend,
are not attracted by most of those Western ideals. Most of them have never heard of free competitive enterprise.
Most of them cannot read, do not have enough to eat, and have never heard of a hospital. Only a comparatively
few of them have ever seen a white man; and most of these regard white men as exploiters, enslavers and
invaders. The preservation of free democratic institutions is no rallying cry to these people. The nationalization
and the collectivization of private property does not shock those whose personal resources are almost non-
existent.
These are peoples who yearn for the dignity and freedom of independence, who for centuries have been under the
domination of Western powers. If their own homeland is torn by war, as in Indo-China or Malaya, they are likely
to regard it coldly as a war between two foreign powers struggling for domination of their country. What is even
more discouraging is the fact that the Communists, by promising political independence and economic equality,
have captured for themselves the banner of nationalism under which these peoples are willing to fight, if at all.
In Indo-China, our friendship with France restrained us from actively and firmly pushing for the full
independence of the Associated States. Yet complete Vietnamese independence was essential to rally the native
and other Asiatic forces necessary to wage successfully the battle against communism; and we would have better
served France itself, and the cause of the whole free world, if we had remained true to our traditional policy of
helping all oppressed people. Such steps as are now being undertaken, and even they appear to lack the necessary
finality, may again be too little and too late.
4. Finally, compare the moral principles that inspire the fanatic Communist, the cynical Westerner, and the
neutral Asiatic with those that still live to inspire the oppressed sufferers behind the Iron Curtain. For those 800
million people who live out their lives in despair and deprivation, totalitarian power has been substituted for
individual rights and human decency. From the 19 million people of East Germany to the 10 million persons in
Communist controlled Viet Minh, there is no rejoicing in the name of religion and independence on this Sunday
afternoon.
The torture of Cardinal Mindszenty, the incarceration of Cardinal Wysznski and Archbishop Stepinac, and the
oppression of Catholics, Protestants and Jews throughout the area dominated by communism are designed to
destroy the God-given faith of an enslaved people. But the riots in East Germany, and the discontent evidenced
through the Iron Curtain area, demonstrate to the free world that their devotion to political and religious
freedom cannot be so easily crushed.
There is no magic formula for rolling back the Iron Curtain, no simple solution in terms of "liberation",
"psychological warfare", or a "new look initiative" in foreign policy.
But if our nation recognizes the spiritual and moral elements of the stern encounter, and if we can offer hope to
the troubled in mind, and courage to the brave in spirit, then we shall have helped to keep alive the faith that will
one day be free. Let us remember these words spoken by Sir Roger Casement to the jury which had convicted
him of high treason for his part in the organization of the Irish in 1914: Our hope, said Sir Roger, "renews with
each generation the claims of the last. The cause that begets this indomitable persistency, the faculty of
preserving through centuries of misery the remembrance of lost liberty, this surely is the noblest cause men ever
strove for, ever lived for, ever died for. If this be the case I stand here today indicted for, and convicted of
sustaining, then I stand in a goodly company and a right noble succession."
There is our message for today, for those under the heel of the Soviets and for those of us who still enjoy the light
of freedom; there is our faith and our task. Let us not fail its fulfillment.
Partial remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy before The

Executives' Club, Chicago, Illinois, May 28, 1954
The acceleration of recent events in Indo-China has brought within the realm of definite possibility within the
next few weeks a request to Congress from the President of the United States for military intervention in that
area. It is therefore important for all of us - in and out of Congress - to inquire into the nature of that struggle,
and the decisions and actions which have brought us to this brink of war.
We must take particular care to base our impending decisions upon the actual facts of the situation; for I think it
is not unfair to say that the policies of the Western powers toward Indo-China have been notably marked by
miscalculations and contradictions; that there has been a steadily widening gap between our conception of events
in that area and reality; and that our actions frequently have been directed toward conditions which no longer
existed. Permit me to mention four examples of what I believe to be glaring errors of conception and judgment.
First, the very foundation of American assistance rested upon a miscalculation of the military program of the
French Union forces in Indo-China. The United States, which is now paying more than 80% of the cost of the
largely French-directed war, has based such assistance and our diplomatic strategy on the assumption that the
so-called Navarre Plan would achieve a military victory against the Viet Minh. This plan, bearing the name of the
French general in command of the area, called for development of the native armies and continuation of the
struggle by the French Union forces to achieve success by 1955. Joint French-American communiqués in March
and September of last year stated that American support was premised on the success of this plan; and as late as
April of this year, Secretary Dulles stated in discussing Geneva that there was "no reason to question the
inherent soundness of the Navarre Plan" and that "nothing has happened to change the basic estimate of relative
military power for 1955." Chairman Radford of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated at the same time that our military
and technical assistance was still based upon the "expectation that increased military operation by the French
and by the Associated States would defeat the Communist military forces."
Not only were these statements in direct contrast to the steady deterioration of the military situation in Indo-
China; they were also in curious contradiction to the policies of the French in that area as outlined one month
earlier by Premier Laniel. Recalling previous disagreements over the desirability of negotiation as an alternative
to military triumph, M. Laniel told the French Assembly on March 6 that "Today we are unanimous in wishing
from now on for a settlement of the conflict by means of negotiation. This is one thing that is settled. There is no
need for anyone to argue it further."
The failure of the United States to comprehend the eclipse of the Navarre Plan in French councils as well as on
Indochinese battlefields was a most serious miscalculation. It can be traced to further miscalculations on the part
of both France and the United States: our underestimation of the military power of the Viet Minh; our failure to
consider the effect upon their military capabilities of increased assistance from Red China; and our inability to
foresee the drastic turn in the military situation which occurred between the Berlin and Geneva Conferences.
A second basic miscalculation was our inability to recognize the nature and significance of the independence
movement in Indo-China. Certainly we must realize now that the success of the Navarre Plan, and any hope of
either military victory or a reasonable negotiated peace, rested upon the effectiveness and reliability of the
Vietnamese Army and its officer corps; and that in turn depended not only on the quality of French training, but
also upon the wholehearted support and devotion which the people of Vietnam would be willing to give to the
struggle against the Communists.
Of course, this issue presented the United States with a serious dilemma. On the one hand, the importance of
Vietnamese spirit and the traditions of our own policy motivated our desires for a French grant of independence.
On the other hand, a strong body of opinion within our Department of State argued that the French would
withdraw from the struggle, with disastrous results, if the ties binding Indo-China to the French Union were
severed. Seeking a rationalization by which to escape from this dilemma while preventing a French withdrawal,
the United States, under Democratic as well as Republican administrations, chose to support the myth - and it
was no more than a myth - that the Associated States of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam were genuinely
independent.
In May of last year, for example, the Department of State in a letter assured me that "France had granted such a
full measure of control over their own affairs that…these three countries became sovereign states." This hardly
squares with the extensive political control still maintained by the French Republic through its domination of the
French Union and the lack of a Popular Assembly in Vietnam; its extensive diplomatic control, through its
coordination of Vietnamese foreign policy and diplomatic missions; its extensive military control over the
conduct of war, the distribution of American aid, the retention of French facilities, and even the training of native
armies; and extensive economic control, through ownership of the country's basic resources, control of
transportation and commerce, and special tax and extraterritorial privileges.
The third fundamental American miscalculation was our misapprehension of the fluidity and instability which
characterized Asia and allied attitudes toward its problems. To attempt to unify the non-Communist forces of
Asia, Western Europe and the United States on a single course of action in Indo-China and Asia in a
concentrated period of time was an impossible task, and failed to distinguish the diplomatic difficulties faced in
Asia and those on which we had achieved comparative unity in Europe. In Europe, we have always dealt with
established governments reasonably able to maintain domestic order, whose officials were familiar with
Communist motives and traditional balances of power. In Europe we were able to establish a system of mutual
guarantees to deter the Soviet Union from outright military intervention.
The situation in the Far East is entirely different. Young and struggling governments, with a traditional hatred
for the white man who had exploited them for several centuries, held no strong hostility for the Communist
movement which was and still is to some extent identified in many sections with independence. In Indo-China, the
cause of the West was blurred by the visual impact of colonial powers fighting native people. No system of
military guarantees had been established; neutrality, far more than mutuality, characterized Asiatic opinion; and
there was no real political or military counterforce to offset the massive armies and power of the Chinese. The
political and economic interests of ourselves and our European allies in the area were not on the same level,
although the West is reaping a bitter harvest of decades of mistakes and exploitation in Asia. It was thus a serious
mistake to assume that united action would be quickly forthcoming as the result of our belated prompting, and
disunity at home and with our most intimate allies was the unfortunate result.
The fourth and final serious miscalculation by the United States was to base our own military strength upon a
mistaken analysis by the National Security Council of the future course of events in the world in general, and in
Indo-China in particular. Last year, the administration cut our air force funds by over $5 billion. As a result,
instead of possessing 143 wings by 1955 - the minimum requested by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1951 - we will
have no more than 137 wings by 1957. This year, the "new look" provides for a cut of $5 billion from last year's
budget. This slash, to result in a reduction from 20 to 17 divisions this year and to 15 next year, is based upon
assumptions which have not stood the test of time: that the United States would not have its overseas
commitments increased; that we would continue a withdrawal of our ground forces in various parts of the world,
including the Far East; and that our "massive retaliatory power", including "a great capacity to retaliate,
instantly, by means and at places of our own choosing," would give us security at bargain prices.
Events in Indo-China and elsewhere today have already knocked the props from under these assumptions; and
our reduction of strength for resistance in so-called "brush fire" wars, while threatening atomic retaliation, has
in effect invited expansion by the Communists in areas such as Indo-China through those techniques which they
deem not sufficiently offensive to induce us to risk the atomic warfare for which we are so ill prepared
defensively.
These miscalculations and contradictions upon which our policies have been based for so many years have
become more apparent in recent weeks. The resultant confusion, haste, contradictions, reversals and failures are
by now well known to you.
We may hope that the Communists, who would be necessarily concerned about a major war in the Far East the
end of which they cannot foresee, will come to terms in Indo-China. Present deliberations center about the
possibility of a cease fire and partition along the 16th parallel, with Communist recognition of the security of
Laos and Cambodia. This might permit the allies to establish a defensive pact solidifying their determination to
repel, by whatever means are necessary, any Communist advances beyond that line.
But the Communists' willingness to accept such an agreement will depend upon their assessment of the limits to
which they could force us without facing atomic retaliation. Today they are intransigent. Time is passing in
Geneva. Our allies, fearful of the tremendous buildup of Russian and Chinese military power, including the
Soviet's hydrogen developments and long-range air force, are indecisive; and the French may soon be faced with
the basic decision as to settlement, or whether they will surrender or withdraw. Certainly any French decision to
maintain the struggle will depend upon assurances of American support. It is thus apparent, as I previously
stated, that the administration and Congress may soon be called upon to decide the wisdom of American
intervention on behalf of the French Union forces.
The elements of that decision, the ingredients which must balance in order to produce a successful policy, are
clear.
First, the United States has insisted that our intervention must be on the basis of united action, and under the
auspices of the United Nations. We originally required, as a condition for our participation, the assistance of not
only Great Britain and France, but also the peoples of Asia, including India, Burma, Ceylon, and Indonesia in
addition to the Associated States of Indo-China.
It is doubtful that this condition can be wholly met. Even if the support of our Western allies, and such island
nations as the Philippines and New Zealand is forthcoming, we have no evidence that the heretofore neutral
countries of Asia would join us in collective action. We must therefore consider whether this limited support
would be sufficient.
Secondly, the United States has insisted upon complete independence for the people of Indo-China as a condition
for our intervention, in order to win the support of the Vietnamese and the rest of Asia, and in order to assure the
justice of our cause. Here, too, the condition we have imposed presents serious difficulties, including the
possibilities of French withdrawal once the ties between the French Union and the Associated States are broken.
Moreover, it would be difficult to insist upon free elections in a country where - according to those occasional
reports seeping through strict censorship - native units have defected to the Communists even at Dien Bien Phu
itself, where most government officials and some of their families are in Europe instead of at home, and where Ho
Chi Minh - rather than Bao Dai - is the most popular leader in the land because of this identification with the
fight against French colonial rule.
Third, intervention by the United States could not be expected in the absence of a willingness by the French to
continue the struggle. The present French Government survives by the razor's edge of a two-vote margin. The
French people are weary from eight long years of fighting and the disaster at Dien Bien Phu. We do not know,
once the decision faces them, whether they will choose withdrawal or a continuation of the struggle.
Fourth, American intervention is dependent upon the role of the Vietnamese. The lack of popular enthusiasm for
the war in that area, the hostility from the natives faced by Western soldiers, and the desertion of the Vietnamese
soldiers and civilians to Ho Chi Minh - which might well rapidly increase if a partition contrary to their wishes
were adopted - these are the factors upon which the quality of this ingredient would be determined.
Fifth, the United States would, of course, only intervene where such intervention was militarily sound. The
terrain in Indo-China is more complex than Korea; and we would not have the support of a friendly population.
We would be forced to throw our widely dispersed ground troops into the jungle war where conditions favor the
Communists; and it is doubtful that we could possibly achieve decisive results if the Chinese answered our
ground troops with so-called "volunteer" units. Certainly this condition is not one that can be discussed in full
today without a comprehensive analysis of the military situation; but we know enough to realize the difficulties
which surround this condition too.
If these five conditions are not met in full, it will be necessary to weigh each of them in balance against the
circumstances of the day in order to determine the desirability of the particular type of intervention which may
be requested at that time. We would, moreover, be faced with two other decisions:
First, can we or should we localize such a war in Indo-China as we did in Korea; or would we be prepared to
carry the war to the Chinese Mainland and thus risk the invocation of the Sino-Russian Treaty of Friendship and
a world-wide nuclear war.
Secondly, we would be required to determine under the circumstances then existent whether all or part of Indo-
China is absolutely essential to the security of Asia and the free world. President Eisenhower originally stated
that Indo-China was of transcendent importance under the "falling dominoes" theory. Secretary Dulles has since
indicated that the loss of all of Southeast Asia might not necessarily follow the loss of Indo-China. But, the
internal struggles, the neutrality and the military weaknesses of the other governments of Asia would tend to
make them weak reeds on which to lean once Indo-China fell.
These are decisions which weigh heavily upon the minds of the administration and Congress, and indeed all
citizens. Permit me to conclude, however, by pointing out what may be one encouraging result: namely, the
lessons the United States may have learned in Indo-China for more effective policies in the future in that and
other areas.
1. First of all, I hope we have learned the importance of allies. Those who once urged that we "go it alone" in
Korea and elsewhere now insist upon the participation of other nations in any military intervention. We have
learned, moreover, that we need more than our traditional European allies. For they are overextended in many
areas, beset by domestic problems and struggling to unify European defenses; and the battle against communism
in Asia - with its long history of Western exploitation - cannot be won without the full support of the nations of
that continent.
2. Secondly, I think we now more fully realize the implications of the hydrogen age. The fear of a nuclear war in
which no nation would be victor and all nations would be victims has stimulated neutrality and caution
throughout the world; and it has radically altered the significance of a military program which relies primarily
upon massive retaliatory power. For if the United States can meet aggression only by risking hydrogen warfare,
we hand an advantage to the aggressor nation willing to achieve its conquest by methods short of those inducing
us to take that risk. In short, we must reverse our air cuts and our "new look" military cuts, and place national
security ahead of balancing the budget.
3. Third, I trust the United states has learned that it cannot ignore the moral and idealogical principles at the root
of today's struggles. Indo-China should teach us that in the long run our cause will be stronger if it is clearly just,
if we remain true to our traditional policies of helping all oppressed people, even though it may require
unpleasant pressures in our relations with colonial powers and friends. We would have better served France
itself, and the cause of the whole free world, had we insisted firmly at the beginning upon the complete
Vietnamese independence which was essential to rally native and other Asiatic forces.
4. Finally, the United states now has a clearer realization of the burdens of leadership, and the severe and
conflicting criticisms which Great Britain and others bore in the past. Today the British feel we moved too fast in
seeking action in Indo-China; the French feel we moved too slow. Many Asiatics feel we have supported
continued French domination of the Associated States by our assistance; others feel we have let down the
Vietnamese by not intervening more promptly and directly. Some say we are pushing our allies too hard; some
say we are not leading them vigorously enough.
Many Americans understandably respond to this criticism with an attitude of disgust and withdrawal. But unless
we choose the road that will inevitably lead us to eventual submission or annihilation, we must recognize that
these are our burdens borne by others in the past in the difficult task of welding into a powerful force a loose
confederacy of heterogeneous nations - some of whom will find our pace too slow, others too fast.
The United States is the leader of the free world today; but this is not so because our citizens are anxious that we
take the lead in military battles; nor because our diplomats are the most expert; nor because our policies are
faultless or the most popular. The mantle of leadership has been placed upon our shoulders not by any nation nor
by our own government or citizens, but by destiny and circumstance, by the sheer fact of our physical and
economic strength, and by our rule as the only real counter to the forces of communism in the world today. If
events in Indo-China have taught us to better fulfill that role, then it is not a wholly dark story after all; and what
Washington termed "the sacred fire of liberty" may yet be preserved throughout the world.
Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy on "The

Economic Problems of New England" on June 3, 1954
This is a redaction of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. There is one copy of this
speech in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy
Mr. President: Since my discussion before the Senate exactly one year ago of the economic problems of New
England and their alleviation, considerable progress has been made in meeting those problems, including the
organization of the twelve New England Senators in response to the call of the senior Senator from Massachusetts
(Mr. Saltonstall) and myself. These 12 Senators, regardless of party, have been working faithfully on behalf of
New England's needs.
But more effective action by the Executive Branch is necessary. The disappointing failures to meet many of New
England's economic needs, too easily overlooked in our drive for psychological confidence, cannot be justified by
recent trends. In these twelve months since my Senate speeches, unemployment in New England - which is above
the national average - has increased by more than 125%* until insured unemployment has reached
approximately 180,000. Manufacturing** has declined in all six New England states for a total loss of 133,000
jobs, highlighted by the 48,000 job decline in the textile industry which is now approximately 60% of its
February 1951 strength. Our leather, shoe, rubber, apparel and other non-durable goods industries have also
declined; as have the more publicized machinery, metal and other durable goods industries. New England's steel
fabricating mills operated in the first quarter of 1954 at 62% of capacity, 30% less than a year ago. Reports from
The New England Council and the Boston Federal Reserve Bank indicate that declining defense orders will
increase the difficulties of New England's electronic, aircraft, shipbuilding and equipment manufacturers.
The battle against recession is now more nationwide in scope than it was one year ago, and it involves many
legislative issues to be discussed subsequently on this floor, including taxation, credit and interest, public works,
housing, farm income, and world trade, in addition to the items which I shall mention; but permit me to outline
those steps which the administration should take promptly in order to help restore prosperity in New England
and other similarly situated areas, and in order to complement the effectiveness of the New England members of
Congress.
1. Restore bid-matching to Defense Manpower Policy No. 4, the program for channeling defense contracts to
labor surplus areas. This program, both widely hailed and condemned when announced six months ago, has had
only a negligible effect because of its elimination of the bid-matching features under which New England labor
surplus areas had previously obtained $14 million in defense contracts. During the new policy's first full quarter
of operation,*** not a preference, and only two "distressed areas" in the rest of the country received contracts
totalling only $163,159. Moreover, only two of New England's labor surplus areas received any defense contracts
at all in the first quarter; and New England's share of all defense contracts declined instead of increasing.
2. Expand the application of the administration's new policy of tax amortization certificates of necessity for
industries in labor surplus areas. The delay in initiating this policy, the restrictions placed upon it, and the fact
that it provided only an extra percentage for that declining number of industries already eligible for emergency
amortization, have made this program of little value; and as of April 15, only two certificates under this policy
had been awarded to one New England community, covering a capital investment of only $250,843. Only ten such
certificates were awarded throughout the entire country. During this same period under the regular tax
amortization program, the number and value of certificates of necessity awarded to all firms in all New England
states continued to lag behind New England's proportionate share and defense contribution.
3. Revitalize and broaden the authority of the Small Business Administration. The establishment of this agency to
strengthen the economy by aiding small business was of particular interest in New England, which has a higher
proportion of small business than any other region in the United States, and where the rate of business failures is
higher this year than last. But as a result of legislative ceilings and administrative delays, the Small Business
Administration as of May 13 had approved in its 7 1/2 months of operation only six loans, for a total of only
$204,000 in all six New England states. Indeed, as of April 30, SBA had disbursed less than $1.2 million on thirty-
seven loans throughout the nation (as compared with administrative expenses on March 30 totalling nearly $2.4
million).
4. Eliminate discrimination and confusion in New England transportation rates. I have previously pointed out
examples of such discrimination and confusion in rail, truck and ocean shipping rates, and this subject is now
under review by the New England Senators Conference. ICC decisions during the past twelve months have
intensified this situation. Division 2 of the Commission recently denied to New England, and its railroads and
ports, the opportunity to enjoy rates on iron ore shipped by rail to the interior steel-producing areas, comparable
to the rates enjoyed by the Ports of Philadelphia and Baltimore. In January, a Commission decision denied
adequate service in inter-coastal shipping between the Port of Boston and the West Coast. Other recent ICC
decisions affecting shipments of New England goods by truck have continued this discrimination.
5. Plug tax loopholes which contribute to improper industrial migration. The House Ways and Means
Committee, in its deliberation on the tax revision bill, originally decided to plug one of the most flagrant of such
loopholes by removing the immunity from "industrial development" bonds issued by states and municipalities in
order to build tax-free factories as a lure to industry; but, the Committee reversed this decision and instead voted
to deny the use of rentals on such factories as business deductions. The Senate Finance Committee has now voted
to eliminate even this substitute, which is ineffective whenever such factories are given or cheaply sold to the
migrant industry. I am hopeful that the Senate Committee or the Senate, with the administration's backing, will
reinstate at least this modified version before the bill is finally passed, and eliminate this unjustifiable abuse of
public credit.
6. Request legislative and administrative action to correct substandard wage competition. It is my hope that the
President will reexamine his decision not to seek an increase in the minimum wage or to extend its coverage at
this time; that his administration will ask Congress to modify or repeal the Fulbright Amendment to the Walsh-
Healey Act which has stymied effective application of adequate nationwide minima on defense contracts; and
that the Department of Justice will act more vigorously in pending litigation under the Fulbright Amendment
which has delayed the adoption of realistic wage standards for the textile industry. I am particularly hopeful that
this year's budget for Labor's Wage and Hour Enforcement Division will rectify last year's error, when this
budget was cut 27% below the previous appropriation, thus making it possible to inspect only one out of twenty-
two establishments covered by the law, requiring the complete elimination of eight southern regional offices, and
making possible the review of wages in Puerto Rico only once in every seven years for each industry.
7. Initiate a program to revive the shipbuilding industry. Such a program, much discussed but not as yet
forthcoming, is of particular interest in New England and other areas dependent upon this vital industry. An
essential part of such a program would be to make more effective those defense manpower policies applicable to
the shipbuilding industry, inasmuch as the third Forrestal-type aircraft carrier was awarded to a shipyard with
increasing employment and substantial naval projects, instead of the Fore River shipyard at Quincy,
Massachusetts, where employment had already dropped by more than 25%, and where seven out of its ten
shipbuilding ways will be idle by this fall.
8. Support the Saltonstall-Kennedy Bill to aid research and market development in the fishing industry. The
active opposition by the Department of Agriculture with the approval of the Bureau of the Budget to this
measure, which seeks only to allocate to our fishing industry its fair share of tariff receipts, has handicapped its
passage without restrictive amendments. I am hopeful that the administration will reverse this position, and
support this bill which is of great importance to New England's hundred million dollar fishing industry.
9. Seek more effective social insurance against the ills of unemployment and forced retirement. In order to
maintain community purchasing power and individual living standards, New England requires improvements in
the existing Social Security Program, which improvements are only partly contained in the recommendations of
the President, particularly with respect to our disabled citizens. It is especially important to strengthen our
unemployment compensation program by extending coverage, providing federal reinsurance for states with low
reserves and by establishing through congressional action - not, as the President asked in vain, through
individual state action - minimum standards for unemployment insurance benefits and their duration. As a first
step, the administration should withdraw its support, even though it is substantially modified, of the House-
passed Reed Bill which would undermine the basic strength of our jobless insurance program. The bill
introduced today by myself and several other Senators would far more adequately meet the needs of New
England and the nation.
10. Accord equal treatment to New England and all other areas in federal programs, including those for resource
development. Last year, the original budget request for the New England-New York Inter-Agency Survey of
Water Resources was set at $1,200,000 in order that that survey might be completed by the end of fiscal 1954,
inasmuch as its original termination was fiscal 1952. The revised budget, however, when finally enacted into law,
cut this figure exactly in half, thus delaying completion by at least another year. This stepchild treatment of New
England by a Federal Government which has provided direct grants for the establishment of power facilities in
other areas already enjoying cheaper power rates, should be reversed by the present administration, for the
recommendations of the Budget Bureau and Army Engineers are generally conclusive on such items. New
England's share of the Army Civil Functions Appropriation Bill is less than that received by some two dozen
individual states, practically all of whom contribute less in tax revenues than Massachusetts alone; and therefore
the request for adequate funds with which to survey our potential resource development is not excessive.
It is my hope, Mr. President, that the administration will take prompt action on the 10-point program which I
have outlined above, and that we in Congress - with the assistance of the twelve New England Senators who have
indicated their active concern for these problems - will be able to follow through on legislation to restore
economic strength and expand employment in New England and all other parts of the country.
* As measured by the average weekly insured unemployment under state programs, May 1953-May 1954.
** March 1953 to March 1954, latest available Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys.
*** Defense Department release based upon contracts of $25,000 value or more, $10,000 for Navy.
Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy on Defense

Department Appropriation Bill to Senate on June 17,
1954
This is a redaction of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. One copy of the speech
MR. PRESIDENT: The purpose of the amendment, which is offered on behalf of myself and Senators Gore,
Mansfield, Symington, Humphrey, Monroney, and Lehman, is to maintain the strength of our Army at its
present level of nineteen divisions. The pending Defense Appropriation Bill - which cuts the Army appropriation
$5.3 billion or 41% below last year's level, and would cut at least $4 billion or 30% in estimated total
expenditures - requires a reduction in Army forces to seventeen divisions by the end of fiscal 1955. This cut,
which would be accompanied by a cut in military personnel of 230,000 men or 16%, would be a further cut
imposed upon the cut of one division which has already been made since the beginning of this year, when we had
twenty divisions. It is my understanding that this two-division cut, which our amendment is intended to prevent,
will leave the United States with only six combat divisions in the Far East and only five in Europe.
Mr. President, if we could safely assume that such a cut would in no way reduce our armed strength, or if we
could safely assume that there will be a reduced need for military manpower, or if we could safely assume that
the threat and military power of the Soviet Union were being similarly reduced, then we would be more than
justified in supporting a cut of the magnitude contained in this bill. Certainly none of us are desirous of
maintaining an excessive military establishment.
But the fact remains that, whatever assumptions might have been possible in August 1953 when this budget was
developed, or whatever assumptions might have been possible in the spring of 1954 when it was presented to the
Senate Appropriations Committee, we cannot safely make such assumptions on June 17, 1954.
1. The Proposed Reduction in the Army Budget Will Give Us Less Security. It is all very well to hope that our
"new look" atomic deterrent power will prevent an outbreak of war; to hope that other nations will take up the
slack caused by the reduction in our manpower; and to hope that the United States will not be forced to intervene
in Indo-China or anywhere else on the globe. But these hopes, expressed by the able Senator from Michigan (Mr.
Ferguson) yesterday, neither give us more security, nor conceal the fact that this slash in Army strength will give
us less security. General Ridgeway testified before the Senate Committee (p. 59) as follows:
"…We are steadily reducing Army forces - a reduction through which our capabilities will be lowered while our
responsibilities for meeting the continuing enemy threat have yet to be increasingly lessened….This reduction in
strength has made it necessary for the Army to re-evaluate its military program, its present force structure, and
its worldwide deployments…."
Earlier, he had told the House Appropriations Committee (p. 54) that: "A reduction in the order of magnitude
that we are making will certainly, when completed, leave us with less combat effectiveness than we had when we
started." And he agreed that our much heralded new weapons "will not be of particular benefit in replacing
ground forces during the coming fiscal year." Similar statements by Secretary Stevens and General Honnen,
Chief of the Army Budget Division, make it clear that "the overall combat effectiveness of the Army by the end of
1955, even with gains we could make with improved weapons, will be somewhat less than it is today."
2. The Proposed Reduction in the Army Budget is Inconsistent with the Increasing Threat of Communist
Military Power. It is the height of folly to reduce our strength when the Soviets are increasing theirs. General
Ridgway testified that: "The military power ratio between western defense capability and the Soviet bloc's
capability is not changing to our advantage…The strength of the major components of Soviet bloc military power
continues to increase…unaccompanied by an offsetting increase in Allied strength."
The President, on January 21, stated that the reduction of two divisions was "made possible by the cessation of
hostilities", among other reasons; but what are the possibilities of new hostilities on June 17? Secretary Wilson
justified this budget in March upon his assumption that "the threat to our security will not reach a peak at any
particular point in time." But in June, the recent events in Indo-China, Geneva, Paris, and elsewhere, indicate to
me that the peak threat to our security is being reached very rapidly. On March 15, long before the fall of Dien
Bien Phu and the negotiations for SEATO - which, if to be realistic, will surely require U.S. strength comparable
to our five NATO divisions, Secretary Stevens stated that: "A 17-division force is predicated upon certain basic
assumptions", including not only the assumption that hostilities in Korea will not be resumed, but also "that no
additional requirement is made upon the Army."
General Ridgway, in discussing "the growth in Soviet nuclear weapons", the progress of the military forces in
North Korea and Communist China "from the status of mere masses of riflemen toward the status of a more
modern Army" and the menace which exists at every significant point of contact between the Soviet bloc and the
West - including Germany, Yugoslavia, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and the entire Far Eastern area - emphasized
what he called the "increasing threat to the United States" and the unabatement "of the ultimate intentions of the
Soviet bloc to bring about out downfall."
3. The Proposed Reduction in the Army Budget Unduly Emphasizes Budget Savings Over National Security.
General Ridgway accepted this budget, he testified, only because:
"It has been my unvarying position that when a career military officer receives from proper superior authority a
decision, that regardless of his views previously expressed, he accepts that decision as a second one, and he does
his utmost within his available means to carry it out."
Although the General asked for opportunity to express his views in executive session, he testified in his prepared
statements that:
"This budget seeks to achieve the maximum combat capability for the Army within the means provided by
national policy…The Army has been guided in the preparation of this budget by basic economic and strategic
decisions which have been made at a higher level…The Army believes that the programmed distribution of
strength and forces for fiscal year 1955 is the best attainable within the authorized end strength of 1,172,700
personnel."
Moreover, the emphasis given by Secretary Wilson and others to the necessity of maintaining the cost of national
security at what he called a "bearable" level "over the long pull" indicates that budget reductions are a primary
feature of the "new look" military policy, and a primary consideration in the elimination of these two Army
divisions. Indeed, the boast was made in the other House that these Defense Department reductions "are largely
responsible for the $7.4 billion tax reduction which the House has already voted this year."
But a budget reduction - an objective we all share - should be an objective secondary to our national security and
our responsible leadership in world affairs. Today what we shall "afford" should not be determined on the basis
of whether the budget is balanced, but on the basis of expenditures which give us a clear margin of superiority
over our enemies. If the weaknesses resulting from these cuts in Army strength invite an attack in Indo-China or
Korea, our "savings" would be paid for many times over.
Moreover, our amendment to restore these two divisions will cost a total of only $350 million, less than the
pending bill has already cut from the total Army budget submitted by the President, and far less than its billion
dollar cut from the total Defense budget as submitted. Our amendment, therefore, will in no way contribute to an
imbalance of the President's budgetary policies, or weaken this nation economically in future years.
If we are to make and keep America strong in an age of peril, we will not permit this reduction in the
effectiveness and strength of our Armed Forces. Permit me to say, as Henry Clay at the age of 33 told the Senate
in 1810, in urging strong military measures just prior to the War of 1812:
"I call upon the Members of this House to maintain its character for vigor. I beseech them not to forfeit the
esteem of the country."
For, Mr. President, if the Senator from Michigan is proven right by future events, then we shall have saved $350
million, an important savings. But if future events prove right the contentions of those of us who fear the
consequences of weakening our armed strength - and I pray that we shall be proven wrong - then any action we
take today which reduces our strength may well cost us heavily in terms of our security and freedom. Trouble
and danger are our constant companions: our enemies are powerful and implacable. If in our judgment of future
events we are to err - let us err on the side of strength.
Statement on Revisions in the Social Security Law

before the Senate Committee on Finance, July 12, 1954
This transcription of these remarks is made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A single text exists in
the Senate Press Releases File of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy
Library. Although the release begins with additional introductory material, the body of the release appears to
represent John F. Kennedy's message before the Senate. A link to page images of this release is given at the
I appreciate very much this opportunity to express my views concerning improvements in the scope and coverage
of our Social Security Laws. As a co-sponsor of S. 2260, introduced last year, I am delighted that the President's
1954 social security proposals as embodied in H.R. 7199 make similar important improvements in our old-age
and survivors insurance program; but I am disappointed in the failure of the administration program to fully
meet the retirement needs of our elder or disabled citizens.
As a result of improved mortality rates and a long-range decline in birth rates, this nation's number and
proportion of persons 65 years and older have increased tremendously during the course of this century. In 1900,
only one in twenty-five were in this bracket which we have arbitrarily labeled "aged". But today, more than one
in twelve are over age 65. Since 1900, the total population of this nation has doubled; but our population of elder
citizens has quadrupled.
Unfortunately, job opportunities for our older workers have not similarly increased. As a result, the proportion
of men aged 65 and over in the labor force has dropped sharply. This is a problem with which I am well
acquainted, inasmuch as in Massachusetts and New England our proportion of elder citizens is very high and
their employment opportunities are increasingly difficult.
It is for these reasons that I recommend to your Committee consideration of at least some of the provisions of S.
2260 which I believe more fully meet the inadequacies in our present Social Security Laws.
1. The most glaring gap in American social insurance today is the absence of disability benefits. The worker
whose career is prematurely ended by illness or injury is in too many cases a burden on his relatives, his
community, and the nation. Regardless of his age, his diligence, or his earning capacity, permanent and total
disability may bring impoverishment and disruption at the very time when the responsibility for support of the
family is greatest. Disablement of the breadwinner not only removes a source of income from the family, but adds
an extra dependent. The administration bill properly includes a provision freezing the benefit rights of those
totally and permanently disabled, in order to protect the level of his benefits upon reaching age 65. But the 45
year old amputee, facing twenty lean years before he becomes eligible for so-called "retirement" benefits does not
find his needs met by a reassurance that his benefit status has been frozen.
2. With respect to retirement benefits, the Eisenhower program contains some constructive and necessary
improvements; but unfortunately, they are still not bold enough or big enough to meet today's needs. Increasing
the minimum benefits from $25 to $30 is most desirable; but even the $35 proposed under our bill falls far short
of providing an adequate supplement to the retirement income of the individual worker. Similarly, increases in
the maximum benefits for individuals and families are not adequately provided by H.R. 7199. The new benefit
formula contained in this bill is a desirable recognition for those in middle-income brackets; but an increase in
the creditable and taxable wage base from $3600 to only $4200 is unrealistic under today's earning levels. In
order to restore to the program its 1939 status, when the taxable wage base covered 96% of earnings, a base of
$6,000 - as provided in S. 2260 - should be established. Finally, the provisions permitting the drop out of four or
five years of lowest earnings are a commendable feature to bring a more equitable relationship between earnings
and benefits; but this can be achieved more directly and with higher benefits for the wage earner if he were
permitted to select his ten highest years of earnings in computing his retirement benefits.
3. I am delighted that the administration has seen fit to place the retirement test or so-called "work clause" on an
annual basis, permitting $1,000 a year of outside earnings, with one month's benefits deducted for additional
amounts earned over that sum. This is an important step in removing the harsh and restrictive features of the
present law, although it seems to me that the figure of $1200 a year --or $100 a month--would be more in line
with existing needs and wage levels.
4. Finally, I strongly urge that your Committee consider two features of S. 2260 which are in no way touched
upon by H.R. 7199. Many persons find it difficult to understand the social security law and particularly do not
understand the relationship between benefits and years of contributions. As you will recall, the original Social
Security Act included an increment in the benefit amount for each year of work in covered employment. This was
removed in 1950, thus permitting one who retires after a few years of contributions to receive the same benefit as
a worker with the same average wage who has contributed for twenty years. I think that equity, and the
importance of a better understanding of the law, requires a restoration of this benefit increment for additional
years of paid in service. S. 2260 proposes an increment of 1/2% a year as recognition of these greater
contributions. Similarly, our bill provided that an individual who postponed his retirement beyond the time that
he could draw benefits would receive a delayed retirement credit for the period of his postponement at the rate of
2% a year. A flexible retirement age should be encouraged; and additional recognition should be given to those
persons who forego their retirement benefits and make additional contributions to the fund instead of retiring as
soon as they are eligible.
Except where rigid seniority rules apply, the older worker is among the first laid off - and the last to find another
job. Increasing prevalence of compulsory retirement in industry, and the inability of our elder citizens today to
qualify under the thousands of new pension plans gained through collective bargaining, accentuate the
importance of maintaining the living standards and purchasing power of our older citizens regardless of the
future course of our economy. It is my hope that this Committee and Congress will meet what has been called
"the essential test of a civilized society" by making adequate provision for the decent and dignified retirement of
our aged and disabled citizens.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy before
Massachusetts State Federation of Labor Convention,
August 4, 1954
This is a redaction of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. Two copies of the speech
exist in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Library. This redaction is based on what appears to be the
Reading Copy of the speech and essentially reproduces that version. A link to page images of the other draft,
which has handwritten edits, is given at the bottom of this page.
I stand here a fugitive from an open shop where the hours have been unduly long, the working conditions unduly
wearisome and the practice of a captive audience unduly abused - the United States Senate. If our exclusive club
were to be unionized, I am not certain which craft would have jurisdiction - perhaps we would belong to the
USTTA - the United Stemwinders and Tub Thumpers of America. Our trade has many skills: If a Senator, while
in the Capitol, talks to other senators, that is a great debate; if he talks to other citizens, that is a congressional
investigation; and if he talks to himself all night, that is a filibuster.
But whatever we have learned about the art of talkmanship, we should have learned that we cannot talk
ourselves either into or out of serious economic problems. There has been too much talk in recent months about
how healthy our economy is - too much talk, and not enough action to correct the sore spots which still hamper
our progress. Neither undue pessimism nor undue optimism will meet the grocery bills of the unemployed
workers.
Here in New England, the cool optimism engendered by upturns in May and June melted away in the heat of
July. Unemployment continues to be heavy in Lawrence, Lowell, Fall River, New Bedford, North Adams,
Milford, Southbridge, and Webster. Unemployment is also cause for concern in Boston, Brockton, Springfield,
Holyoke, and right here in Worcester.
During the past year, more than 167,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in New England, 80,000 of these in
Massachusetts alone. To those who still entertain the myth that these losses are mostly textiles and other non-
durable goods, I would point out that the heaviest loss was suffered in New England's hard goods industries,
where employment declined in June for the 12th consecutive month. We are not only losing the services of those
who make our fine woolen and cotton goods, our apparel, shoes and similar products. We have also suffered a
tremendous loss in employment opportunities for those working in the machinery, shipbuilding and construction
industries. The decline in employment here in Massachusetts - in such industries as textiles, communication
equipment, transportation equipment, machinery and fabricated materials - has in one year taken away more
than 1 in every 10 manufacturing jobs. And those of you remaining on the job know that the average work-week
has been cut to less than 40 hours, and as a result take-home pay has been cut too.
What we need to correct this trend is neither glowing words nor despair but action. This includes action by labor
organizations, such as the unique and statesmanlike loan of $250,000 by the United Hatters to the Kartiganer
Corporation to enable that manufacturer to maintain his factories in West Upton and Milford. This includes
action by employers, industrial development organizations, and state and local governments.
What we also need - despite traditional New England arguments to the contrary - is action by the Federal
Government: action which will give New England its fair share of federal programs now aiding other regions at
our expense; action which will prevent other regions from using methods of unfair competition to lure New
England industry; and action which will permit New England to utilize more fully its human, material and
natural resources.
Particularly important is action by the Federal Government in the fields of labor and social legislation. Unless
collective bargaining can make greater progress in the South and other unorganized areas through amendments
to the Taft-Hartley law; unless substandard wage competition can be eliminated by strengthening our labor
standards legislation; and unless steps are taken to provide employment opportunities and to restore the
purchasing power of our unemployed workers - New England will year after year be confronted with the same
difficult economic problems. Unfortunately, the single biggest obstacle to adequate federal action - not speeches,
not studies, but action - is the negative and vacuous labor program of the Federal Government today.
Let us look for a moment at what the Federal Government has done or failed to do about the problems of labor
relations, the problems of labor standards, and the problems of unemployment.
I. The Administration and Labor Relations.
After a full year of vacillation and contradiction and inaction, the Senate began to consider amendments to the
Taft-Hartley Act. The administration bill before us recognized some of the law's minor defects. These only served
to camouflage those recommendations which would harm sound industrial relations. One amendment would
encourage the states to meet "emergencies" by adopting compulsory arbitration for all types of industry, denying
rights guaranteed by federal law and enacting other anti-labor laws as an inducement to migrant industry. This
was in contrast to the bill introduced by Senator Douglas and me to eliminate the so-called "states rights"
provision of Taft-Hartley. Another amendment encouraged patently unfair abuses of the "captive audience"
technique.
Fortunately, these amendments, and an even more violently anti-labor states rights amendment introduced by
Senator Goldwater, were recommitted by the Senate. But instead we see action by the NLRB accomplishing what
Congress could not. One Albert C. Beeson, whose conflicting statements, prejudgment of the issues and
misrepresentations before our Labor Committee caused all Democratic members to oppose his nomination,
joined the Board. A series of NLRB decisions has given a much wider latitude to employers refusing to bargain
and coercing employees under the guise of so-called "free speech."
Within the past month the NLRB announced new jurisdictional rules to overturn the refusal of Congress to grant
wider power to the states. In those states where labor organization is most difficult, the protection of Federal
rights will no longer be given to those workers employed by industries falling below a certain dollar maximum;
most radio television, public utilities and transit companies; and restaurants and retail stores - regardless of the
fact that the courts and past Boards have found such employers are in interstate commerce and under the
constitutional jurisdiction of the Federal Government. I for one resent this legislation by administrative fiat
overturning the decision of the Congress.
II. The Federal Government
Still further encouragement was given to runaway shops by the refusal to increase the minimum wage, thus
permitting areas of substandard wages to undercut the wage levels of workers in Massachusetts and elsewhere.
As author of the bill to raise the minimum wage from 75 ¢ to at least $1.00 an hour, I was severely disappointed
when the President repeated all of the old fears of unemployment, price increases, and discriminations against
small business which have been repeated by the opponents of minimum wage legislation - and disproved by
experience - ever since the enactment of the first minimum wage law.
Similarly, the Walsh-Henley Public Contracts Act has become an idle and useless instrument. The Fulbright
Amendment has hamstrung with legal actions the effective enforcement of minimum wages on federal contracts
in textile and other fields. The Department of Labor is apparently unwilling to go ahead with its statutory
responsibility to carry out the law, regardless of such handicaps.
Finally, effective labor standards have been nearly strangled by parsimony. Last year, the Department of Labor's
budget, already the smallest in government, was cut 14%, more than seven times as much as the cut in the Post
Office Department, the Justice Department and Agriculture. The Wage and Hour Division was cut 27% below its
1952 appropriation, thus making it possible to inspect only 1 out of 22 establishments covered by the law. Field
offices in 8 regions in the South were abolished entirely. The chances of your own employer being checked are,
for example, only 1 out of 10 in textiles and 1 out of 20 in construction. In low-wage Puerto Rico, a review of wage
levels is possible only once in 7 years for each industry! This year theses cuts were even more severe. It would be
more honest to repeal our minimum wage laws rather than emasculate them by amendment, inaction and miserly
appropriations.
III. The Federal Government and Unemployment
Last fall a great deal of publicity was given to the new Defense Manpower Policy No. 4, the program for
channeling defense contracts to labor surplus areas. But the new policy knocked out the one helpful feature of the
former program, bid-matching, and has been a colossal flop. New England is getting fewer defense contracts than
ever before, and practically no contracts in labor surplus areas as a result of this supposed preference. The needs
of the Quincy and Boston Naval Shipyards have been ignored. The new tax amortization program for labor
surplus areas has proven to be another example of many worlds with practically no results.
Finally, Congress has gone in the opposite direction by passing a bill to undermine the entire financial structure
of our unemployment compensation system. When I offered an amendment to set minimum standards for the
amount and duration of unemployment compensation benefits - exactly the same standards that President
Eisenhower had recommended to the states as necessary to give the unemployed workers a decent standard of
living - it was voted down. When I offered the administration's own amendment to prevent states from using
surplus federal unemployment tax funds for administrative luxuries when there were needed elsewhere for
benefit payments - it too was voted down. The problems of the unemployed simply were unrecognized.
IV. A Program for Federal Action
This is the unhappy record of the past two years - the record which affects the job of every worker in
Massachusetts, which threatens the amount of his pay and the existence of his plant. But this is the past - and it is
now even more important that we unite all parties to improve this record in the future.
I have indicated many times in the past the notion which the Federal Government must undertake in order to
alleviate these problems. Permit me to re-emphasize 8 of those points:
1. First, the Taft-Hartley Law must be amended so that its unfair and inequitable provisions will no longer retard
labor's attempts to organize in the South and other hostile areas. We must reverse the trend toward giving anti-
labor State Legislatures power to override those rights of collective bargaining which the Wagner Act firmly
established.
2. Second, the national minimum wage must be increased from its present inadequate and unrealistic level of 75 ¢
an hour to meet rises in the cost of living, worker productivity, average wages and per capita income. Current
economic uncertainty, far from justifying a delay in taking this step, requires a more solid floor beneath
purchasing power.
3. Third, the Walsh-Healey Act must be strengthened by revision of the Fulbright Amendment and other
provisions, and the enforcement appropriations for the Department of Labor must be increased.
4. Fourth, our unemployment compensation program must be revitalized, with nationwide standards permitting
every worker to receive more adequate benefits, and for a more adequate period before his benefit rights are
exhausted. Inadequate unemployment benefits mean inadequate purchasing power in our communities hard hit
by unemployment.
5. Fifth, the Defense Manpower Policy Program for channeling defense contracts into labor surplus areas must
be made into a reality, providing employment opportunities for thousands of workers whose skills and
productivity will otherwise be wasted and dispersed.
6. Sixth, tax loopholes which permit the use of federally tax-exempt municipal bonds to build tax-free factories as
an inducement to migrant industry must be closed. This most obvious of all unfair methods of competition is
harmful to the workers and community abandoned by the runaway plant, and to the community in which that
plant is relocated.
7. Seventh, the transportation problems of New England must be promptly investigated and corrected. Pointing
to recent decisions discriminating against New England truckers, ports and railroads, I have introduced a
resolution on behalf of all 12 New England Senators calling for such a Senate investigation.
8. Eighth, the high power costs of New England must be reduced, through more effective development of our
natural resources and through the utilization of atomic energy. My amendment requiring that the Atomic Energy
Commission take into consideration in its approval of atomic power projects the high cost of power in the areas
which would benefit most from its power projects, along with other amendments adopted by the Senate, will, I
am hopeful, hasten the day when New England can enjoy the cheap power which now aids the Tennessee Valley
and other areas.
There, my friends, is a program for action: action to meet the economic problems that confront us, action to
secure a better life for every worker and his family. I know the members of this organization will join with me in
seeking such action, to do more for Massachusetts, to build a better state and nation, and to enable ourselves and
our children to look forward to the future with confidence and hope.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Commencement
Address Assumption College, Worcester, Massachusetts,
June 3, 1955
This is a redaction of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. The printed program is the
only copy of the speech in the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. A
link to page images of the speech is given at the bottom of this page.
This is my first visit to Massachusetts in over nine months - my first speech in nearly a year. It is, thus, a pleasure
as well as an honor to be here today at Assumption College.
I saw Assumption College for the first time on the afternoon of June 10th, twenty-four hours after disaster had
struck from the West. No institution could have suffered the losses that Assumption suffered that day and
survived if there was not in the minds of those in positions of responsibility an overriding scene of the function
and need of such a College.
The disaster of two years ago was not in any sense a blessing in disguise, but it did give all of us an opportunity to
reassess the purposes for which the school has developed. That that re-evaluation has reaffirmed the importance
of this College to us all can be seen in the wide-spread support that has been given from all groups in
Assumption's struggle to survive. To Bishop Wright, to Father Desautels, the Faculty, the Student Body and the
Alumni, this Community and State owes a special obligation. The ultimate result will be that Assumption will
play an even larger role in the life of New England than it has in the past.
It is highly important that this should be so. Assumption College in these critical days has a threefold function. Its
primary end, in the words of Pope Pius XI, is "preparing man for what he must be and do here below, in order to
attain the sublime end for which he was created," the perfection of man through the proper development of all
his faculties in the light of his supernatural end. In addition, the Catholic College, since it is a College, must be
concerned not only with the student's spiritual development but also his intellectual development. Assumption
College has recognized that its students, in the words of Jacques Maritain, "in order to reach self-determination,
for which he is made, *** needs discipline and tradition, which will both weigh heavily on him and strengthen
him."
Secondly, Assumption has a special responsibility imposed upon it because it represents one of the major
channels connecting the United States with the great sea of France's religious, cultural and social traditions.
What is most striking in the French tradition is its extraordinary vitality. Many countries have had a brief golden
age. France's has existed from before the Renaissance to the present day.
We can trace the continuity of French Art from the stained glass windows at Chartres to Rouault today. We can
trace the continuity of French painting from the Avignon Pieta to Matisse's Chapel at Venice: French literature
flows like a torrent from the song of Roland to Paul Claudel. We can trace the continuity of French missionary
zeal from the founding of the Association for the Propagation of the Faith in Lyons in the 12th century to
Assumption College in Worcester in the 20th.
Indeed, it is three Frenchmen today who have stimulated the rebirth of Catholic intellectual life: Jacques
Maritain, our outstanding Catholic philosopher - Francois Mauriac, our outstanding Catholic writer - Paul
Claudel, our outstanding Catholic poet. This is the matchless tradition, that it is the role of Assumption through
its graduates to interpret for America.
We are fortunate in New England where Americans of French and Canadian extraction play such a major role
that here at Assumption College we should have the means of maintaining such a close tie with so much that is
important and so little known. As Bishop Wright said several years ago, God "has brought you here and gave
you the force and grace and the vision to retain your traditions of language and culture in order that you might
*** interpret to us the wisdom of French speaking christendom in a moment of history which English speaking
christendom and all the English speaking world needed so badly." This College serves as a wellspring from which
all of us may gather direction and inspiration: You who graduate can share with us the French speaking world's
tradition and wisdom in a period of disintegration.
And lastly, Assumption has the function common to all universities, the continuing search for the truth, both for
its own sake and because only if we possess it can we really be free. Never has the task of finding the truth been
more difficult. In a struggle between modern states "truth" has become a weapon in the battle of power - it is
bent, twisted and subverted to fit the pattern of national policy. Frequently, we in the West feel ourselves forced
by this drum beat of lies and propaganda to be "discriminating" in our selection of what facets of the truth we
ourselves will disclose. Thus, the responsibility of a free university to pursue its own objective studies is even
more important today than ever before. Assumption College has succeeded in carrying out this mission, so that
today it stands as a bulwark on the North American continent in the battle for the preservation of Christian
civilization.
I say this and not because I believe Christianity is a weapon in the present world struggle, but because I believe
religion itself is at the root of the struggle, not in terms of the physical organizations of Christianity versus those
of Atheism, but in terms of Good versus Evil, right versus wrong, in terms of "the stern encounter" of which
Cardinal Newman so prophetically wrote:
"Then will come the stern encounter when two real and living principles, simple, entire, and consistent, one in the
church and the other out of it, at length rush upon one another contending nor for names and words or half
views, but for elementary notions and distinctive moral characteristics."
conflict has been going on for 2,000 years. It has not been limited to one nation or to one form of government.
The issues, the slogans, the battle flags, the battlefields and the personalities have been different. But basically it
has been the same encounter of opposing principles, a struggle more comprehensive, more deeprooted and even
more violent than the political and military battles which go on today. It is easy to envision the struggle as being
wholly physical - of men and arms - of stockpiles, strategic materials and nuclear weapons - of air bases and
bombers, of industrial potential and military achievements. This is the material struggle, and the central problem
here is to be equal to the sacrifices necessary for ultimate survival and victory. But of far deeper significance is
"the stern encounter", the very nearly silent struggle, with no din to be heard in the streets of the world, and with
weapons far more subtle and far more damaging than cannons and shells. The encounter of which I speak makes
no more noise than the inner process of disintegration which over a period of several hundred years may hollow
from within some great tree of the forest, until it is left standing an empty shell, the easy victim of a winter gale.
We can barely hear the stern encounter, and thus too often we forget it. Our minds, like the headlines of our
newspapers, are intent upon the present and future conflicts of armed might, and upon the brutal, physical side
of that ominous war upon which we have bestowed the strange epithet "cold". We tend to forget the moral and
spiritual issues which inhere in the fateful encounter of which the physical war is but one manifestation. We tend
to forget those ideals and faiths and philosophical needs which drive men far more intensely than military and
economic objectives.
This is not to say that we have overlooked religion. Too often we have utilized it as a weapon, broadcast it as
propaganda, shouted it as a battle cry. But in "the stern encounter", in the moral struggle, religion is not simply
a weapon - it is the essence of the struggle itself. The Communist rulers do not fear the phraseology of religion, or
the ceremonies and churches and denomination organizations. On the contrary, they leave no stone unturned in
seeking to turn these aspects of religion to their own advantage and to use the trappings of religion in order to
cement the obedience of their people. What they fear is the profound consequences of a religion that is lived and
not merely acknowledged. They fear especially man's response to spiritual and ethical stimuli, not merely
material. A society which seeks to make the worship of the State the ultimate objective of life cannot permit a
higher loyalty, a faith in God, a belief in a religion that elevates the individual, acknowledges his true value and
teaches him devotion and responsibility to something beyond the here and the now. The communists fear
Christianity more as a way of life than as a weapon. In short, there is room in a totalitarian system for churches -
but there is no room for God. The claim of the State must be total, and no other loyalty, and no other philosophy
of life can be tolerated.
Is this not simply an indication of the weakness of the communist position? If the ultimate struggle is indeed a
moral encounter, then are we not certain of eventual victory?
At first glance it might seem inevitable that in a struggle where the issue is the supremacy of the moral order, we
must be victorious. That it is not inevitable, is due to the steady attrition in our faith and belief, a disease from
which we in the West are suffering heavily. The communists have substituted dialectical materialism for faith in
God; we on our part have substituted too often cynicism, indifference and secularism. We have permitted the
communists too often to choose the ground for the struggle. We point with pride to the great outpourings of our
factories and assume we have therefore proved the superiority of our system. We forget that the essence of the
struggle is not material, but spiritual and ethical. We forget that the purpose of life is the future and not the
present.
This emphasis on the material shows itself in many elements of our political life. Too often, in our foreign policy,
in order to compete with the power doctrines of the Bolcheviks, we ourselves practice what Jacques Maritain
called "moderate machiavellianism". But as Maritain pointed out in the showdown, this pale and attenuated
version "is inevitably destined to be vanquished by absolute and virulent machiavellianism" as practiced by the
communists.
We cannot separate our lives into compartments, either as individuals or as a nation. We cannot, on the one
hand, run with the tide, and on the other, hold fast to Catholic principles.
Here at Assumption we are taught that Christianity is a way of life, not a means to an end: that eternal truths
and the problems of this world cannot be kept separate. You who are graduating from this College today know
this to be true and it is your responsibility as well as your opportunity by your works and example to stimulate a
revival of our religious faith, to renew the battle against weary indifference and inertia, against the washing away
of our religious, ethical and cultural foundations.
If our nation recognizes the spiritual and moral element of the "stern encounter", and directs our policies to
emphasize this phase of the struggle - if we refuse those compromises which have cost us so heavily - which have
blurred the nature of the encounter between our enemies and ourselves - we shall find our way easier, our success
more certain.
As graduates of this College during the years of its greatest crisis, when the struggle for survival seemed
crushing, you have found a clear example of what charity, hope and faith, especially faith, can do in overcoming
all obstacles. The cause for which we struggle needs reaffirmation. Its true meaning and significance can be
found at Assumption, and you who have studied here can be the vanguard in giving direction and purpose to our
lives and to our time.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy on Federal Flood

Insurance to the Fall River Chapter of the National
Association of Cost Accountants, October 13, 1955
Libraray. One copy has some minor handwritten notes on it. A link to page images of the draft with the
handwritten changes is given at the bottom of this page.
It is a genuine pleasure to meet here this evening with my friends from the Fall River-New Bedford area and the
Fall River Chapter of the National Association of Cost Accountants. Yours is a profession much in demand in
Washington today - for budgets, taxes and appropriations are a major concern as the Administration prepares
for the opening of Congress. The Secretary of the Treasury has been juggling the books all he can, determined to
balance the budget even if he has to borrow the money to do it. The Secretary of defense has been asking for
more money, probably because of the diminishing enlistment rate which followed his announcement that men are
now being commissioned as Army nurses. And the Commissioner of Internal Revenue has been trying to figure
out how much in taxes he will collect from winners on the $64,000 Question.
There is still another problem of "costs" which I would like to discuss with you tonight - the cost of floods, their
destructive power and their control. The disastrous floods of last august, which brought tragedy, hardship and
hundreds of millions of dollars of damage to thousands of Massachusetts homes and industries, were the last of a
series of heavy floods inundating New England in the past thirty years - including the destructive floods of 1927,
1936 and 1938. It should now be apparent to every New Englander that, no matter how proud we may be of our
New England spirit of independence, we must begin to participate more fully in Federal flood control programs.
Only in this way will we lessen the grim consequences which will be constantly forced upon us - particularly if, as
now seems likely, a new pattern of hurricane paths is being formed.
It is time for New England to demand her fair share of Federal flood control expenditures. In terms of 1955 price
levels, the funds authorized by the basic Flood Control Act of 1936 and subsequent acts total nearly ten billion
dollars. But New England, a major flood area which requires protection for 10% of the nation's industry and
well over 6% of the nation's population, can receive at most little more than 3% of the amount authorized.
But even if we had actually received our 3% of the funds for projects already authorized, New England would
have been in far better shape last August. Instead, only about one fifth of the funds necessary for New England
flood control projects already authorized has actually been appropriated by the Congress - while in the politically
powerful Missouri River Basin, for example, the ratio of appropriations to authorizations is nearly twice as high.
Indeed the nation as a whole has received appropriations for a much larger share of its authorized projects than
has New England.
Of the nearly one billion, eight hundred million dollars appropriated by the Congress for flood control during the
last five fiscal years, all of the six New England States put together received only ten million dollars - or six-tenths
of one per cent! It is important to note that, to the total Federal funds appropriated, our area contributed in taxes
- for the construction of flood control projects all over the country - nearly ten times as much as the tiny
percentage of those appropriations which went to New England. If Massachusetts had been receiving flood
control funds from the Congress in the past five years in accordance with her share of the population, or in
accordance with her share of contributions to the Federal treasury, our State would have received nearly fifteen
times as much as it actually did receive.
These figures are so fantastic, these differences are so great, that they stagger the imagination. How different the
month of August 1955 might have been, how much property might have been saved, how many lives might have
been spared, had Massachusetts in the past five years received for flood control purposes fifteen times as much as
she actually did receive!
The task that lies ahead is clear. Perhaps we cannot increase our share of Federal flood control appropriations by
fifteen hundred percent - but I do insist - and I shall insist in Washington - that the flood control needs of
Massachusetts and New England be more adequately recognized. This is a task which will require a sympathetic
administration, regardless of party, and the unified efforts of every member of the New England delegation in
Washington, which - I am happy to say - is now more closely united, without regard to political affiliation, than
ever before. But it is a task that will require even more the enthusiastic support of State and local officials, and
above all public opinion, in this area. It is your job to determine the projects needed and to initiate, in
cooperation with the local offices of the Army Engineers, the request for Federal funds - and it is our job in
Washington to follow through on those requests, to see that the funds are appropriated and to stop the short-
changing of New England which has penalized us these many years.
On the other side of the flood damage coin is the matter of flood insurance, which - unlike flood control, an
activity recognized by practically everyone to be properly within the province of the Federal Government -
promises to be a lively and controversial topic during the coming session of Congress.
I do not think there is anyone in this room who would not prefer that flood insurance be handled entirely by our
private insurance industry. But the fact is that flood insurance from private sources is virtually unavailable
today. Practically none of the billions of dollars of destructive damage suffered by homeowners and businessmen
less than two months ago was covered by any flood insurance of any kind. This is perhaps the most glaring gap in
the protection offered by an industry which has otherwise insured everything from race horses to the legs of
famous actresses.
Thus the alternative to some form of Federal insurance is no insurance at all. This is important to keep in mind.
We may criticize Federal insurance, we may lack enthusiasm for Federal activity in this field and we may be very
dubious about the success of such an experiment. But we must remember that the only other choice facing us is
no insurance whatsoever.
Let us examine the reasons why private insurance companies are unwilling to enter this field - and I think they
are very good reasons, in view of their obligations of prudence to their policyholders and stockholders - in order
to determine whether these same reasons make Federal flood insurance equally impossible.
In the first place, the insurance industry is understandably reluctant to expand the funds necessary for predicting
and measuring floods, surveying the extent of flood damage and erecting projects necessary for flood control in
particular areas. But those tasks, which are essential to any rough calculation of the risk to be insured, are quite
obviously the duties of the Federal Government, duties which it would be fulfilling whether or not it was in the
insurance business.
Secondly, an individual insurance company is unwilling to maintain the large financial reserve necessary to meet
the cost of a heavy flood occurring before their flood insurance premiums have accumulated. Congress, on the
other hand, can authorize - as it has in the past authorized - an agency to borrow funds from the Treasury should
an emergency arise in the early years of its existence, to be repaid subsequently from premium income.
Third, the private insurance industry runs up against 48 different state insurance laws and a multitude of
conflicting regulations concerning uniformity of rates, adequacy of reserve and other knotty problems, while the
Federal Government, recognizing that state boundaries have no significance in national disasters, would be able
to promulgate a fair and yet economically sound program for home owners and businessmen in all parts of the
country.
Fourth and finally, no single private insurance company could be assured of a broad base in all parts of the
country upon which to spread the risk; it could not be certain that early bankruptcy would not result from the
concentration of their insurance in the most vulnerable areas; and it could not foresee with any certainty a
reasonable profit within a reasonable period of time. Although the problem of spreading the risk over a broad
base will also exist, though to a lesser extent, under a Federal program, it would not face the same financial
difficulties - no profit would be needed; no state and federal taxes would be paid; existing personnel could be
used; money could be borrowed at cost, or even less than cost, from the Treasury; and, should Congress ever
decree that a partial subsidy would be in the national interest, that subsidy would be borne by all and not a few
policyholders or stockholders.
Several flood insurance bills will be offered in the next sessions of Congress including one which I have prepared
and on which I have been joined by my colleague Senator Saltonstall. But I shall be concerned not so much as to
whether it is my bill, or a Democratic bill, or a Senate bill that receives final approval as I shall be concerned over
obtaining the best bill possible. It is my hope that all of us in Congress who are concerned about this gap in our
insurance system will join forces to bring about the passage of such a bill. We shall need the cooperation of the
insurance industry, the backing of public opinion and the assistance of businessmen and cost experts such as
yourselves. I hope that we can count on that help in the months to come.
We know the story from the Seventh Book of Matthew of the "foolish man who built his house upon the sand,
and the rain descendeth, and the floods cameth, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell, and
great was the fall of it." But we have also seen that the hurricane-driven floods of New England make little or no
distinction between houses built on rock and those built on sand. They pose a menace and a challenge to wise men
as well as fools. And if our State is not to fall - and great would be the fall of it - all of us must work together
toward a common goal.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Sigma Delta
Chi Journalism Fraternity Dinner, Boston,
Massachusetts, October 27, 1955
This is a redaction of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. Two identical copies of this
speech exist in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F.
Kennedy Presidential Library. A link to page images of the speech is given at the bottom of this page.
Introduction
I would like to talk with you tonight about one of those facets of legislative government which is of fundamental
importance not only to members of the Senate but also to members of the newspaper profession - particularly
those in the editorial and publishing offices - the question of a Senator's relationship to his state and his
constituents.
I.
Perhaps many of you will think that this is no problem at all. Most people assume, with some justification, that
the primary responsibility of a Senator under our Constitution is to represent the views of his State and to abide
by the demands of his constituents. If Senator Saltonstall and I do not speak for Massachusetts, then no one will;
and the rights, the equal representation, the aspirations and even the identity of our Commonwealth become lost.
We are recognized by the Vice-President in the Senate Chamber as "the Senior Senator and the Junior Senator
from Massachusetts", as the agents of our State in Washington, as the protectors of her interests.
And thus, if I may be permitted a personal reference, it was not surprising when, in 1954, immediately after my
speech in support of American participation in the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway, many voters and
many newspapers criticized me for allegedly failing to stand by the interests of our section. Some said in effect:
The reasons you give as to why our participation in the Seaway would be in the national interest, and why it
would have little or no effect on Massachusetts, are all very persuasive; but your duty is to abide by the wishes of
your constituents, regardless of whether they are right and regardless of whether you agree with them. Permit
me to quote from the editorials of one newspaper at that time: "Senator Kennedy is…ruining New
England...sacrificing the best interests of the people who elected him for the national interest, as he saw it…It is
nice to have a Senator with such noble motives that he seeks to be a statesman with a great broad outlook
encompassing the whole of the United States. But even…the Norrises and other earlier Senators of stature didn't
go back on their own areas".
Others informed me that, in order to be properly responsive to the will of my constituents under our democratic
system, it was my duty to place their principles - not mine - above all else. Even if they made mistakes, I was told,
that was far better than my arrogating for myself, as representative of the people, the right to say that I know
better than they what is good for them.
These are very strong arguments, and they are very soundly based in our Constitution, in our Federal system and
in our representative form of government. But I do not believe that they tell the whole story. Of course, we should
not ignore the needs of our area - nor could we easily do so as products of that area - but who would be left to
look out for the national interest if every Senator were dominated completely by local interests and pressures? Of
course, I am the Junior Senator from Massachusetts; but I am also a United States Senator and a member of the
Senate of the United States; and my oath of office was administered by the Vice-President, not by the Governor
of Massachusetts.
I cannot believe that the people of Massachusetts sent me to Washington to serve merely as a seismograph to
record the ups and downs of popular opinion. I believe instead that those of us in public office were elected - not
because the people believed we would be bound by their every impulse, regardless of the conclusions directed by
our own deliberations - but because they had confidence in our judgment, and in our ability to exercise that
judgment from a position where we could determine what were the best interests of the voters as a part of the
best interests of the nation. If we are to exercise fully that judgment, sometimes we may be required to lead,
inform, correct and on occasion even ignore public opinion in our States.
I think that a rather simple, a rather "corny" but a rather thought-provoking story once told by a Mississippi
Senator who had opposed his state best illustrates this point. The Senator involved bore the fascinating name of
Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar; and he had gotten himself into the predicament of which I spoke by three
different actions: first, he had delivered a moving eulogy in the Congress upon the death of the South's most
implacable enemy, Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts; secondly, he had abided by the decision of the
special electoral commission to award the Presidency to the Republican Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876; and finally
and most terrible of all, he had violated the instructions of his State Legislature and ignored the wishes of his
constituents by opposing the free silver movement which sought to promote easy, inflationary money for the
relief of Mississippi and other debtor and depression-ridden states.
When Lucius Lamar returned to Mississippi he was met with bitter hostility. But in a series of powerful speeches
which he delivered throughout the State, senator Lamar, a former officer of the Confederacy, told the story
which I would like to repeat to you. In the company of other prominent military leaders of the Confederacy, he
said, he had been on board a blockade runner making for Savannah harbor; and the Captain had sent sailor
Billy Summers to the top mast to look for Yankee gun boats in the harbor. Billy said he had seen ten. But that
distinguished array of officers knew where the Yankee fleet was, Lamar related, and they told the Captain that
Billy was wrong and that he should proceed ahead. The Captain refused, insisting that while the officers knew a
great deal more about military affairs, Billy Summers on the top mast with a powerful glass knew a great deal
more about what boats were in the harbor. It later developed, according to Lamar, that Billy was right, and that
if they had gone ahead they would all have been captured.
And so Lamar insisted to his constituents that he did not claim to be wiser than they; but that he was in a better
position as a member of the Senate to judge what was in their best interests. And he concluded the story with
these words:
"Thus it is, my countrymen, you have sent me to the topmost mast, and I tell you what I see. If you say I must
come down, I will obey without a murmur, for you cannot make me lie to you; but if you return me to my post, I
can only say that I will be true to love of country, truth, and God."
The example of Senator Lamar is only one of many examples which are available to us from the history of the
Senate and American politics. We may take pride in the fact that our own State has not lacked in examples of
independent and courageous Senators.
Senator John Quincy Adams, who had already incurred the displeasure of his party by supporting Jefferson in
his acquisition of the Louisiana Territory, acted directly contrary to the interests of his State as well as his party
when he steered Jefferson's Embargo bill against Britain through the Senate. Jefferson, who was his father's
political enemy, and young Senator Adams were acting because of predatory attacks upon American merchant
ships by British cruisers. Our ships had been seized, their cargoes confiscated, and our seamen compelled to serve
in the King's Navy as alleged British subjects.
But Massachusetts was the leading commercial state in the nation, and it boasted a substantial proportion of the
American merchant fleet and practically all of the shipbuilding and fishing industries. These industries were very
nearly permanently destroyed by the Embargo; and John Quincy Adams, for his devotion to the national
interest, was compelled to resign his seat and to return to Boston, scorned and deserted by all but his devoted
father.
Your predecessors, the Massachusetts newspapers of the day, had a hand in his downfall. The Northampton
Hampshire Gazette, for example, called him "a party scavenger…one of those ambitious politicians who lives on
both land and water, and occasionally resorts to each, but who finally settles down in the mud." But young John
Quincy, whose star would, of course, later rise to even greater heights, never apologized for his stand. "This
measure will cost you and me our seats," he had remarked to a colleague when the Embargo bill was being
prepared, "but private interest must not be put in opposition to public good."
Still another Massachusetts Senator, probably the most famous in our history, is better known for his
subservience to the business interests of our State and region than for his courage in defying his constituents. I
refer, of course, to Daniel Webster. But in 1850, when disunion was a much more ominous threat than most of us
realize - in fact, more ominous than many good citizens of that time realized - Daniel Webster helped hold
together the Union to which he was devoted by supporting Henry Clay's great Compromise of 1850 and thus
pacifying the South. As a result, secession was prevented for another eleven years until the North was strong
enough to preserve the Union; but Webster had been required to support features of the Compromise which
were odious to the people of Massachusetts - particularly the provisions for strengthening the law that required
the return of fugitive slaves to their Southern masters.
That remarkable collection of literary lights who gathered in Massachusetts in the mid-nineteenth century
condemned Webster in terms which few other Senators have been forced to endure. Theodore Parker, Ralph
Waldo Emerson, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, William Cullen Bryant, James Russell Lowell, and John
Greenleaf Whittier were among the Abolitionists who cried out for Webster's scalp. "I know of no deed in
American history done by a son of New England," said Theodore Parker, "to which I can compare this deed of
Daniel Webster's - except the act of Benedict Arnold."
Once again, the newspapers of our State condemned their Senator for failing to express the views of
Massachusetts. The Boston Atlas, for example, complained: "His sentiments are not our sentiments nor we
venture to say of the Whigs of New England." But Webster had not intended to speak on behalf of
Massachusetts. For he had opened his famous address to the Senate on the 7th of March, 1850 with theses words:
"Mr. President; I wish to speak today, not as a Massachusetts man, nor as a Northern man, but as an American
and a Member of the Senate of the United States."
Other examples in the annals of Massachusetts history could be cited. "Nothing better can be said in praise of
either our Senators or our State," former Senator George Frisbie Hoar wrote in his Autobiography, "than that
they have been worthy of her, and she has been worthy of them. She has never asked of them obsequiousness, or
flattery, or obedience to her will, unless it had the approval of their own judgment and conscience. They have
never been afraid to trust the people and they have never been afraid to withstand the people. They knew well the
great secret of all statesmanship, that he that withstands the people on fit occasions is commonly the man who
trusts them most and always in the end the man they trust most."
Hoar himself had occasion to apply this principle when he opposed the popular Philippines Treaty in 1899. "The
temper of the people of Massachusetts," he wrote at that time to a friend who was certain that his political life
was ended, "makes it possible for any of her public servants to do his duty, whether for the time he differ from
them or agree with them. I suppose the majority of the people of Massachusetts (were) on my side in this matter.
But if they were not, they would say to me, 'Do what you think right, whether you agree with us or not.'"
I hope that these examples from the past serve to illustrate the importance in a representative form of
government of legislators who are willing, in cases of overriding national interest, to place their devotion to the
country ahead of their devotion to their constituents - legislators who think more or the conclusions of their own
conscience and study than they do of militant pressure groups or vociferous public opinion.
II.
But this leads me to the second part of the problem - and that is the difficulty which faces any Senator whose
conscience directs him to oppose the popular or easy approach. At various times in our history it has been
fashionable to ridicule Congressmen, and to assume that there are no men of courage, integrity and principle in
that body. Recently Walter Lippmann rendered a harsh judgment on us all with these words:
"With exceptions so rare they are regarded as miracles of nature, successful democratic politicians are insecure
and intimidated men. They advance politically only as they placate, appease, bribe, seduce, bamboozle, or
otherwise manage to manipulate the demanding threatening elements in their constituencies. The decisive
consideration is not whether the proposition is good but whether it is popular - not whether it will work well and
prove itself, but whether the active-talking constituents like it immediately."
I am not so sure, after nearly ten years of living and working in the midst of "successful democratic politicians,"
that they are all "insecure and intimidated men." I am convinced that the complication of public business and the
competition for the public's attention have obscured innumerable acts of political courage - large and small -
performed almost daily in the Senate Chamber. But I am also fully aware of the terrible pressures which
discourage acts of political courage, which drive a Senator to abandon or subdue his conscience.
One of these pressures is the pressure of compromise, which is a necessity in a political body under the
democratic way of life and federal system of government.
Still another pressure is the desire to continue the comradeship and approval of our colleagues in the Senate, to
get along with our fellow members of the club rather than pursue a unique and independent course which would
embarrass or irritate them. "The way to get along," I was told when I entered Congress, "is to go along."
Still another pressure is the pressure of our party and our party leadership, to whom each of us has some
responsibility if we are to maintain our two-party system and make party platforms and party labels mean
anything to the voters. I was criticized by some in this state for being the only Democrat to support President
Eisenhower's highway program, even though I thought that program was best for Massachusetts and everyone
else. But I did not believe we should permit the pressures of party responsibility to submerge on every issue the
call of personal responsibility.
Still another pressure, and in a sense the most important one, is the desire to be reelected. This is not a wholly
selfish motive - for those who go down to defeat in the hopeless defense of a single principle will not return to
fight for that or any other principle in the future. A Senator must consider the effect of that defeat upon his
party, his friends and supporters, and even his wife and children. Certainly in no other occupation is a man
expected to sacrifice honor, prestige and his chosen career for the national good. And thus former Senator
Ashurst of Arizona reportedly said to his colleague Mark Smith:
"Mark, the great trouble with you is that you refuse to be a demagogue. You will not submerge your principles in
order to get yourself elected. You must learn that there are times when a man in public life is compelled to rise
above his principles."
Finally, of course, is the pressure which embraces all other pressures - the pressure of a Senator's constituency,
the interest groups, the organized letter-writers, as you know, even the newspapers. It is impossible to satisfy
them all. Ex-Congressman McGroarty of California wrote a constituent in 1934:
"One of the countless drawbacks of being in Congress is that I am compelled to receive impertinent letters from a
jackass like you, in which you say I promised to have the Sierra Madre mountains reforested and I have been in
Congress two months and haven't done it. Will you please take two running jumps and go to hell."
Few of us follow that urge - but the provocation is there, from unreasonable letters, impossible requests,
hopelessly inconsistent demands and endlessly unsatisfied grievances. One group of my constituents seeks lower
transportation rates; but another group would be hurt by this action. One group of my constituents wants the
Federal Government out of business; but another group would lose their jobs if this took place. One group of
Massachusetts businessmen wants a high tariff on one type of goods but a low tariff on another. Many voters
demand more economy in all activities of the Government - except the one in which they are interested.
Conclusion: What are we to do?
One Senator since retired said that he voted with the special interests on every issue, hoping that by election time
all of them added together would constitute nearly a majority that would remember him favorably, while the
other members of the public would never know about - much less remember - his voting against their welfare. A
man of conscience cannot adopt this solution - which apparently did not work in the former Senator's case
anyway. But no Senator can ignore the pressures of his state's interest groups, his constituents, his party, the
comradeship of his colleagues, the needs of his family, his own pride in office, the necessity for compromise and
the importance of remaining in office. To decide at which point and on which issue he will risk his career, thus
endangering his future opportunities to fight for principle, is an overwhelming responsibility.
We can only hope that our position will be understood by the leaders and moulders of public opinion such as
yourselves. If our newspapers and others can recognize the need for conscientious and independent thinking in
these troubled times, if they will honor courage instead of sneering at its unselfishness, then we need not fear for
the future of our nation and the spirit of individualism and dissent which gave birth to it.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy before the Annual
New England Air Reserve Review, South Weymouth
Naval Air Station, October 28, 1955
It is a real honor to pay tribute to the men of the New England Naval Air Reserve, and to convey to you the
thanks of a grateful people - the people of Massachusetts and New England, in fact all of us in all of the 48 states,
who are able to sleep easier at night with the knowledge that you stand ready to respond to any emergency call.
We are deeply thankful for the fighting spirit with which you have kept your units ready for action - we are
deeply grateful for the patriotic devotion with which you stand prepared to defend your country - and we are
deeply appreciative of the sacrifices you have made - sacrifices of time and effort, pleasure and profit, sleep and
comfort - in order to help assume the heavy military burdens of this great and grateful nation.
We are also grateful to your families and fiancés for the sacrifices they have made - the weekend plans they have
cancelled, the schedules they have re-arranged and the endless waiting they have endured and will endure still
more should an emergency arise. "They also serve," wrote the poet John Milton, "who only stand and wait."
But it would not be surprising if some of you, in the ranks as well as in the audience, have been asking yourselves:
what are all of these sacrifices for? Is there still any need for all of this military might? Doesn't the "spirit of
Geneva", about which we have all heard so much in recent months, make it possible to relax a little bit, to cut
down at least on the hardest sacrifices - and thus possibly even to spend a few weekends at home with our
families?
Those questions are natural enough in view of the surface trends of the past few months. The President - for
whose complete recovery, I might add, we all pray - came back from Geneva with the report that the leaders of
the Soviet Union had assured him "earnestly and often" that that nation "intended to pursue a new spirit of
conciliation and cooperation in its contacts with others." The American people were told that there was
"evidence of a new friendliness in the world". Secretary of State Dulles went even further. He thought the
Russian leaders "indicated at Geneva…the genuine desire of peace"; and he assured us that "the war danger has
further receded", and that "an era of peaceful change" could be on its way.
In other portions of their talks, the President and his Secretary of State were more guarded and less optimistic -
particularly in comparison with the glowing statements made by other political leaders.
Some skeptics asked whether there were any fine deeds to accompany these fine words - and they asked what,
after all the shouting had died down and all the pleasantries had been exchanged, actually had been
accomplished at the Big Four Meeting in Geneva. But even these skeptics were for the most part hushed on
August 13 when Moscow announced a reduction in the Soviet Armed Forces of 640,000 men. Manpower, after
all, was not only the bulwark of Russian military might but the root of her political and diplomatic power as well.
Communist Poland, Hungary, Rumania, Albania and Czechoslovakia followed the Soviet Union's lead - as it
seems they quite frequently do - and announced cuts in the size of their armed forces. These cuts, said the
Communists, were made "with a view to promoting the relaxing of international tension and establishing
confidence among the nations" - and they were made possible, the Tass Communique went on to say, because
"recent developments … show that a certain relaxation of international tensions has been achieved."
With such an attitude of sweetness and light suddenly transforming those whom we had but a short time ago
considered our menacing enemies, it is difficult indeed for anyone in this nation - which has no thought of
aggression and no desire for war - to raise doubts about the sincerity and the objectives of the new Russian
approach. But surely we know in this country that it is folly to "cry peace, peace, when there is no peace." And
surely we know that too often behind the soft smile of sweetness there lie the sharp teeth of aggression.
The facts of the matter are that, although Communist diplomatic notes may be couched in more gentlemanly
tones - those gentlemanly tones have brought us no closer to real agreement over a system of nuclear inspection,
over the reunification of Germany, over the defense of Formosa, over the rights of the satellite nations trampled
behind the Iron Curtain, or over any other major issue which threatens the peace and security of the world. We
cannot afford to denounce whatever progress is being made or appear to be stirring up distrust and hostility
unnecessarily. But neither can we afford to permit the beam of our own peace propaganda spotlights to turn
inland and blind us to the grim realities of the world situation. We cannot afford to permit the roar of our
appeals for world peace to deafen our ears to the harsh discordant sounds of the conflicts that refuse to
disappear. In the jungles of Indo-China, in the straits of Formosa, in the desert no-man's-lands of the Middle
East, in the seething cities of North Africa, and in Europe itself, the surface calm of the "Geneva spirit" could be
exploded at any time by Communist deception, subversion or aggression. Mr. Dulles told us that the Geneva
Conference brought about a "transformation in the relations between the Soviet Union and the Western
powers." But we have yet to see any real evidence of that transformation.
Surely we cannot seriously consider the recent announcements of reductions in the Communist armed forces as
real evidence. Even if the Soviet Union and her satellites actually do cut military manpower to the extent
announced to the world - (and, when no non-Communist nation is able to ascertain the size of those armed forces
and it is never revealed, there is a vast difference between announcing a cut as a sign of peace-loving intentions
and then actually making that cut) - but even if those cuts are made, this will have little or no effect on the
relative strength of the Communists in Europe. General Gruenther, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe,
estimated last spring that the Soviet Union alone had "in being, active forces" of about 4 1/2 million men. Of
these, 2 1/2 million are in 175 infantry and armored divisions. The satellites add another 1 1/2 million men and 80
divisions to this, for a total in Europe alone of 4 million men in 255 infantry and armored divisions. When
security, naval, air and other forces are added to these, Communist military manpower in Europe totals some 6
1/2 to 7 million men, stretched more than half-way across the continent from Moscow to Berlin. Obviously this is
many, many times as large a force as all 15 NATO nations together could ever hope to put in Europe - and thus a
reduction of 768,000 men or 10 to 13% in the forces of the U.S.S.R. and her satellites will hardly affect the
balance of power from that point of view.
The free world wearily and earnestly hopes for the "relaxation of international tension" which Moscow claimed
had made these meaningless reductions in armed strength possible. But let us not confuse "relaxation of tension"
with just plain "relaxation". And I am fearful that it is the latter which causes the Russians to smile - a smile
which may even be stifling a laugh at Western confusion and ineptitude. For while we have not yet even fulfilled
the limited strength goals of NATO, much less even begun to match the overwhelming manpower of the
Communists, the West is already cutting, transferring and withdrawing - not just in public announcements, not
for increased efficiency, and not (unlike the Soviets) for transfer to labor camps or collective farms to strengthen
the national security - but instead in a fashion that is clearly reducing our strength.
Great Britain, our strongest partner in NATO with only 800,000 in service, is cutting its forces by at least 100,000
- or 12 1/2 % - of that already small number. France, with half her ground forces already in North Africa
protecting her colonial interests, is diverting still more troops from those she had previously committed to NATO
in commitments she has never met. Greece and Turkey, far from uniting to strengthen their defenses against a
mutual enemy, are instead sharpening their claws over a mutual friend: Cyprus.
And so I commend you, our "weekend warriors", for standing by your posts and your nation, for refusing to
relax or to be deceived. Our nation, far from forgetting about you, needs you more now than ever before.
***
As I quoted to you earlier, "They also serve who only stand and wait." But you have been standing and waiting
long enough this evening - thank you for permitting me to be here with you and my warmest wishes - and thanks
- to you all.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy before the Annual

Alumni Association Banquet of Boston College Business
Administration in Boston, October 29, 1955
Library. Corrections made in one draft that are reflected in the second appear to establish an order of precedence.
The redaction is of the apparently more final text. Links to page images of the two drafts are given at the bottom of
this page.
It is a genuine pleasure to be with you tonight at the Boston College Business Administration Annual Alumni
Association Banquet. I had some doubts when I first received my invitation from Father Joyce; for I remembered
the advice of St. Jerome: "Avoid, as you would the plague, a clergyman who is also a man of business."
The prosperity reflected here tonight symbolizes the continued improvement which has this year characterized
the general economic status of our State and nation. But we should no permit the warm glow of the banquet hall
to dull our awareness of the depressed communities and declining industries which still remain in our State.
Economic facts.
For the hard facts of the matter are that while manufacturing employment in Massachusetts rose in the year
September "54" to September "55" by over 22,000 jobs, nevertheless, depressed communities still exist amid this
general level of prosperity. This is especially true in those cities and towns where the textile industry is
concentrated. They continue to suffer large-scale unemployment and, also, they have suffered a general down-
turn in their wage levels as a result of having to meet Southern competition.
During the first six months of this year, over 38,000 Massachusetts workers exhausted their unemployment
benefits, and were forced to turn for assistance to the relief rolls, to charitable institutions or to other members of
their families. The latest figures show a new groups of more than 30,000 still receiving unemployment benefits.
In Lawrence, more than one out of every five working men and women has been unemployed for several years;
and in Fall River, Lowell, Fitchburg, Milford and the Southbridge-Webster area unemployment, bankruptcy,
liquidation, migration, and other heavy economic loss have been all too common in these otherwise prosperous
days.
Administration proposals.
Within the past few days, the Administration in Washington has announced new plans designed to bring new
hope to our so-called distressed areas and industries.
I will say in all frankness, and without intending to exploit for partisan purposes the distress of Massachusetts
businessmen and workers, that this State is growing weary of highly publicized announcements of Federal aid
which, when the ballyhoo is over and the gobbledygook has been translated, boil down to little or nothing at all.
This has been true regardless of which political party has been in control.
Proposals of 1953.
Approximately two years ago, another bold new Administration program was announced, you may recall, to
bring aid to the labor surplus communities of Massachusetts and the country, with two chief features: first,
defense contracts were to be channeled into these communities under a new kind of preference system; and,
secondly, tax amortization certificates were to be granted to provide a fast tax right-off to industries willing to
locate in these areas. I asked at that time whether these programs were not too little and too late; but, I
nevertheless looked forward hopefully to whatever benefits they would bring to our State.
But what is the record after nearly two years? How many defense contracts have been channeled under this
program into Lawrence, Fall River, Milford or Fitchburg? None! Not one dollar's worth of any kind of contract
from any branch of the service. And, how many emergency tax amortization certificates of necessity have been
awarded in the past two years to attract new industries to the labor surplus areas of Massachusetts? None! The
much heralded program of two years ago, in short, was much like its predecessors under the Democratic
Administration in terms of what it brought to the anxious businessmen and workers of our labor surplus
communities - words instead of action, a stone instead of bread.
New Proposals.
Perhaps we can hope for more from the new program recently announced at Denver. But I am not encouraged by
newspaper reports on its three new proposals: First, creation of still another new Government bureau to
coordinate the work now being done. It is difficult to see how the coordination of very little can result in very
much. Secondly, the agency would be empowered to make Federal loans for industrial development. But two
years ago, the Administration and Congress established the Small Business Administration as the place to which
businessmen could turn for credit not available from commercial sources. Yet, in more than two years of
operation, the Small Business Administration has made only 29 loans in the entire State of Massachusetts, for a
total amount of less than $1,300,000. Perhaps still another loan agency sill help; but the record is not
encouraging.
Third and finally, the new program is to provide "technical assistance" to distressed areas to enable them to
discover their "economic potential" and thus to help themselves. This is called a "Point IV Program" for the
United States. But the Industrial Development Corporations which have done such a marvelous job in New
Bedford, Lawrence and elsewhere in Massachusetts and New England have already made all the surveys of
economic potential and all the appraisals of economic trouble which need to be made. Instead of being treated
like some underdeveloped colonial stepchild, they want concrete action by the Federal Government based upon a
realistic recognition of their needs.
If the Federal Government is truly interested in promulgating a real program for the alleviation of economic
distress in our area, I would commend to their attention the following points.
1. First, Defense contracts should be channeled to bidders from areas of substantial labor surplus who are able, if
given an opportunity, to match the lowest bids submitted from other areas. This policy of "bid-matching" was
the major feature of the old Defense Manpower Policy Number 4; and despite continued resort to loopholes and
legalistic sophistries, it had enabled New England labor surplus areas to obtain $14,000,000 in defense contracts -
until it was quietly abandoned two years ago when the Administration under pressure from Southerners and
Westerners announced it own new program, a program whose sorry results I have already described to you.
Some say such a policy is inefficient and uneconomical. But thousands of square feet of empty plant spaces, row
upon row of idle, deteriorating machinery, and endless lines of jobless men are not more efficient or economical.
Allocation of defense contracts is at best a stopgap method of assistance; but surely we are as concerned about
temporary problems of labor surplus as we are about the transitional problems of surplus agricultural
commodities.
2. Secondly, Existing programs of aid to businessmen in such areas - including tax amortization certificates and
business loans - should be greatly accelerated. I have already indicated to you the shocking paucity of those
programs under the past two administrations. But they could become significant sources of assistance. For New
England desperately needs new businesses, large and small, if her economy is to expand instead of contract - and
I am sure that many of you know from personal experience how important to the firm establishment of a new
business are the availability of extra credit and the opportunity for a favorable tax treatment during its early
years. The Small Business Administration - cripped by legislative ceilings and administrative delays - has not yet
fulfilled the needs that required its creation. And the Tax Amortization program, far from aiding New England,
has distributed its tax favors in excessively disproportionate amounts to industries expanding or locating in the
South and other areas competitive with New England.
3. And this leads me to my third point: Congress and the Administration must take steps to end unfair
competition from tax inducements and substandard wages. In addition, removal of the tax exemption presently
granted to so-called "industrial development" bonds issued by states and municipalities - largely in the South - in
order to build these tax-free factories long overdue. Under this tax-exempt status, we in the North are paying a
subsidy to assist Southern states to industrialize at our expense.
Some of you may recall that earlier this year, a Brookhaven, Mississippi industrial development firm attempted
to lure one of this State's oldest manufacturing concerns with a letter offering these three, among other,
inducements: No capital outlay for a modern new factory; Complete tax exemption for 99 years; and, finally,
"The finest labor, 98% native born, who will lower your average industrial wage rates $.55 to $.95 (an hour)
below Northern states…". Substandard wages as well as tax gimmicks constitute means of unfair competition.
The national minimum wage has been raised to at least a more decent level; but Congress and the Administration
have not yet acted on a bill introduced by Senator Payne and myself to revise the Walsh-Healey Act, which the
Fulbright Amendment has rendered almost meaningless by requiring New England businessmen - who pay the
prevailing wage rates of their industry as determined by the Secretary of Labor - to compete for Government
contracts with Southern industrialists who have tied up the whole Act in Court in order to escape those wages.
4. Fourth, the Federal Government should take prompt action to eliminate current rate discrimination against
New England and the Port of Boston. Last year, despite all local efforts to revitalize the Port of Boston, the
tonnage passing in and out of the Port was below the level of 1952 by more than 700 million pounds. Other ports -
such as Baltimore and New Orleans - have taken an increasing share of the nation's port trade away from
Boston, which once ranked second in the nation but ranked 12th in importance at the beginning of last year. It is
unthinkable that this decline should take place at a time when the Federal Government is shipping millions of
pounds of foodstuffs and other commodities to our friends abroad. And, yet the Port of Boston has been almost
totally disregarded by these operations. It is even more unthinkable that Boston should lose ground to ports
which are hundreds - and in some instances thousands - of miles further away from European and South
American ports of destination; and yet discriminatory rail freight rates on goods shipped through Boston have
been not only continued but required by the Interstate Commerce Commission.
A new effort must be made to obtain for Boston her fair share of the tremendous Government export program.
But still more important - important to the progress of the entire New England economy - the ICC must reverse
its recent decisions discriminating against Boston and denying to her the natural advantages of her location. As
long as dried skim milk which the Federal government is shipping in great quantities can be shipped from
Minneapolis to the port of Norfolk for $.03 cheaper on every hundred pounds than it could be sent to the port of
Boston, we are going to get very little of that business. If the ICC REFUSES TO act - and the New England and
Middle Atlantic regions have lacked fair representation on that agency for a number of years - then it will be up
to the Congress to remove this inequity. Other rail, trucking and ocean rate policies also appear to discriminate
against Massachusetts - these too must be changed.
5. Fifth - The Federal Government should immediately take steps to make New England a leader in the
development of low-cost atomic power. Congressional authorization for such a step is already provided in the
amendment which I succeeded in having attached to the Atomic Energy Act of last year; and the erection of an
atomic reactor power facility in Western Massachusetts has already been proposed. More than any other single
section of the country, New England needs abundant and cheaper electrical energy. Low-cost atomic power
which because of our high power volts will be economically feasible here before any other areas of this country
could halt the migration of our industry to the Tennessee Valley and other low-cost power areas. It could provide
the basis for the development of an entirely new type of New England industry. And, it could revolutionize the
work, day and home life of every family in Massachusetts. We should not expect too much too soon - but I hope
all of us in this room will live to see a new and better New England - free from bankruptcies, free from
unemployment, free from poverty and free from economic fear or distress - arise as the result of harnessing the
atom.
With your help, I hope to see action in the coming years on these five points and others.
The ultimate dependence for the prosperity of New England rests in New England and not in Washington. But, as
long as the Federal Government continues to play such a major role in the economic life of our country, it is
important that its policies be directed along lines that will assist our economy and strengthen our industrial life.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Senate Banking
and Currency Committee Hearings, November 9, 1955
This is a redaction of this speech made for the convenience of readers and resesarchers. One draft of this speech
Mr. Chairman, I am sure I speak on behalf of every citizen of this State and region when I express my
appreciation to you for your efforts in coming to Massachusetts and New England. I want to welcome you and
your associates to this city and emphasize my personal gratitude for your generosity in adding, at the request of
Senator Saltonstall and myself, this hearing to your already heavy schedule.
I. The Need for a Federal Flood Insurance Program.
1. The growing flood problem.
Estimates of the property damage and financial loss suffered as the result of the August and October floods in
this region, though varying, have gone as high as two billion dollars. The communities, homeowners, businessmen
and others who bore the brunt of this terrible loss can never hope to regain, from public or private sources, all
that was swept away; but they do hope that the tragic lesson of this calamity may spur Congress into taking
action to alleviate such losses in the future. The most important step, of course, is acceleration of the construction
of all necessary flood control projects. But of nearly equal importance to this area - where the frequency of floods
may be sharply increasing, as the result of new hurricane paths - is the question of insurance.
2. The need for insurance.
Although prevention of damage to property is obviously preferable to reimbursement for its loss, once such
destruction is an accomplished fact reimbursement softens the blow and makes possible earlier rehabilitation.
The accepted manner of providing such reimbursement is through a system of insurance - whereby the risks of
future losses are spread equitably (a) over all interested members of the community, and (b) perhaps more
important for our purposes today, over a very long period of years - thus making it possible to budget in advance,
with consequent increases in peace of mind and economic security, a small, regular contribution for such
purposes each month for many years, instead of being confronted with an overwhelming amount following a
catastrophe.
These benefits are as true in the case of floods as they are in the case of any other catastrophe now covered by
insurance. Some suggest that flood insurance, however, whether public or private, is undesirable because it
would encourage retention of property in potential danger areas, a problem which is not presented by fire and
most other disaster insurance programs. Certainly some care needs to be exercised to prevent this tendency (and
the Kennedy-Saltonstall bill so provides). But an estimated ten million people live on fifty million acres in
potential flood areas in this country - particularly here in New England, where our major cities are located in
river valleys - and some four hundred billion dollars is invested in those areas. All possible floods in these areas
cannot be prevented; the cities and industries cannot be abandoned or relocated; and thus insurance is needed.
Of course, insurance by its very nature cannot be available on the same terms to those who live in the very
"flood-bottoms" themselves; and any insurance program requires, moreover, all policyholders to take preventive
measures to reduce damage. Thus, unlike a flood relief program restricted to direct grants to all persons, the
cautious and the careless alike, insurance discourages unwise investments and encourages reduction of losses.
3. The unavailability of private insurance.
An insurance program is thus both necessary and desirable to cover floods in much the same manner as fires,
lightning, hailstorms, cyclones, earthquakes, tornadoes, blizzards and practically every other natural catastrophe
are covered. But the fact of the matter is that flood insurance of any kind is virtually unavailable today. Nor is
there any prospect that the private insurance industry will offer adequate protection against potential flood
damage at reasonable rates. Practically none of the heavy damage suffered by the homeowners and businessmen
in this area was covered by insurance. This is without question the most glaring gap in the protection offered by
an industry which has otherwise offered insurance on every conceivable - and some not so conceivable - subject.
4. The reasons for the unavailability of private flood insurance.
I do not criticize the private insurance industry for its failure to offer this badly-needed protection. The prudence
which they owe their other policyholders as well as their stockholders prevents them from embarking alone on
such a program for the following reasons:
a. First, any insurance company which unilaterally added flood damage to its "extended coverage" policies would
find itself unable to compete with other companies failing to offer this expensive item.
b. Second, in attempting to cope with flood problems in multi-state river valleys, to fix varying rates and
conditions for property in different areas, and to experiment in this new, unchartered wilderness, private
insurance companies would face 48 different sets of conflicting state insurance laws and inappropriate (for flood
purposes) restraints.
c. Third, no insurance company is able or willing to expend the funds necessary for the prediction and
measurement of floods and flood damage in each river basin in order to make possible some actuarial estimate of
the risks involved. Even if such surveys could be undertaken, it would be necessary to recover their costs through
still higher premiums from policyholders.
d. Fourth, no insurance company would be willing to tie up the funds necessary for the maintenance of the large
financial reserve which would be required to meet the contingency of a heavy flood early in the program (before
flood premium income was sufficient to maintain that reserve).
e. Fifth, previous experience with flood insurance, largely around the turn of the century and limited to
particular valleys, was most unprofitable; and any modern company whose sales might be concentrated in a
particular region fears the same result.
f. Sixth, the possibilities of a catastrophic loss early in the game, an adverse selection of risks due to a limited
base, a declining demand after flood waters have receded and unpopular variations in rates, would all make
impossible the guarantee of a reasonable profit within a reasonable period of time.
5. The need for, and feasibility of, Federal flood insurance.
It is apparent from the unavailability of private flood insurance that the only alternative to some form of Federal
insurance is no insurance at all. However much we may criticize the Federal Government's entry into this field,
however doubtful we may be about the success of such an experiment, it is important to remember that the only
other choice facing us is no insurance whatsoever.
The Insurance Company Report of 1952 which outlined the industry's reasons for refusing to enter this field also
stated:
"Since for the reasons outlined private underwriters cannot undertake to provide specific flood indemnity as an
insurance venture, it follows that Government likewise could not undertake to provide specific flood indemnity
by means of insurance. There is no reason to believe that the Government would encounter fewer obstacles to
such an undertaking than private insurers."
A re-examination, in terms of a Federal program, of the six obstacles found in private insurance, shows the
fallacy of this conclusion.
a. The Federal Government, of course, would have no problems of competition with other insurance companies
who would not offer flood protection. On the contrary, the monopolistic nature of its position would make
possible a broader base and cheaper rates than any single company could offer.
b. Similarly, the Congress, recognizing that state boundaries have no significance in national disasters, would be
able to promulgate a fair and yet economically sound program for property owners in all parts of the country,
experimenting without regard to the various state insurance regulations.
c. Third, the Federal Government has already, and properly so, assumed the responsibility of predicting and
measuring floods and flood damage, as well as erecting flood control projects to reduce this damage. The cost of
such tasks, clearly in the national interest, are properly borne by the public as a whole, and thus, unlike private
insurance administrative costs, would not be charged exclusively to the policyholders.
d. Fourth, the question of a large financial reserve poses no difficult problems for Congress, which can authorize
- as it has in the past authorized - an agency to borrow funds from the Treasury, either on a regular basis or in
case of an emergency in the early years of its existence, such loans to be repaid from premium income.
e. Fifth, unlike the private flood insurance ventures on the Mississippi in 1899, a Federal program would
inherently be nation-wide in coverage - drawing additional strength from the fact that major floods tend to occur
only in one of two regions - not every region - during any one year.
f. Finally, it cannot be denied that a Federal program will also face problems of risk selection, rate variation and
other problems that make a profit dubious. But the Federal Government is not required to make a reasonable
profit on its insurance within a reasonable period of time. As stated in the Hoover Commission Task Force
Report on Water Resources and Power:
"Flood insurance … cannot pay off in the working life of an individual, and hence could not be attractive to the
managers or stockholders of a business firm. But Government, as a permanent institution with much at stake
already, can take a long-range course."
Moreover, a Federal insurance program would pay no State and Federal taxes; it could use existing Federal
personnel without additional cost to policyholders; and it could borrow money at cost, or even less than cost,
from the Federal Treasury. It would also be in a better position to require long-term commitments from policy
purchasers who might otherwise fail to renew as flood memories become dim. Federal flood insurance is thus not
only necessary but feasible.
6. The responsibility of the Federal Government.
Floods have long been recognized as an appropriate subject for Congressional action because of their devastating
effects upon our nation's interstate commerce, preparedness, health, welfare and economic well-being. Without
Federal flood insurance, the Federal Government receives less tax income from non-productive flooded
industries and from homeowners able to deduct flood losses. Without Federal flood insurance, heavy Federal
subsidies through direct relief grants (to which flood victims have made no special contribution) will continue.
Finally, the Federal Government has an important stake in preventing the abandonment of cities and industries
in potential flood areas.
Neither is insurance a new field for Congressional action. Crop insurance, war damage insurance and maritime
cargo war insurance are among those well-known Federal programs most closely related to the subject at hand;
and in addition the Federal Government provides insurance for bank deposits, savings and loan accounts,
mortgages on houses and vessels, and investments under the Mutual Security Act; several types of insurance for
Government employees and veterans; and social insurance against the risks of retirement and unemployment for
practically all working men and women. The Federal Government entered many of these fields, particularly
those first mentioned, because of the unwillingness or inability of the private insurance industry to offer adequate
protection at reasonable rates, and in spite of predictions of certain failure from representatives of that industry,
in much the same situation as we have today. But every one of the programs mentioned has been generally
accepted and financially successful. (It is important to note that the insurance industry, in its 1952 Report,
specifically compared flood damage with modern war damage; and the Report offered
"the complete facilities of the insurance business…to the Government in carrying out such an undertaking
should Congress…determine to provide specific flood indemnity…(and) wish to make use of such facilities in a
manner similar to their utilization in connection with the War Damage Corporation in World War II.")
7. It has been suggested that the accelerated flood control program which I previously mentioned should be
preferred to the exclusion of any insurance program. But consider these facts:
a. Every flood control expert in the country agrees that no amount of projects, however high the dams, and
however adequate the warning systems, could ever eliminate all floods and all damage.
b. It will be years before a comprehensive flood control program can be completed, if it will ever be completed.
c. In some areas flood control is simply not economically feasible, because of the cost of the project, the value of
the land to be acquired or other factors.
d. Responsibility of the Federal Government for payment of flood insurance claims would increase, not retard,
the speed with which it built projects to reduce those claims.
8. The relationship of Federal flood relief measure to insurance.
The argument has been made that direct grants of money, from both Federal and private sources, would be more
in keeping with the American tradition of voluntary relief for humanitarian purposes. But such relief, by its very
nature, and as demonstrated by our experience here, is irregular, unreliable and inadequate in terms of complete
recovery. Moreover, unlike insurance, for which the property owner pays, it too often requires recipients to
undergo a "means test" to demonstrate that they are eligible for a handout. Similarly, disaster loans are no
substitute for insurance; for their repayment requires the mortgaging of future income, a mortgaging which
many small homeowners - already left with a debt and mortgage for which they have no house - simply cannot
undertake. Certainly the insurance method of a small regular payment in advance of the disaster is to be
preferred.
II. What Kind of Flood Insurance Bill?
Early in September I proposed the draft Federal Flood Insurance Bill which is before your Committee now. I was
joined in this endeavor by my colleague, the Senior Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Saltonstall); and I have
since received assurances of co-sponsorship from Senators in every part of the country, including the Senior
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Green), the Senior Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Johnston), the Senior
Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Langer), the Junior Senator from Oregon (Mr. Neuberger) and the Junior
Senator from Maine (Mr. Payne). Numerous other Senators have indicated to me their interest in the bill.
The difference between this draft proposal and the other proposals contained in the Committee prints before
your Committee point up a number of questions concerning the exact nature and details of any Federal Disaster
Insurance bill.
(1) Use of the term "insurance". Representatives of private insurance companies have objected to the use of the
term "insurance" in connection with these proposals. Personally I am willing to substitute the word "indemnity"
or any other term if that would facilitate passage of the bill. But inasmuch as all of the proposals thus far
envisioned, with or without a Federal subsidy, are based upon the basic principles of insurance, this objection
would appear to merit little attention.
(2) Other disasters? A more fundamental question is whether the proposed insurance program should cover
other natural or man-made disasters in addition to those caused by floods or high water. With respect to man-
made disasters, such as war damage, I have always favored the revival of the War Damage Corporation which
operated so successfully in previous years; but your Committee knows of the many controversial problems which
have prevented enactment of such legislation in recent times. Thus I would prefer to see such legislation
considered independently, rather than risk the delay or defeat of a flood insurance bill which is unrelated to those
particular controversies.
With respect to other natural disasters, it is my understanding that private insurance is presently offered - and I
hope your Committee will check into this - for every natural catastrophe except floods and high water. In the
belief that no Federal program should compete with private industry, I limited my bill to floods alone. I realize
that the inclusion of natural disasters more prevalent in other parts of the country is said to increase the potential
support of such a bill; but this should not be necessary in view of the official figures on flood damage in every
State in the Union during the last several decades.
The definition of "flood" should be broadly interpreted to cover the entire insurance gap, including damage
caused by hurricane-driven tides, tidal waves and other high water damage from either fresh or salt water.
(3) What energy? The next fundamental question facing your Committee is the location of responsibility for the
administration of this program. I want to stress that the designation of the Small Business Administration in my
bill is at best tentative; and was made simply because that agency (a) succeeded the RFC under whose
jurisdiction was placed the War Risk program, and (b) is the only agency presently in touch with both
homeowners and businessmen in case of disaster. This year's floods point up a drastic need for improved
coordination of our many disaster relief programs; and as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Government
Reorganization of the Senate Government Operations Committee I hope to look into this matter. Should an over-
all disaster agency be created, naturally it should administer this program. If not, and if the Government
agencies involved feel that the FHA would be preferable to the SBA, I would be willing to accept that judgment
and the judgment of this Committee. A related question which I am also willing to leave to more expert
determination is whether such a program should be administered by an independent Government corporation.
(4) Insurance or reinsurance? One of the proposals most frequently made is that the role of the Government
should be restricted to that of a reinsurer, protecting private insurance companies against excessive loss on flood
insurance policies sold to their customers. To the extent that broad, economical and fair coverage could result,
reinsurance would be the ideal way to provide flood insurance with the greatest amount of private enterprise;
and my bill authorizes such a function. But to restrict the Federal program to reinsurance alone, and to prohibit
it from providing insurance on its own, makes the dangerous assumption that the insurance companies would be
willing, with Federal backing, to underwrite flood risks at reasonable rates, providing the same protection to the
same people who would be covered under a Federal program. Neither insurance or reinsurance should exclude
the other. Under the Kennedy-Saltonstall bill, both insurance and reinsurance are authorized, and a high degree
of flexibility is retained. It would be possible, for example, to handle the program entirely through the private
insurance companies, including not only the use of their facilities and personnel but also their voluntary financial
participation in the underwriting of risks and the sharing of losses and profits. Similarly, practically all of the
other various proposals made for some kind of flood insurance would be possible under this bill; and I would
prefer the adoption of such a broad and flexible plan, rather than a bill strictly limited to only one of these
alternatives.
(5) Role of the insurance industry. The cooperation and participation of the private insurance industry are
essential to the success of any Federal insurance program. I have stressed that we must not compete with private
insurance; and in addition to restricting my bill to flood property not now eligible for private insurance coverage,
the bill specifically provides that insurance and reinsurance would not be available from the Federal Government
except when they were not available from private sources. As mentioned, the Kennedy-Saltonstall bill also
authorizes reinsurance for companies willing to insure flood risks on that basis; and the maximum use possible of
their facilities, services, personnel, records and claims adjustment procedures, as well as their financial
participation, is directed. Finally, the Kennedy-Saltonstall bill calls upon the administrator to exchange loss
experience and similar information with private firms, and to appoint an Insurance Advisory Committee of
members from the industry to assist in the administration of the Act. It is my hope that this program of
partnership with private insurance, not competition or duplication, will meet with the approval of the industry
and the Congress.
(6) Permanent or temporary? I have stressed from the beginning that this proposal is something in the nature of
an experiment, much as the initial programs of Crop Insurance and War Damage Insurance were experiments.
For this reason I have attempted, as indicated, to make my bill flexible in nature, with most details left to its
administrator. I do not share the opinion expressed by the Budget Bureau, however, that any bill adopted should
be temporary in nature, with a life of perhaps three years; for the very nature of insurance, particularly flood
insurance, makes it necessary that costs and risks be calculated on a permanent long-range basis from the very
beginning. Undoubtedly Congress will want to make changes in the program after its first few years of operation,
as it did with Crop Insurance; but we should not write into law this restraint upon sound, long-range planning.
(7) Retroactivity: The Committee print on which no sponsors name appears would provide under this program
indemnification for losses already suffered during the current year, on which, of course, no insurance was taken
or premium paid. It would be difficult for me to oppose this step, for I know that the heavy losses of our citizens
will not otherwise be recovered; but such a proposal introduces into this program principles both alien and
unsound from an insurance standpoint, including the burdening of new policy-holders with the costs of floods not
covered by the program. I would therefore suggest that such a proposal be considered independently of flood
insurance.
(8) What kinds of property? The next fundamental question to be determined by your Committee is the type of
property to be covered under a Federal flood insurance program. The Kennedy-Saltonstall bill covers only
privately owned real property, including commercial, industrial and residential property. It thus excludes all
personal goods, business inventories, crops, detachable equipment and property owned by state and local
governments. The primary reason for this admittedly narrow scope was my belief that an experimental bill of
this nature would meet success only if strictly limited in terms of coverage and potential economic loss. Although
I will favor the broadest bill possible of enactment by Congress, to the extent that no duplication of private
insurance efforts is found by this Committee, the following should be kept in mind: Federal Crop Insurance
should be expanded - but under its own program, not in this bill. Private insurance companies presently offer
flood insurance on bridges, tunnels and other types of publicly owned property; while other state and local
governments look upon themselves as self-insurers as does the Federal Government. Automobiles, jewelry, furs,
and many other types of movable personal property are also offered coverage by private insurance - and the
administrative problems of paying insurances claims on other types of personal property are almost
insurmountable.
(9) Compulsory or voluntary coverage? Inherent in the Kennedy-Saltonstall Bill and I believe in all of the bills
before you, is the principle of voluntary coverage. Such coverage, of course, would be limited, a problem we
cannot ignore. It has been suggested that coverage be made universal by making it compulsory, by automatically
including premiums either in the property taxes paid in every state or in the premiums paid on private insurance
policies for fire and extended coverage. Such a proposal violates the basic principles of insurance, and distributes
the cost of floods equally among all persons regardless of their exposure or their efforts to avoid damage. Those
who were actually protected by the program would be paying the same amount for their protection as those who
received no direct benefits under the program whatsoever. If a flood insurance subsidy is necessary - as will be
discussed momentarily - it should come from general revenues and supplement premium payments - thus
requiring a larger contribution from those who will benefit than from those who will not, and distributing the
burden equally over all taxpayers, not simply those who own property or insurance policies.
(10) Cost to policyholders and Government. But would a subsidy be necessary? No flood insurance program
should be financed entirely out of general revenues, for that would again violate the principle that those receiving
protection should pay more than those who do not. The Kennedy-Saltonstall Bill provides that premiums will be
charged, and that "rates shall be based insofar as practicable upon consideration of the risks involved and shall
to the extent deemed practicable by the Administrator by adequate to cover all administrative and operating
expenses arising under this Act, as well as reserves for probable losses." In order to carry out that objective,
several provisions have been included in the bill: (a) Coverage, both as to types of property and types of
catastrophe, is strictly limited. (b) The Administrator is empowered to establish such terms, conditions and limits
as are necessary to attain this objective, and he may decline some applications and risks altogether. (c) A
"deductible" of at least $300 plus 10% of the remainder of the claim is required. (d) No insurance or reinsurance
shall be issued for properties in conflict with flood zoning laws; and the program shall be administered to prevent
inducements for unwarranted acquisition of facilities in obvious flood danger areas. (e) A broader base is made
possible by authorizing other Federal agencies participating in the financing of real estate to require purchase of
Federal flood insurance under this Act.
I have previously stated the financial advantages enjoyed by a Federal program of this nature. Of course, there
will still be problems of maintaining a steady demand, broadening the base to avoid an adverse selection of risks,
and selling policies with wide variations in rates dependent upon the location of property; but, as pointed out by
the Hoover Commission Task Force Report, these are questions which can be answered only by the initiation of a
limited, experimental program. If a supplemental Federal subsidy eventually be needed, it would still be a more
efficient and less burdensome form of Federal assistance than the heavy relief grants now required and a not
inequitable burden in view of other subsidies in other programs and areas.
(11) Amounts of insurance offered. The dollar amounts suggested in the Kennedy-Saltonstall Bill, with respect to
both the aggregate amount of insurance covering my single piece of property and the total amount of insurance
which can be issued, were arbitrarily selected and intended to be tentative. I have suggested $250,000 as the limit
on the amount of insurance to be written on any single property (but not for any single owner), an amount fixed
not only because on my previously expressed desire to offer a limited, experimental bill, but also because of a
feeling that those whose real property alone exceeds that value are not those most in need of such insurance. The
limit on the total amount of insurance to be provided under the Kennedy-Saltonstall Bill begins at $500,000,000,
increasing by that amount each year until it reaches $1 ½ billion by 1958. Although this might well be adequate
for an experimental approach of the type I have expressed - particularly in view of the pessimistic predictions
that there will be little demand for such insurances once these floods have been forgotten - I would nevertheless
be most willing to accept the recommendations of the Committee on this matter.
(12) Conclusion. In reviewing some of the questions with which my staff and I were confronted, and with which
this Committee and its staff will be confronted, in drafting a bill for Federal flood insurance, I have set forth the
rationale which lies behind many of the provisions contained in the Kennedy-Saltonstall Bill. But I want to stress
to you, Mr. Chairman, that my chief concern is not whether my name will be on the bill finally enacted, or
whether it is a Democratic bill or a Republican bill - my chief concern is to obtain the best bill possible. I will be
delighted to work with you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of your Committee, to bring about the passage of
such a measure; and I want to assure you again how deeply your efforts are appreciated in this state and region.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the 6th Annual

Convention of United Cerebral Palsy, Boston,
Massachusetts, November 11, 1955
Presidential Library. A link to page images of the speech is given at the bottom of this page.
Healing the sick, caring for them, and finding methods of preventing illness are among the highest type of activity
engaged in by mankind. Especially is that true in the case of a disease like cerebral palsy which attacks children,
and which is not normally fatal - a fortunate fact but one which carries with it a lifetime of heartbreak, unusual
financial burden, and incomparable physical inconvenience. I am pleased to be among people who have enlisted
their time, talent, and financial assistance in alleviating such conditions. And I am pleased to speak on a subject
so close to your interests - and to be able to bring you information certain to be well received. No one relishes
delivering bad news; every speaker welcomes the prospect of bearing good tidings.
As you know, the National Institutes of Health located in Bethesda Maryland, just outside of Washington, D.C.,
are composed of seven independent institutes. These various institutes concern themselves with such specific
areas of medical research activity as arthritis and metabolic diseases; cancer; dentistry; heart disease; mental
health; microbiology; and neurological diseases and blindness. The National Institute of Neurological Diseases
and Blindness includes within its area of activity all those diseases in which the nervous and muscular systems of
humans are affected, including cerebral palsy. The Institute, along with the rest of the medical profession, has
long been troubled by the difficulties experienced by medical research in attempting to conquer cerebral palsy,
which is perhaps our modern world's most mystifying and least understood malady - and one of the most tragic.
Although it is a disease contracted by adults as well as children, its most staggering aspect is the fact that nearly
10,000 babies are born in the United States each year with cerebral palsy - 1 every 53 minutes! This may mean
awkward and involuntary movements, lack of balance, irregular gaits, guttural speech, grimacing, drooling,
spasticity, failure of muscular coordination, tremor and rigidity or some degree of mental incapacity. So far as
medical science knows, the causes appear to be equally varied: congenital brain malformation; injury to the
motor centers of the brain before, during or after birth; incompatibility of blood factors; head injuries or high
fevers during infancy; cerebral hemorrhage; and premature birth. The feelings of inadequacy and futility with
which we non-medical people approach cerebral palsy certainly echoes the professional view of its complexities as
well as its tragedies. Only an equally complex, comprehensive and many-sided campaign against cerebral palsy
can ever turn the tide. It is a disease that must be prevented - and to be prevented it must first be understood.
Tonight it is my great privilege to announce - and one could not conceive of a more appropriate audience to
which this first public announcement could be made - that the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and
Blindness outside Washington, D.C. is now planning to launch an all-out attack against the dread spectre of
cerebral palsy. In the language of the National Institutes of Health, a "collaborative study" of cerebral palsy is to
be undertaken by the medical world under the aegis of the Institute of Neurological Diseases and Blindness.
Thus, as it has done in similar instances in the past - namely, in the testing of the effectiveness of penicillin in
controlling syphilis, in an attack upon tuberculosis and a search for its cures, and in the reduction of the
abnormally high incidence of blindness in premature babies - the Institute will mobilize all of its research
resources, together with those of private associations, including your own United Cerebral Palsy, hospitals, and
medical schools, into a powerful task force to conduct an intensive research campaign. What might take 50 to 100
years of research under normal conditions can thus be accomplished in a 5 to 10 year period of highly
concentrated effort.
The Institute's personnel, under the direction of Dr. Pearce Bailey, and the non-governmental participants such
as United Cerebral Palsy have already worked out a tentative "protocol" prescribing the method of approach
and the role to be played by each participating individual and agency. This protocol is at present being circulated
among those who are to play active roles in the war against Cerebral Palsy for additional refinements, and the
actual working program of attack will get underway in the near future.
Permit me to give you a dramatic example of what I mean by this "task force" attack that is about to be launched
on cerebral palsy. Although considerably simpler than the problems involved in understanding, preventing, and
caring for victims of cerebral palsy, the case of retrolental fibroplasias - a particular form of blindness - provides
an inspiring illustration of the "collaborative study" in action. For years doctors had been aware that premature
babies tended to develop retrolental fibroplasia. In 1942 this observed tendency was carefully studied and noted
in medical periodicals. Considerable thought and attention had been given to the problem without much success
when a young doctor from Washington, D.C. approached the National Institutes of Health and declared that his
studies and observations led him to conclude that the blindness was a direct result of the oxygen administered to
premature babies in an effort to assist them in their early days. Despite the fact that the theory did not have any
particular acceptance in the medical world, a research grant was awarded the doctor by the Institutes and he
continued and expanded his studies. The information he gathered was sufficient in the judgement of the Institutes
of Health and expert medical boards to warrant an exhaustive study and experiment along the lines suggested by
his efforts.
Thus a group of investigators in 18 hospitals in various parts of the United States, supported by the National
Institute of Neurological Diseases and Blindness, the National Foundation of Eye Research and the National
Society for the Prevention of Blindness, commenced an intensive one-year experiment. The results of the
experiment indicated quite clearly that in fact there was a direct relationship between the time spent in high
concentration oxygen by premature babies and the incidence of blindness (retrolental fibroplasia) among those
babies. Although oxygen in many cases is essential to survival of premature babies, it was found, the period of
exposure to high concentration oxygen must be held to the barest minimum to reduce the chances of retrolental
fibroplasias. As the result of this "task force" attack, the incidence of that type of blindness, although not
completely eliminated, has decreased from 40% to 2%! Interestingly enough they also discovered that premature
babies do not generally need the sustained high concentration of oxygen formerly thought necessary for survival.
It is not contended that these facts would not have been discovered if there had not been a collaborative study,
but rather that many children would have had to spend their lives in darkness while the normal course of
research was confirming the theory over a period of years. This striking example illustrates well the "task force"
approach to a specific medical problem.
Another aspect of the collaborative study requiring comment is its financial support. As I am sure most of you
are painfully aware, we in the Congress are called upon to appropriate a lot of your money each year for various
purposes. I must confess, however, that when it comes to appropriating funds for the support of medical research
in this country, I am pleased to cast my vote for such appropriations. We should not permit worthy experiments
to remain unperformed - it is clearly in our national interest to finance those experiments essential to our
understanding of the human body and the many diseases that afflict it. I was grateful that my amendment in the
last session of Congress to increase appropriations for medical research was approved without objection when it
was made clear that many worthwhile projects would not otherwise by undertaken.
Any nation which can spend 2 1/2 billion dollars for scientific research and development for military weapons
and equipment - as the United States will do in fiscal 1956 - certainly can afford to invest more of its national
wealth in broadening our base of medical knowledge and making discoveries which will give the people of our
country and the world healthier, more useful lives.
The United States Senate can justly take pride in its attitude towards medical research. When the Executive
Branch of the Government requested slightly over $89,000,000 for fiscal year 1956 for the medical research
programs of the National Institutes of Health, this exact amount was approved by the House of Representatives.
The Senate, however, wanted to know if more could be done; and with a little effort we unearthed the fact that
many worthwhile scientific experiments approved by non-governmental expert councils had not been included in
the recommendations made to the Congress by the Executive Branch. Acting on this information, the Senate
voted $112,000,000, an increase of $23,000,000. In conference with the House the entire increase did not stand,
but a substantial part of it - $ 8 1/2 million - did. In the case of the Institute of Neurological Diseases and
Blindness in which we are particularly interested tonight, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare
requested $8,111,000; the Senate approved $11,850,000; and in Conference the final figure agreed upon was
$9,861,000.
No discussion of cerebral palsy in Boston would be complete without reference to Mrs. Abraham Pinanski and
Dr. David Cogan, both of whom have just recently been appointed to serve on the National Advisory
Neurological Diseases and Blindness Institute Council. Mrs. Pinanski has a long record of active service on state
and local hospitals and Public Health Advisory Committees. Dr. Cogan, a noted investigator into the causes of
blindness, has served as a consultant to the National Research Council, the Public Health Service, the World
Health Organization and other groups interested in eye disorders. I believe I mentioned earlier the role played by
the Advisory Councils to the various institutes. These experts are selected to sit as a group and to evaluate all
proposals for research grants and to advise the specific institutes as to which experiments are worthy of financial
support. The heavy responsibilities borne by the members of these Advisory Councils makes the selection of the
members extremely important. The Nation's top talent is called upon and we in Massachusetts take special pride
in the fact that two of the twelve members of this particular National Advisory Council are Bostonians.
I hope no one will interpret what I have said here to mean that the government should or wants to do the job
alone. I know of the splendid research program being supported by the American people through their
contributions to United Cerebral Palsy. I also know of the ambitious plans you and leaders of industry have made
for your new Research and Educational Foundation. By all means, these voluntary efforts should be continued
and, in fact, increased in view of the intensive campaign to be waged against cerebral palsy.
The cause which has enlisted your talent and generosity is heartwarming; the healing of children doomed in the
past to a lifetime in the shadows - the comforting of their families on whom the burden falls with special severity.
This surely is a work worthy of all your efforts and all your sacrifices. Their gratitude and that of the people of
this state and the country is with you.
Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy at the Annual

Convention Banquet of the Farm Bureau Federation of
Massacusetts, November 15, 1955
Library. The second draft incorporates a few changes that were indicated on the first draft. The redaction is based
on the second draft. Links to page images of the two drafts are given at the bottom of this page.
It is customary these days for a politician addressing a farm group to fill his remarks with gloomy descriptions of
the farm problem and lavish political promises of programs designed to meet that problem. Tonight I have no
lavish promises to offer - and, looking about me, I am convinced that the economic condition of Massachusetts
farmers is not as black as farm conditions are usually currently pictured.
I am aware that you have your problems - some of which concern the Federal Government - and the only
promise I offer tonight is my assurance that I will be of all possible help to you in meeting those problems,
whatever they may concern - Federal milk-marketing orders, funds for agricultural research or soil conservation,
problems created by the new rash of hurricanes and floods, and the early completion of the St. Lawrence Seaway
(and I am particularly gratified by your support of that project.) But I am delighted by the fact that, whatever
you problems, you have not expected the Federal Government to solve them for you through subsidies and
controls.
Despite this, it is with some hesitation that I would like to speak to you tonight about this question of a Federal
farm program. Senators from farm states may decide whether Boston should have an urban redevelopment
program; and Senators from the deep South can recommend what kind of flood control projects are best suited
for our state. But a "city Senator", from an Eastern state generally characterized as urban and industrial in
nature, is not supposed to be so presumptuous as to offer suggestions for a farm program. I would speak on this
subject, however - not only because Massachusetts can boast of some of the Nation's finest farm lands, most
modern methods and most famous products (including cranberries, carnations and poultry products) - not only
because farming is a vital Massachusetts industry, pumping more than $200 million of cash farm income into our
state's economy every year - but also because the agricultural policies of our Nation, while they may appear to
affect more directly more farmers in other parts of the country, are of real significance to Massachusetts and her
farmers, industries, consumers and taxpayers.
There are, of course, basic principles upon which practically all Americans, regardless of occupation and
regardless of location, can agree. I think most of us would agree that agriculture needs some protection from the
distress that results from violent downswings in farm prices. I think most of us want to prevent an agricultural
depression that could wreck the Nation's economic health; and we want to prevent inequitable treatment of
farmers at the hands of a government discriminating in favor of other segments of the economy. I think most of
us would agree that the national interest requires a long range program adjusting production to demand, and
enabling our farmers to move high quality food and fibers at reasonable prices to consumers at home and
abroad, without wasting our soil resources.
But agreement ends on what kind of program will best fulfill these objectives. Permit me to state at the outset
that I am opposed to any farm program calling for high price supports fixed at 90% of parity until such time as
the flexible support program has had a sufficient opportunity to prove itself. Given a choice between the present
sliding-scale system of price supports and the old program of fixed supports I shall choose - and have chosen in
the past - the former, the more flexible program; not because I think it to be the ideal, final answer - and
certainly not because I enjoy parting from the majority of my Democratic colleagues on the issue - but because I
regard flexible supports as the less harmful of the two alternatives presented and a step in the right direction.
I do not say that nothing good has been accomplished by the fixed price support program. Certainly it provided a
helpful cushion during the serious decline in farm prices and farm exports which has taken place in recent years,
and during the general economic decline of 1954. But to those of my colleagues who call upon me to support the
90% program, despite its shortcomings, as a means of stabilizing farm income, I can only point to the decline in
farm prices and income which has taken place during the operation of that 90% program, a decline which has
been intensified by the ever present threat posed by the huge surpluses acquired by the Government under that
program. The facts of the matter are that, due in part to the stimulation of high support prices, the productive
capacity of our food and fiber industry is over-expanded - but its markets are shrinking - not so much in terms of
actual and potential need, which will continue to increase here and in the poorer areas of the world, but in terms
of distribution and purchasing power. Price supports at 90% of parity will not solve that problem; price supports
at a lower or flexible level will not solve it either - but at least they will not accentuate it so badly.
What is needed, in my opinion, is a new, fresh, realistic appraisal of the farm situation. I am afraid that neither
party platform in 1956 will provide either a program based on such an appraisal, or even the hope of one in the
future. I doubt that I, as a "city Senator", will have much influence on those platforms and what goes into them.
But I would like to suggest tonight four standards of what should not go into next year's farm platforms, either
Democratic or Republican. And I offer these four criteria to you tonight with the full knowledge that not one of
the four will receive any attention from either party when it draws up its platform next summer.
1. First: No farm platform should be based more upon the myths and magic that are believed necessary to attract
farm votes than upon the facts and logic that are necessary to build a sound farm program. We have heard in
recent months speeches on one side aimed at stirring up discontent - a so-called "farm revolt" - and we have
heard on the other side speeches offering glib but empty reassurances that all is well or soon will be. Neither
approach contributes very much to the long-range solution of real farm problems. I do not believe that the
farmers of this country will necessarily vote for those who most exaggerate their distress, or who paint the
darkest picture of the total depression or total regimentation that will result if their opponents win. Let us drop
from the platforms and speeches of both parties all reference to such unmeaningful abstractions as a "free
agricultural market"; let us refrain from the repeated use of such loaded terms as "full parity" and "rigidity",
used by both sides so much as to become nearly meaningless and let us admit that neither farm prosperity nor the
effectiveness of any farm program can be realistically measured in terms of the war and post-war years, when
shortages and inflation characterized our agricultural economy.
2. Secondly: No farm platform should be calculated to aid one section of our country or one segment of our
economy at the expense of another. I refer not only to the danger of pitting farmers against processors and
consumers, but also to the danger of helping one part of the farm population while hurting another. Supporting
grain prices in the Middle-west only intensifies the high feed price squeeze of the New England dairy farmer.
Prohibiting the importation of Canadian rye may help farmers in Minnesota but it hurts farmers in
Massachusetts. Those of you who sell dairy products or vegetables are, under present programs, paying taxes
that are used to divert other farmers into competition with you; just as our New England textile manufacturers
pay taxes used to acquire huge cotton surpluses which may be "dumped" abroad at cut-rate prices - an action
that will not only impair our foreign relations by depriving our allies of their markets, but will also force these
same taxpaying manufacturers to compete with that same cheap cotton when it is shipped back to this country in
the form of cheap textile imports.
Part of the problem is the common oversimplification - particularly common in political platforms and speeches -
that all farmers in all parts of the country are alike. Certainly the problems of the New England poultry farmer,
who is usually happy that the Government got out of his business, are vastly unlike the problems of the Oregon
wheat rancher who wants the Government in deeper in his business. And even the interests of the Massachusetts
dairy and tobacco farmers bear little resemblance to the interests of the dairy farmers of Wisconsin and the
tobacco farmers of North Carolina. Yet some of my colleagues in the political profession from other parts of the
country are still acclaimed as "farm spokesmen", purporting to speak for both you and me in the deliberations of
Congress and the party conventions.
3. Third: No farm platform should depend primarily upon the enlargement of subsidies and the accumulation of
surpluses to provide long-range solutions to farm problems. Some politicians still cherish the mistaken belief that
the farm vote can be "purchased" by whichever party promises the most expensive subsidy program - despite the
fact that any and all farm programs are in danger of being permanently discredited in the eyes of the public as
the result of today's excessive surpluses and subsidies. More than $5 billion worth of wheat, cotton and other
surplus products are already in Government storage, at a cost to the taxpayers of some $700,000 a day - not
including the deterioration and decomposition of those commodities. Our net loss in the last fiscal year on price
support operations alone was nearly $800 million. Well over 10% of this nation's cropland - some 40 million
acres - is devoted to growing crops not for sale, not for stomachs but for surplus storage. And no end is in sight;
for what was originally conceived as the prudent use of Governmental machinery to help farmers adjust
production to market demand is now regarded by some as a permanent relief program, guaranteeing certain
farmers a fixed profit at Government expense - a guarantee given to no other industry - regardless of the market
demand, the cost to the Government, the size of the surpluses on hand or the efficiency of the farmers involved.
Like most subsidies, our farm programs have tended to help the inefficient as well as the efficient, and help the
rich more than the poor. It has been estimated that less than 2% of the nation's farmers receive more than 25%
of the price support program's benefits. In fact, most of the small and marginal farm operators who heavily
weight the depressing statistics used by those calling for a more expensive program - the farm families at the
bottom of the economic ladder, the Negro and Mexican tenant farmers of the South and Southwest, and others -
will on the whole receive few, if any, of the benefits to be passed out under such programs.
4. Fourth: No farm platform should pretend that a program of either fixed or sliding price supports offers a
perfect, comprehensive answer to all the ills of agriculture. Neither program is free of the faults for which its own
adherents condemn the other. The flexibility of the new compromise program is certainly very slight indeed; and
the President's last Budget Message recognized that it would not save the taxpayers any money. Both the old and
the new programs depend upon the storage of surpluses too big to handle, too expensive to store. Both old and
new offer support to some farmers in some parts of the country that hurts other farmers in other parts of the
country. Both concentrate more on the farmer's price than on his net income, more on his guaranteed security
than on his independence. Both programs require the farmer to accept various controls, particularly acreage
restrictions which - being invariably followed by more intensive fertilization and production on the remaining
acres - have in the past had little effect (except as a nuisance) in most instances. Neither program diminishes
appreciably the production of surplus commodities or increases appreciably their markets, thus facilitating
neither the end of the storage burden not the adoption of sound soil conservation practices. Both subsidize the
inefficient farmers while giving little help to those who most need it. Neither program enables our farmers to sell
in the world market at normal competitive prices; and both require restrictions on agricultural imports - which
would otherwise take advantage of our support program - thus restricting still further the market for farm
exports. Neither of the present alternatives offers lower prices to consumers and industry. And finally, both high
and sliding-scale supports are based primarily on outmoded parity price relationships of the past, which do not
realistically reflect changes in current cost conditions, new techniques or productivity, or future market
demands.
Conclusion. I offer these four standards in the hope, already rapidly dimming, that the farm issue in the next
campaign will be dealt with honestly, intelligently and fairly, with the national interest uppermost in the minds of
the candidates. I do not pretend to know the final answers to all the problems I have raised; I am neither a
farmer nor a professor - (neither an egg producer nor an "egg-head"). But I suggest these four criteria to you
and to our political leaders because of my conviction that only a new and frank approach to this issue will ever
provide a solution to these intricate problems in the years that lie ahead.
In the words of Daniel Webster:
"In highly excited times it is far easier to fan and feed the flames of discord than to subdue them; and he who
counsels moderation is in danger of being regarded as failing in his duty to his party … (but) let our object (at all
times) be our country, our whole country, and nothing but our country."
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy to the National
Conference of Christians & Jews, Inc., February 16,
1956
This is a redaction of a speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. Two drafts of the speech
exist in the Senate Speech Files of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy
Library. As the basis for this text, we have used the version that we have labeled "draft one," which include
handwritten emendations. There is also a version without the edits. Presumptively the handwritten additions
represent a later stage of composition, but we can not say with absolute certainty which version represents the
text as delivered. Links to page images of the two drafts are given at the bottom of this page.
I am deeply honored and deeply grateful for the distinction you bestow upon me tonight. I only hope that my
future conduct, as a private citizen and as a public servant, will be worthy of the trust symbolized by this award.
I think there is some significance to the fact that you have chosen a politician - and I use the word without
apology - as one of the recipients of your award. For the unfortunate truth of the matter is that the field of
politics is all too often lacking in the principles and practices we honor tonight. Religious, racial and ethnic
distinctions are prevalent - indeed, sometimes dominant - in the political life of Massachusetts and the nation.
Bloc voting, so-called "balanced tickets", and special appeals for special ethnic groups are all an integral part of
the political scene as we know it today - as well as outright racial and religious prejudice, slander and
discrimination.
Perhaps some ethnic distinctions are inevitable as long as the various ethnic groups themselves insist upon
thinking in such terms - but what is the value of it? Would not our society be better served if the best available
men were picked for the highest available offices - rather than excluding some because of their religious
affiliation and including others because of their ethnic background? Is it not preferable for our candidates to
think in terms of the long-run interests of our state and nation rather than in terms of the Irish vote, or the
Jewish vote, or the Yankee vote?
I can testify from personal experience that expertness in the affairs of a Senatorial office is not dependent upon
religious affiliation. Three professional staff members assist me in my office in Washington. No inquiry of their
religious affiliation was made when I hired them. I was interested, and remain interested, only in their work. One
of these men is a Catholic. One is a Protestant. One is a Jew. All three are at the service of any Massachusetts
citizen who requests our help, whatever may be his problem and whatever may be his religious faith.
Tonight we stand on the threshold of another political campaign - and all of us here tonight share the hope, and
pledge our efforts toward its fulfillment, that no racial, religious or other ethnic differences will play any part in
this year's campaign. And if they do, I suggest that we take inspiration from the courage displayed by others
before us who refused to bow to the passions of prejudice and bigotry.
One such example was a Protestant Senator from the State of Nebraska, George W. Norris. In 1928, as many of
you will vividly recall, the Democratic nominee for President, Al Smith, was subjected to a variety of vicious
attacks because of his Catholic faith. Governor Smith made it clear that his personal religious views did not affect
his belief in the First Amendment, in freedom of religion for all, in the enforcement of our laws and Constitution
and in the American public school system; and he stated flatly that he recognized no power in the Church which
could interfere with any of these matters.
But the bigots and the uninformed, aided and abetted by those politically opposed to Smith, inflamed and
exploited the prejudice and ignorance of many Americans toward the Catholic Church in 1928. A radio
commentator stated flatly over the air that a New Jersey convent had been purchased by the Catholic Church as
the American residence for the Pope after Smith's election. In Georgia, some churches exhibited pictures of
Smith at the opening of the Holland Tunnel, convinced that the tunnel was actually being constructed to connect
with the basement of the Vatican in Rome, 3500 miles away. On election eve the story spread that the Pope had
already purchased tickets for sailing to the United States as soon as he was radioed news of a Smith victory.
In the face of such a campaign, George Norris of Nebraska, a lifetime Protestant from an overwhelmingly
Protestant state, could hardly be expected to speak out - particularly since he was also a member of a different
party and also differed with Smith over prohibition. But Norris believed one issue in the campaign - public power
- overrode all others - and once he had made his decision on this basis to join the Smith camp, he was not going to
let the false issue of religion, or the emotions it aroused among his constituents, stand in his way. Surely "it is
possible," he said, "for a man in public life to separate his religious beliefs from his political activities…I am a
Protestant and a dry, yet I would support a man who was a wet and a Catholic provided I believed he was
sincerely in favor of law enforcement and was right on economic issues."
When his constituents condemned his stand, Norris assailed the "special interests and machine politicians who
have kept this religious issue to the front although they knew it was a false, wicked and unfair issue." And he
closed his nationwide broadcast for Smith from Omaha by meeting this issue openly and powerfully, with these
words:
"It is our duty as patriots to cast out this Un-American doctrine and rebuke those who have raised the torch of
intolerance. All believers of any faith can unite and go forward in our political work to bring about the maximum
amount of happiness for our people."
A second example - also of some significance today - occurred four years earlier - in the pre-convention campaign
of the Democratic Party of 1924, when intolerance had again raised its ugly head - not because of the religious
affiliation of any candidate but because of the whole problem of racial and religious hatred and the powerful
groups who fostered it. The Ku Klux Klan was a potent force in American politics in 1924, numbering an
estimated 5 million members in 45 states. Hate-mongering was their business; "America for the Americans" was
their slogan; and post-war fear and distrust of our allies, our former enemies and the new Communist movement
provided their atmosphere. Negroes were lynched - Catholics were flogged - Jews were tarred and feathered -
immigrants were excluded - and it was all done in the name of the Lord.
As the Democratic Convention prepared to meet in New York City, the burning issue was whether the Klan -
dominant in Southern Democratic politics and influential elsewhere - would be condemned, condoned or even
mentioned. The advisors of Senator Oscar W. Underwood of Alabama - a former Presidential candidate (in
1912), a former Democratic floor leader in both the House and the Senate, author of the famous tariff bill which
bore his name, and a leading Presidential possibility - urged that he say nothing to offend the Ku Klux Klan. But
Senator Underwood, convinced that the Klan was contrary to all the principles of Jeffersonian democracy in
which he believed, denounced it in no uncertain terms, insisted that this was the paramount issue upon which the
party would have to take a firm stand, and fought vigorously but unsuccessfully to include an anti-Klan plank in
the party platform. The Louisiana delegation and other Southerners publicly repudiated him, and from that
moment on his chances for the Presidency were nil. But it was the courage of such men as George W. Norris and
Oscar W. Underwood that paved the way for the progress in race relations and religious tolerance that has
brightened the years since their brave deeds were done.
But courage on the part of those public officials under a bigoted attack, or on the part of those public officials
who boldly support them, is not enough. I ask you now to recall the atmosphere in Washington and the nation -
and particularly here in Boston - exactly 40 years ago this very night. President Woodrow Wilson had nominated
to be Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court one of Boston's best-known and most controversial
citizens - Louis D. Brandeis. Opposition to the appointment was heavy and vociferous. It was said that Mr.
Brandeis was a radical, that he was dishonest, that he was controversial, that he was an impractical theorist - and
that he was a Jew.
Although opposition on this latter ground was, for the most part, not out in the open, Brandeis himself - when
asked to prepare an anonymous brief on his own case by Senator LaFollette - opened with these words:
"The dominant reasons (as contrasted with the stated reasons) for the opposition to the confirmation of Mr.
Brandeis are that he is considered a radical and is a Jew." Jewish lawyers were advised not to write to the Senate
Committee on his behalf for fear of antagonizing the Southern Democratic votes needed for confirmation; and
most newspapers emphasized in their news columns the fact that no Jew had ever served on the highest Court in
our land.
I will not now repeat the names of those good citizens of Boston who protested the Brandeis appointment - on
grounds other than religious, of course - the scions of famous Boston families, the eminent lawyers, the scholarly
professors. No useful purpose is served by recalling the bitter attacks made by those who 20 years later would call
Louis Brandeis one of the greatest jurists of all time. For his detractors, and their methods and attacks, did not
concern Brandeis so much as those who sat by and merely watched.
"What has seemed to me the really serious features of the attitude of this community," he wrote a friend from
Boston, "were not the attacks of my opponents, however vicious and unfounded, but the silence or acquiescence
of those who were not opposed to or were actually in sympathy with me.
Most alarming is the unmanliness, the pusillanimity of those who believed that my efforts were commendable but
feared to speak out; feared because of either financial or social considerations or for the love of enjoyment or
ease. And then the acquiescence of an equally large body of men who felt neither sympathy with nor opposition to
my views, but who so lacked an active sympathy with the demands of fair play that they were willing to remain
silent, although they realized fully that my opponents were guilty of foul play…
My opponents substituted attacks upon reputation for opposing arguments. And this community permitted them
to do so almost without a protest. This seems to me the fundamental defect. Our task in Massachusetts is to
reconstruct manhood."
We would do well to remember today, just 40 years later, the experience and the words of Louis Brandeis.
Fulfillment of the principles of brotherhood requires the courage of manhood - the manhood which Brandeis
found lacking in Boston 40 years ago, the manhood of George Norris and Oscar Underwood. Our most
challenging and difficult task in the field of human relations, it seems to me, is to arouse and encourage those who
do not preach race hatred, but who make no protest when others do - those who do not practice religious
intolerance but who acquiesce in its existence. It is these good but timid or thoughtless citizens whom Harry
Overstreet called "the mild and gentle people of prejudice…
They do not go to lynchings but they do nothing to create a condition of human dignity that would make
lynchings impossible… Their moral sickness is that they have learned to stand by and do nothing. Consciously or
subconsciously, the sense of responsibility is dimmed out in them. The power to feel is blurred. The issue is
befogged by rationalizations.
Thus," concluded Dr. Overstreet, "it is the mild and gentle people of prejudice, with their compulsive
effortlessness, who must bear the burden of moral guilt." And it is these gentle people of prejudice, it seems to me
- those who wanted to ignore the Klan in 1924, who listened to the Al Smith whispers in 1928, who permitted
Brandeis to be slandered in 1916 - it is that great group, which includes almost all of us at one time or another, to
whom Brotherhood Week must be most specifically directed.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Women's

National Press Club Luncheon, February 23, 1956
This is a redaction of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. Two drafts exist in the
folder for this speech in the Senate Speech files of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John
F. Kennedy Library. One, possibly the carbon of a press release, is headed with the same title as the file folder.
This draft is used as the basis for the text below. The other draft has John F. Kennedy's handwritten notes on it,
but is unrelated to the first draft and contains no explicit connection to the occasion for which this particular file
exists. Links to images of both drafts are given below.
I barely made it over here today, but fortunately had a very skillful taxi driver. I was about to give him a large
tip and tell him to vote Democratic, when I remembered the still more effective vote-getting technique Senator
Green had told me about – so I gave him no tip at all, and told him to vote Republican.
It is a genuine pleasure to be here today at the Women’s National Press Club Luncheon. Your members have
distinguished themselves among Washington journalists for their competent reporting, their comprehensive
understanding of the legislative process, and their complete fearlessness in predicting the outcome of the 1956
conventions and elections.
The Senate, too, is engaged in that age-old guessing game of picking candidates – and I am often reminded of the
prediction made by the late Speaker of the House Thomas B. Reed when he prophesied that the time would
eventually come when the Constitution would be amended so as to provide that Presidents should always be
chosen by the Senate, out of the Senate. The American people, as Reed described the situation, awaited with the
tensest excitement the result of this first trial of
“the choice of the wisest men by and out of the wisest body of men. When the time came for the
announcement of the first such vote,” Reed went on, “the presiding officer’s hesitation and pallor
indicated that something unexpected had happened. He shouted to the vast multitude the astounding
result: 96 Senators had each received one vote:
“for a moment a stillness as of death settled upon the multitude. Never till that moment had the people
recognized that…the Senate of the United States was one level mass of wisdom and virtue, perfect in all of
its parts.”
But whatever may be the accuracy of the predictions of Thomas Reed or Doris Fleeson, the members of this
group are noted for responsible journalism, a vital ingredient in the world today. In the course of my recent
research on political courage, I learned a lot about responsible – and irresponsible journalism. Some of the
harshest and most abusive attacks on the Senators described in my book came not from opposing politicians, not
from intellectual constituents, but from newspapers.
When Daniel Webster supported Henry Clay’s Compromise of 1850 in order to prevent secession and Civil War,
the New York Evening Post called it a “traitorous retreat”. When Thomas Hart Benton split with the State of
Missouri over the questions of slavery and states’ rights, the Missouri Register declared that Senator Benton is “a
blustering, insolent, unscrupulous demagogue.” When Edmund G. Ross cast his historic and decisive vote against
the conviction of the impeached Andrew Johnson, a Kansas newspaper charged that he was a “poor, pitiful,
shriveled wretch” who had “sold himself…basely lied to his friends…and signed the death warrant of his
country’s liberty…because the traitor, like Benedict Arnold, loved money better than he did principle, friends,
honor, and his country.” When Governor John Peter Altgeld of Illinois pardoned the three remaining defendants
in the Haymarket Square bombing of 1886, the Chicago Tribune termed him as “anarchist…socialist…apologist
for murder…and fomenter of lawlessness”; and declared there was “not a drop of true American blood in his
veins.” And when George Norris and his eleven colleagues filibustered to a temporary grave Woodrow Wilson’s
armed ship program in 1917, the New York Herald Tribune was certain that the name of George Norris would
“go down into history bracketed with that of Benedict Arnold.” I must say that the failure of this particular
prediction has not discouraged the columnists of the Herald Tribune from continuing to engage in the dangerous
art of political prophecy.
When we read these and similar attacks which have been made in more recent times, those of us in the Senate are
comforted by the description which Senator Grimes of Iowa gave to the reports of Washington correspondents
during the Johnson Impeachment Trial. They were, he said, “lies sent from here by the most worthless and
irresponsible creatures on the face of the earth.” At the time Senator Grimes spoke, of course, female
correspondents were not yet admitted to the Press Gallery.
Politicians are, from time to time, still troubled by irresponsible journalists and authors – just as journalists and
authors, from time to time, are still troubled by irresponsible politicians. But it is a tragic fact that there are few
groups where the problems of the politician are given as little genuine comprehension as they are among the
writers, who seem to possess that talent for finding the right and wrong on all questions with none of the
difficulties that face the politician. It was this extraordinary faculty of so many literary figures that prompted
Lord Melbourne’s statement that he would like to be as sure of anything as the youthful historian T. B.
MacCauley seemed to be of everything.
I do not wish to minimize the difficulty that the author faces in being faithful to his talent. Nor do I wish to
defend the art of the politician if it results in situations which are in Shaw’s words “smirched with compromise,
rotted with opportunism, and mildewed by expedience.” Certainly I do not seek any cessation of the writer’s
critical faculties in their application to my profession. For it is one of the hallmarks of the totalitarian when
criticism is directed only against the enemies of the state, rather than against the state itself. And certainly all too
frequently it has been the writer and not the politician who has been the truer friend of liberty.
But I do suggest the need for a greater comprehension of the very real and difficult problems involved in the
successful governing of a democratic state. In few other professions but politics is the urge so great to follow the
example of Congressman John Steven McGroarty of California, who wrote a constituent in 1934:
“One of the countless drawbacks of being in Congress is that I am compelled to receive impertinent letters
from a jackass like you in which you say I promised to have the Sierra Madre mountains reforested and I
have been in Congress two months and haven’t done it. Will you please take two running jumps and go to
hell.”
And in few other professions but politics is it expected that a man will sacrifice honors, prestige and his chosen
career on a single issue. I do not say that authors, teachers and others do not face difficult decisions involving
their integrity – but few face them as does the politician in the spotlight of publicity. And few bear the continual
weight of temptations and pressures to take the primrose path of never-ending compromise. Torn between his
obligations to his constituency, his concern for the welfare of his family, his gratitude to his supporters, his
loyalty to his party, his personal ambitions, his sense of public duty, and his awareness that right and wrong on
most issues are almost inextricably mixed, the politician stumbles along, seeking shelter from the slings and
arrows of his critics – most of them interested, only a few disinterested.
It is no wonder that we do not have more men of political courage, willing to go out on a limb for what they
believe. It is no wonder that a famous Senator half a century ago had become so accustomed to political caution
and guarded opinions that when he went to see the Siamese Twins at the World Exposition, he asked the guard at
the exhibit: “Brothers, I presume?”
And it is no wonder that it was said of a similarly inclined and similarly cautious Senator of a generation ago,
William B. Allison of Iowa, that if a piano were constructed reaching from the Senate Chamber to Des Moines,
Allison could run all the way on the keys without ever striking a note.
Our course is not made easier, of course, when it is under constant attack from authors and journalists using
those horrible weapons of modern internecine warfare: the barbed thrust, the acid pen, and – most sinister of all
– the rhetorical blast. My desk is flooded with books, articles and pamphlets criticizing Congress. But rarely, if
ever, have I seen any writer bestow praise upon either the political profession or any political body for its
accomplishments, its ability or its integrity – much less for its intelligence. Fictitious politicians – whether
members of Parliament in the time of Charles Dickens or mayors of Gibbsville in the time of John O’Hara – are
inevitably shabby, slippery and selfish. Many of today’s intellectuals and authors share the views of Henry
Adams, who in 1869 was told impatiently by a Cabinet member: “You can’t use tact with a Congressman! A
Congressman is a hog! You must take a stick and hit him on the snout.” And in quiet derision Adams had
replied: “If a Congressman is a hog, what is a Senator?”
And real-life politicians to much of the literary world today represent nothing but censors, investigators, and
perpetrators of what has been called “the swinish cult of anti-intellectualism” – a cult, I might add, which is
matched in the current clash by what might be termed “the superior cult of anti-politicalism”.
Unfortunately it is also true that most politicians have little but disdain for most authors and scholars. In
Washington we award medals and memorials to distinguished civil servants, to famous military men, to
outstanding scientists and, of course, to retiring politicians – but nothing to distinguished authors. In fact, I have
serious doubts that a national poet-laureate could ever get Senate confirmation.
But I have come here not to accentuate the differences between the politician and the author, but to stress what
they share in common:
First: The American politician of today and the American author of today are descended from a common
ancestry. For our nation’s first great politicians – those who presided at its birth in 1776 and its christening in
1787 – included among their ranks most of the nation’s first great writers and scholars. The founders of the
American Constitution were also the founders of American scholarship. The works of Jefferson, Madison,
Hamilton, Franklin, Paine, John Adams and Samuel Adams – to name but a few – influenced the literature of the
world as well as its geography. Books were their tools, not their enemies. Locke, Milton, Sidney, Montesquieu,
Priestly, Coke, Bolingbroke, Harrington and Bentham were among those widely read in political circles and
frequently quoted in political pamphlets. Our political leaders traded in the free commerce of ideas with lasting
results both here and abroad.
For more than a century this link between the American literary and political worlds was maintained unbroken.
Presidents, Senators, and Congressmen were not only political philosophers but biographers, historians,
essayists, humorists and in some instances writers of poetry. Listen, if you please, to this poem of a young girl:
“Remember Thee?
Yes, lovely girl;
While faithful memory holds its seat,
Till this warm heart in dust is laid,
And this wild pulse shall cease to beat…
Still, cousin, I will think of Thee.”
The author is not Christina Rossetti, but the Senator from Texas – Sam Houston.
And literary men, when not directly active in politics themselves, maintained a strong influence on political
events. The gifted Abolitionists of New England – Longfellow, Hawthorne, Emerson, Whittier and others –
influenced strongly the years before the Civil War. And Henry Adams’ education was involved even more with
political matters than with the symmetries of Chartes and Mount St. Michel.
But today this link is all but gone. Where are the scholar-statesmen of yesteryear?
The modern politician – although not all of them, I should make clear – knows well that what he says but never
writes can almost always be denied; but that what he writes and never remembers may some day come back to
haunt him. The thought of Job’s lament “O, that my adversary had written a book” has dried up many a
politician’s pen. Political memoirs and diaries, published at the end of one’s career, and with the incalculable
advantage of hindsight, are considered to be relatively safe. But even this type of publication is increasingly rare.
The only fiction to which many modern politicians turn their hand is the party platform – the only muse which
they invoke is their party leader. As for Locke, Milton, Coke, and Bolingbroke – the only Locke in which they are
interested is on the treasury door – Milton is on television Tuesday nights – Coke they drink – and Bolingbroke
they never heard of.
At the same time, too many American authors and scholars – forgetting that their forefathers were politicians,
too – are fearful that the rough and tumble of politics will damage the fine hand by which they spin out carefully
conceived works. “All literary men,” wrote John Galsworthy “can tell people what they oughtn’t to be; that’s
literature. But to tell them what they ought to do is politics.” Many literary men will tell us what we ought to do –
to that extent they will enter politics. But few will put themselves into the open arena, exposed to the pressures of
public calumny and to the humiliation of the ballot-box. They prefer to remain on the marksman’s end of the
rifle of political criticism, and not on the bull’s-eye. This is indeed unfortunate – for our political life would be
refreshened if our literary men of today would assume the position of leadership they held so decisively in past
years.
Secondly: Politicians and authors are mutually dependent upon each other. Politics, politicians and government
have – since man first carved out his thoughts on the walls of caves – ranked second only to romance as a subject
for literary plots. The relationship of a Solomon with the Queen of Sheba, the conquests of a Charlemagne, the
tragedy of a Lear – these are the tales of politicians, their governments, their laws, their battles. It took politics to
hang the witches at Salem, to plunge the knife into Duncan at Dunsinane and to quarrel over the remains of
Caesar at Rome. It was politics that sent Joan of Arc to die in the city square at Rouen, that sent De Bonnivard to
the Chillon dungeons, that sent Davy Crocket to the Alamo. Without politics and governments, there would be no
spies, no court intrigue, no revolutions, no prisons, no poorhouses. Certainly without politics, there would never
have been a Civil War in this country – and thus no Rhett Butlers or Scarlett O’Haras to pursue each other
through the pages of about 90% of today’s historical novels.
Politics and government, finally, have touched the lives and works of all the authors and poets we have ever
honored. They ordered Lawrence to Arabia, sent Byron to die in the rain at Missolonghi, exiled Shelley to Italy,
dismissed Poe from West Point and sent Rupert Brooke to die near Troy.
Nor is this a one-way street. The influence of literature upon the course of our political life has been equally vast
and immeasurable. Time and again, great works of literature like Rousseau’s “Social Contract” have given rise
to great political struggles – and time and again, great political struggles have given birth to great works of
literature.
Modern politicians, whatever they may say, could no more get along without authors than authors could get
along without politicians.
Finally: The politician and the author are motivated by a common incentive – public approval. “How many
books will I sell?” asks the author. “How many votes will I get?” asks the politician. The problem, of course, is to
prevent the natural desire of both groups for public approbation from becoming dominant, to prevent Gresham’s
Law from operating in the literary and political world wherein the bad would inevitably drive out the good.
And thus may I conclude with a plea for greater comprehension on both sides of the problems each of us faces,
for a greater recognition of how inextricably our professions and our fates are involved. In this way the synthesis
of our efforts and talents may be a greater service to the cause of freedom – a bulwark against the challenge of
the future.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy upon Presentation

of the Carver Gold Award to Cardinal Spellman, New
York, New York, February 24, 1956
Library. There is no way of knowing which, if either, of the drafts best represents the speech as delivered, but this
version is based on the draft of the speech that includes handwritten changes (provisionally identified as "draft
two"). Links to page images are given at the bottom of this page.
It is a real honor, and one that gives me deep satisfaction, to present to his Eminence Francis Cardinal Spellman
in your name this justly distinguished and richly deserved award - the George Washington Carver Memorial
Institute Gold Award for 1955 - for outstanding contribution to the Betterment of Race Relations and Human
Welfare. I can think of no one more entitled to such recognition than Cardinal Spellman, whose unceasing
devotion to the spiritual, emotional and physical needs of his fellow men has never recognized a color line. It is
due to the tireless efforts of such men as Cardinal Spellman and others gathered here today - men of vision and
honor and courage - that this nation has made steady progress toward the reduction of racial inequity and
tension and the achievement of lasting brotherhood among men.
No one would deny that much more remains to be done. And no one can blind himself to the shocking and tragic
evidence of inequality and intolerance that continues to confront us on every side. But neither should we listen to
the professional pessimists who talk only of delay, never of progress, who see only the worst in human beings,
never the best. Let all men of good-will follow the example of Cardinal Spellman, who would rather light a candle
than curse the darkness.
All Americans everywhere, of every race and creed, rejoice in this further recognition of a true servant of God -
and all of us wish him good health and Godspeed in his great work for many, many years to come.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Jefferson-

Jackson Day Dinner, Hartford, Connecticut, February
25, 1956
This is a transcript of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. One draft of the speech
Library. A link to page images of the speech are given at the bottom of this page.
More than a century and a half ago, our New England ancestors - or at least the ancestors of some of us, since
mine hadn't come over yet - tried to prevent the 13 United States from expanding the Nation's boundaries to the
South and West. Those old New England Federalists were motivated solely by a set of real values and a return to
principle - namely, the fear that if land suddenly became cheap the real values of their vast land-holdings would
go down and they would never get as much return on their principle.
But they were also convinced that bringing a lot of new votes and a lot of new politicians into the United States
spelled trouble - and they were right. Political life in America would be a lot simpler today without the Midwest,
Southwest and Far West. There would be no Natural Gas Bill to divide and tarnish the Senate - Senators would
have to provide their own natural gas; and some of us do pretty well - even without a depletion allowance. There
would be no farm problem calling for the establishment of a soil bank - although a soil bank sounds like a good
savings institution if we can just convince all the Republicans to deposit their dirt before the campaign. And there
would be no Detroit, no auto manufacturers and no car-dealers in the country - and thus the President's Cabinet
would be smaller, duller and Dulles.
On the other hand, however, without a Midwest there would be no Illinois and no Adlai Stevenson - and that
would take much of the joy out of American politics. Whom else could we criticize in California as being too
moderate for saying the same thing he said in Florida - where we criticized him for being too radical? Whom else
could we expect to unify his party and his country by taking a positive, forthright stand on one side or another of
every burning issue that is dividing his party and his country? Whom else could we deride for being too
intellectually aloof and too commonly humorous, too outspoken and too indecisive, and too much of a politician
with too little political experience?
Governor Stevenson is immensely popular here in New England, I can testify. I have just completed an
exhaustive survey - I must have talked with half a dozen people or so (I exhaust very easily in an election year) -
and everyone was for him, except for a few who weren't sure they liked the idea of a civilian in the White House.
The rest, including the Republicans, were for Stevenson - as long as he wasn't running against President
Eisenhower, Chief Justice Warren, Governor Ribicoff, Milton Eisenhower, Liberace or Bishop Sheehan.
After all, New England gave Adlai Stevenson a great send-off vote in 1952 - trouble is, we sent him off around the
world instead of to the White House. But Mr. Stevenson is gradually realizing what errors he made in that
campaign - very gradually, since less than one full chapter of Mr. Truman's Memoirs appears in the Times each
day.
But today New England Democrats are eager and active, Governor - we always have something on the fire - and
it's usually a fellow Democrat. Our slogan here is "all together, fellows - and every man for himself." But we fight
Republicans even harder than we fight Democrats - at least, most Democrats. After all, the Eisenhower
Administration damned our textile industry, damned our Federal installations and damned our requests for
assistance to meet unemployment - but they forgot while they were about it to dam up our rivers and streams.
Like the New Haven Railroad, this Administration has either run us down, passed us by or slowed us up - it has
usually been going the wrong way on the wrong track at the wrong time - and the stockholders are getting ready
to demand a new President.
New England admires Adlai Stevenson as a great leader and statesman even more than they admire him as a
great Democrat. And thus I think it would be fitting to express how New England feels about Adlai E. Stevenson
by paraphrasing the tribute paid by Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 to the Republican George Norris of Nebraska:
History asks, "Did the man have integrity?
Did the man have unselfishness?
Did the man have courage?
Did the man have consistency?"
There are few statesmen in America today who so definitely and clearly measure up to an affirmative answer to
those four questions as does Adlai E. Stevenson.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy before the Irish
Fellowship Club of Chicago, March 17, 1956
There are four different - sometimes very different - drafts of this speech in the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential
Papers. We have opted to use what is plainly a press release version although whether this represents the speech as
given is purely speculative. The other three drafts include individually different additions and deletions, some
typed, some handwritten, and one of those versions has been modified for use in Philadelphia. In addition, the file
includes pages of notes for the speech. Links to page images of all the versions and the notes are included at the
I am glad to be in Chicago tonight, not only because my sister and her husband live here, but because I feel
strongly the ties of a common kinship. All of us of Irish descent are bound together by the ties that come from a
common experience, experience which may exist only in memories and in legend, but which is real enough to
those who possess it. And thus whether we live in Cork or Boston, Chicago or Sydney, we are all members of a
great family which is linked together by that strongest of chains - a common past. It is strange to think that the
wellspring from which this fraternal empire has sprung is a small island in the far Atlantic with a population
one-third the size of that of this prairie state. But this is the source, and it is to this green and misty island that we
turn tonight and to its patron saint, Saint Patrick.
It is also fitting that we remember at this time three requests granted St. Patrick by the Angel of the Lord, in
order to bring happiness and hope to the Irish: first, that the weather should always be fair on his special day to
allow the faithful to attend the services of the church; secondly, that every Thursday and every Saturday twelve
souls of the Irish people should be freed from the pains of Hell; and third, that no outlander should ever rule over
Ireland.
I have not heard a weather report from the Emerald Isle tonight, but I am certain that no rain fell - officially.
Who pays any heed to a little Irish mist? And I have no doubt that twelve Irishmen have been freed from the
nether regions this very Saturday. In fact, the toastmaster tells me he thinks he saw several of them here tonight -
Governor Stevenson, I understand, was trying last week to get several dozen released in time for the New
Hampshire primary. But certainly we need no report to tell us that tonight no outlander rules over Eire; and the
Irish people are celebrating this day in peace and in liberty.
But it is not a bitter and tragic irony that the Irish should now enjoy their freedom at a time when personal
liberty and national independence have become the most critical issues of our time - whether they involve
millions struggling to end the yoke of Western Colonialism, or billions held in an iron captivity in areas
stretching in a great half circle from the plains beyond the captive city of Warsaw in the West to the Red River
Delta beyond the trampled city of Hanoi in the East. For as the Irish have finally emerged from the shadow of
subjugation, the eclipse of a new Age of Tyranny has darkened the skies of many ancient states which had
enjoyed a long history of personal liberty and national independence. Today, while free Irishmen everywhere
marched to the tune of "O'Donnell Abu" and "The Irish Captain," only hobnail boots clattering on darkened
streets rang out in these enslaved nations.
I know of a few men in our land, and none in this room, who would ignore these tyrannies as far-off troubles of
no concern at home. For we realize, as John Boyle O'Reilly once wrote, that:
"The world is large, when two weary leagues
two loving hearts divide;
But the world is small, when your enemy
is loose on the other side."
I do not maintain that the Irish were the only race to display extraordinary devotion to liberty, or the only people
to struggle unceasingly for their national independence. History proves otherwise. But the special contribution of
the Irish, I believe - the emerald thread that runs throughout the tapestry of their past - has been the constancy,
the endurance, the faith that they displayed through endless centuries of foreign oppression - centuries in which
even the most rudimentary religious and civil rights were denied to them.
For all the classic weapons of oppression were employed to break the will of the Irish. Religious persecution was
encouraged - mass starvation was ignored. On February 19, 1847, it was announced in the House of Commons
that 15,000 persons were dying of starvation in Ireland every day; and Queen Victoria was so moved by this
pitiful news that she contributed five pounds to the society for Irish relief. We should not be too quick to
condemn the good Queen - for in those days the English pound was no doubt worth more than it is today.
Even assassination was employed to end resistance. Listen, if you will, to the wild melancholy of the Irish after
the murder by Cromwell's agents of their beloved Chieftain, Owen Roe O'Neill:
"Sagest in the council was he, kindest in the Hall:
Sure we never won a battle - 'twas Owen won them all.
Soft as woman's was your voice, O'Neill, bright was your eye.
Oh! why did you leave us, Owen? Why did you die
Your troubles are all over, you're at rest with God on high:
But we're slaves, and we're orphans, Owen! - why did you die?
We're sheep without a shepherd, when the snow shuts out the sky -
Oh! why did you leave us, Owen? Why did you die?"
It is not my purpose to recall needlessly the unhappy memories of an age gone by. But I think that the history of
the Irish - and indeed of all people, East and West - demonstrates that along with the need to worship God there
has been implanted in every man's soul the desire to be free.
The greatest enemy today of man's desire to be free is, of course, the Soviet Union, which holds its captives in a
subjugation harsh and unending, maintained by a tyranny more sinister and persuasive than any in the history of
the world. The United States and her allies have for more than a decade been attempting to halt this Communist
advance. But one of the weaknesses in our common front has been the restraint on freedom sponsored by our
allies and accepted by ourselves.
Why in this past decade has not the United States consistently based its conduct of foreign affairs upon the
recognition of every man's desire to be free? We were, after all, the victor in our own way for independence. We
promulgated the Monroe Doctrine and the "open-door" policy, with their clear warnings to the colonial powers
of Europe. We gave self-determination to our own dependencies; and we were for more than a century outspoken
in our opposition to colonial exploitation elsewhere. But throughout all this we were still living largely in a
splendid isolation, removed from a direct control of world destiny. But World War II rudely shook this isolation -
the frontiers of our national security became the frontiers of the world - and we found ourselves obliged to deal
with the harsh facts of existence on a global basis.
For the sake of our own security, we have found our destiny to be closely linked with that of the British and the
French; the Dutch and the Belgians - nations which still hold under their subjugation large areas of the world
upon which they feel their ultimate security depends.
And thus we have been caught up in a dilemma which up to now has been insoluble. We want our Allies to be
strong, and yet quite obviously a part of their strength comes from their overseas possessions. And thus our
dilemma has become a paradox. We fight to keep the world free from Communist imperialism - but in doing so
we hamper our efforts, and bring suspicion upon our motives, by being closely linked with Western imperialism.
We have permitted the reputation of the United States as a friend of oppressed people to be hitched to the chariot
of the conqueror; because we have believed we could have it both ways.
It is easy for us to believe that the imperialism of the West is infinitely preferable to the totalitarianism of the
Soviets - but the sullen hostility of Islam and Asia should make us wonder. We thought it would be obvious to the
North African that control by France is better for the North African than control by the Communists. I happen
to believe it is - but I do not live in North Africa. When Stalin was alive and personified aggression - in a hurry
and on the make - it was possible for natives to see the true meaning of Communist control. But now, in a period
when the Communist challenge is more subtle, when they employ the people's passion for freedom by skillfully
manipulating native leaders, our position becomes nearly impossible.
I do not wish to oversimplify an endlessly complex problem, nor deny the success we have had in helping free
countries remain free. But our attempts to look both ways on the subject of colonialism has caused our standing
in the free world to be seriously questioned. The time has come for a more forceful stand.
I urge, therefore, that this nation, acting within appropriate limits of judgment and discretion, inform our allies
and the world at large that - after a reasonable period of transition and self-determination - this nation will speak
out boldly for freedom for all people - whether they are denied that freedom by an iron curtain of tyranny, or by
a paper curtain of colonial ties and constitutional manipulations. We shall no longer abstain in the U. N. from
voting on colonial issues - we shall no longer trade our vote on such issues for other supposed gains - we shall no
longer seek to prevent the subjugated peoples of the world from being heard and we shall recognize that the day
of the colonial is through, and that words of lasting wisdom were printed nearly 160 years ago by the imprisoned
editor of the Dublin Press, Arthur O'Connor
"If there be any man so base or so stupid," wrote Arthur O'Connor in his Address to the Irish Nation, "as
to imagine that they can usurp or withhold your civil and political rights; that they can convert truth into
sedition or patriotism into treason; let them look round them - they will find, that amongst the old and
inveterate despotisms in Europe, some have been destroyed, and the rest are on the brink of destruction."
Such a warning is no less true today, as one by one the traditional colonies of Western powers break free. Only a
bold and sympathetic stand by the United States during this period of transition will prevent them from falling
under the control of a tyranny infinitely more infamous than that from which they are now emerging. And thus
the whole struggle of the free world against the Communists will be clarified and strengthened. I emphasize again
that I do not fail to appreciate the difficulties of our hard pressed Allies - but I feel that their present colonial
policies only serve to make easier the way of the Communist transgressor.
You may feel that this has little to do with Ireland and the Irish; but we must not forget that freedom is the
commodity the Irish have valued most highly and the commodity that Ireland has exported most widely. The
"wild geese" - the Irish officers and soldiers who fled Ireland after the Battle of the Boyne - fought for freedom in
all parts of the world. Exiled, persecuted, and loyal, they and their descendants fought in their part of the world
for their outlawed religion, their denationalized country and their hopes for freedom. Fighting for the French,
they broke the ranks of the English at Fontenoy. Fighting for the Spanish, they turned the tide of battle against
the Germans at Melaszo. And fighting for the Union Army, they bore the brunt of the slaughter at
Fredericksburg.
Thus Irishmen today can sympathize with the aspirations of all people everywhere to be free - and their own long
and ultimately successful fight for independence offers encouragement and hope to all who struggle to be free.
Let the United States and all free people today speak to captive peoples everywhere with the words of Sir Roger
Casement as he addressed the British jury which had sentenced him to hang for high treason in 1914:
"When all your fights," said Sir Roger, "become only an accumulated wrong; when man must beg with
bated breath for leave to subsist in their own land, to think their own thoughts, to sign their own songs -
then surely it is a braver, a saner and a truer thing to be a rebel in act and in deed. Gentlemen of the Jury:
Ireland has outlived the failure of all her hopes - and yet she still hopes. And this faculty - of preserving
through centuries of misery the remembrance of lost liberty - this surely is the noblest cause men ever
strove for, ever lived for, ever died for. If this be the case for which I stand indicted here today, then I
stand in a goodly company and in a right noble succession."
There is our message, Mr. Toastmaster. There is our faith and our task. Let us not foil its fulfillment. Let us hold
out our hands to those who struggle for freedom today as Ireland struggled for a thousand years. Let us not leave
them to be "sheep without a shepherd, when the snow shuts the sky." Let us show them we have not forgotten the
constancy and the faith and the hope - of the Irish.
Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy at Yankee

Stadium on April 29, 1956
We are gathered here this afternoon to commemorate a notable anniversary in man's eternal quest for freedom.
For nearly 8 years ago today a state was born - and a people, rising from the ashes of history's most ruthless
persecution, entered upon a new birth of freedom. The state was the State of Israel - and the people were the
children of Israel. Today, as the anniversary of that monumental event recurs for the eighth time - Israel, we
salute you.
Much is different between the United States and Israel. Our Nation stretches in a great land mass between two
wide oceans - the Israelis occupy a beachhead on the eastern Mediterranean. Americans number 165 million - the
Israelis less than 2 million. We are the oldest Republic on earth and the youngest people - the Israelis have the
youngest republic and the oldest people.
Yes, much is different - but much is the same. For both Israel and the United States won their freedom in a bitter
war for independence. Both Israel and the United States acknowledge the supremacy of the moral law - both
believe in personal as well as national liberty - and, perhaps most important, both will fight to the end to
maintain that liberty.
I join in this salute today because of my own deep admiration for Israel and her people - an admiration based not
on hearsay, not on assumption, but on my own personal experience. For I went to Palestine in 1939; and I saw
there an unhappy land, ruled under a League of Nations mandate by a Britain which divided and ruled in
accordance to ancient policy. And while there I was shocked by a British Foreign Office white paper just issued
sharply cutting back Jewish immigration. Yes, as in the days of old, "the glory had departed from Israel." For
century after century, Romans, Turks, Christians, Moslems, Pagans, British - all had conquered the Holy Land -
but none could make it prosper. In the words of Israel Zangwill: "The land without a people waited for the
people without a land." The realm where once milk and honey flowed, and civilization flourished, was in 1939 a
barren realm - barren of hope and cheer and progress as well as crops and industries - a gloomy picture for a
young man paying his first visit from the United States.
But 12 years later, in 1951, I traveled again to the land by the River Jordan - this time as a Member of the
Congress of the United States - and this time to see first-hand the new State of Israel. The transformation which
had taken place could not have been more complete. For between the time of my visit in 1939 and my visit in
1951, a nation had been reborn - a desert had been reclaimed - and a national integrity had been redeemed, after
2,000 years of seemingly endless waiting. Zion had at least been restored - and she had promptly opened her arms
to the homeless and the weary and the persecuted. It was the "Ingathering of the Exiles" - they had heard the call
of their homeland; and they had come, brands plucked from the burning - they had come from concentration
camps and ghettoes, from distant exile and dangerous sanctuary, from broken homes in Poland and lonely huts
in Yemen, like the ancient strangers in a strange land they had come. And Israel received them all, fed them,
housed them, cared for them, bound up their wounds, and enlisted them in the struggle to build a new nation.
But perhaps the greatest change of all I found lay in the hearts and minds of the people. For, unlike the
discouraged settlers of 1939, they looked to the future with hope. From Haifa to the Gulf of Akaba, from Gaza to
the Dead Sea, I found a revival of an ancient spirit. I found it in Israel's gift to world statesmanship, David Ben-
Gurion. I saw it in the determined step of soldiers and workers; I heard it in the glad voices of women in the
fields; I saw it in the hopeful eyes of refugees waiting patiently in their misery. The barren land I had seen in
1939 had become the vital nation of 1951.
Yes; Israel, we salute you. We honor your progress and your determination and your spirit. But in the midst of
our rejoicing we do not forget your peril. We know that no other nation in this world lives out its days in an
atmosphere of such constant tension and fear. We know that no other nation in this world is surrounded on every
side by such violent hate and prejudice.
Will Israel fall? Will this noblest of all the 20th century's experiments in democracy sink beneath the surface, not
to rise again for still another 2,000 years? Part of the answer rests with the United States, the leader of the free
world, and the godfather of the infant nation Israel. I shall not now attempt to chart our course in detail. But I
shall say, and say again, that this is no time for equivocation or hesitation.
TIME FOR ACTION IS NOW
It is long past time for this Nation and others to make it absolutely clear that any aggression or threat of
aggression in the Middle East will not be tolerated by the United Nations or the parties to the 1950 Tripartite
Agreement. It is time that we made this so clear, in the U.N. and elsewhere, that no nation would dare to launch
an attack. For it is the responsibility of our Government to make certain that neither Israel nor any small nation
of the world is left defenseless without arms while neighboring states dedicated to their destruction receive
unlimited quantities of Communist arms. It is time that all the nations of the world, in the Middle East and
elsewhere, realized that Israel is here to stay. She will not surrender - she will not retreat - and we will not let her
fall.
Today we celebrate her 8th birthday - but I say without hesitation that she will live to see and 80th birthday - and
an eight hundredth. For peace is all Israel asks, no more - a peace that will "beat swords into plowshares and
spears into pruning-hooks"; a peace that will enable the desert to "rejoice and blossom as the rose," "when the
wicked cease from troubling and the weary be at rest." Then, and only then, will the world have witnessed the
complete fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy "Tzee-Yon B'Meeshpat Teepadeh" - "Zion shall be redeemed through
justice." And all of us here, and there, and everywhere will then be able to say to each other with faith and with
confidence, in our coming and in our going: "Shalom" - peace! Peace be with you, now and forever.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Conference

on Vietnam Luncheon in the Hotel Willard, Washington,
D.C., June 1, 1956
Library. One copy is a draft with handwritten notations and the second copy is a press release. The redaction is
based on the press release. Links to page images of the two copies are given at the bottom of this page.
It is a genuine pleasure to be here today at this vital Conference on the future of Vietnam, and America's stake in
that new nation, sponsored by the American Friends of Vietnam, an organization of which I am proud to be a
member. Your meeting today at a time when political events concerning Vietnam are approaching a climax, both
in that country and in our own Congress, is most timely. Your topic and deliberations, which emphasize the
promise of the future more than the failures of the past, are most constructive. I can assure you that the Congress
of the United States will give considerable weight to your findings and recommendations; and I extend to all of
you who have made the effort to participate in this Conference my congratulations and best wishes.
It is an ironic and tragic fact that this Conference is being held at a time when the news about Vietnam has
virtually disappeared from the front pages of the American press, and the American people have all but forgotten
the tiny nation for which we are in large measure responsible. This decline in public attention is due, I believe, to
three factors: (1) First, it is due in part to the amazing success of President Diem in meeting firmly and with
determination the major political and economic crises which had heretofore continually plagued Vietnam. (I shall
say more about this point later, for it deserves more consideration from all Americans interested in the future of
Asia).
(2) Secondly, it is due in part to the traditional role of American journalism, including readers as well as writers,
to be more interested in crises than in accomplishments, to give more space to the threat of wars than the need
for works, and to write larger headlines on the sensational omissions of the past than the creative missions of the
future.
(3) Third and finally, our neglect of Vietnam is the result of one of the most serious weaknesses that has
hampered the long-range effectiveness of American foreign policy over the past several years - and that is the
over emphasis upon our role as "volunteer fire department" for the world. Whenever and wherever fire breaks
out - in Indo-China, in the Middle East, in Guatemala, in Cyprus, in the Formosan Straits - our firemen rush in,
wheeling up all their heavy equipment, and resorting to every known method of containing and extinguishing the
blaze. The crowd gathers - the usually successful efforts of our able volunteers are heartily applauded - and then
the firemen rush off to the next conflagration, leaving the grateful but still stunned inhabitants to clean up the
rubble, pick up the pieces and rebuild their homes with whatever resources are available.
The role, to be sure, is a necessary one; but it is not the only role to be played, and the others cannot be ignored.
A volunteer fire department halts, but rarely prevents, fires. It repels but rarely rebuilds; it meets the problems
of the present but not of the future. And while we are devoting our attention to the Communist arson in Korea,
there is smoldering in Indo-China; we turn our efforts to Indo-China until the alarm sounds in Algeria - and so it
goes.
Of course Vietnam is not completely forgotten by our policy-makers today - I could not in honesty make such a
charge and the facts would easily refute it - but the unfortunate truth of the matter is that, in my opinion,
Vietnam would in all likelihood be receiving more attention from our Congress and Administration, and greater
assistance under our aid programs, if it were in imminent danger of Communist invasion or revolution. Like
those peoples of Latin America and Africa whom we have very nearly overlooked in the past decade, the
Vietnamese may find that their devotion to the cause of democracy, and their success in reducing the strength of
local Communist groups, have had the ironic effect of reducing American support. Yet the need for that support
has in no way been reduced. (I hope it will not be necessary for the Diem Government - or this organization - to
subsidize the growth of the South Vietnam Communist Party in order to focus American attention on that
nation's critical needs!)
No one contends that we should now rush all our firefighting equipment to Vietnam, ignoring the Middle East or
any other part of the world. But neither should we conclude that the cessation of hostilities in Indo-China
removed that area from the list of important areas of United States foreign policy. Let us briefly consider exactly
what is "America's Stake in Vietnam":
(1) First, Vietnam represents the cornerstone of the Free World in Southeast Asia, the keystone to the arch, the
finger in the dike. Burma, Thailand, India, Japan, the Philippines and obviously Laos and Cambodia are among
those whose security would be threatened if the Red Tide of Communism overflowed into Vietnam. In the past,
our policy-makers have sometimes issued contradictory statements on this point - but the long history of Chinese
invasions of Southeast Asia being stopped by Vietnamese warriors should have removed all doubt on this subject.
Moreover, the independence of a Free Vietnam is crucial to the free world in fields other than the military. Her
economy is essential to the economy of Southeast Asia; and her political liberty is an inspiration to those seeking
to obtain or maintain their liberty in all parts of Asia - and indeed the world. The fundamental tenets of this
nation's foreign policy, in short, depend in considerable measure upon a strong and free Vietnamese nation.
(2) Secondly, Vietnam represents a proving ground of democracy in Asia. However we may choose to ignore it or
deprecate it, the rising prestige and influence of Communist China in Asia are unchallengable facts. Vietnam
represents the alternative to Communist dictatorship. If this democratic experiment fails, if some one million
refugees have fled the totalitarianism of the North only to find neither freedom nor security in the South, then
weakness, not strength, will characterize the meaning of democracy in the minds of still more Asians. The United
States is directly responsible for this experiment - it is playing an important role in the laboratory where it is
being conducted. We cannot afford to permit that experiment to fail.
(3) Third and in somewhat similar fashion, Vietnam represents a test of American responsibility and
determination in Asia. If we are not the parents of little Vietnam, then surely we are the godparents. We presided
at its birth, we gave assistance to its life, we have helped to shape its future. As French influence in the political,
economic and military spheres has declined in Vietnam, American influence has steadily grown. This is our
offspring - we cannot abandon it, we cannot ignore its needs. And if it falls victim to any of the perils that
threaten its existence - Communism, political anarchy, poverty and the rest - then the United States, with some
justification, will be held responsible; and our prestige in Asia will sink to a new low.
(4) Fourth and finally, America's stake in Vietnam, in her strength and in her security, is a very selfish one - for it
can be measured, in the last analysis, in terms of American lives and American dollars. It is now well known that
we were at one time on the brink of war in Indo-china - a war which could well have been more costly, more
exhausting and less conclusive than any war we have ever known. The threat to such war is not now altogether
removed form the horizon. Military weakness, political instability or economic failure in the new state of Vietnam
could change almost overnight the apparent security which has increasingly characterized that area under the
leadership of Premier Diem. And the key position of Vietnam in Southeast Asia, as already discussed, makes
inevitable the involvement of this nation's security in any new outbreak of trouble.
It is these four points, in my opinion, that represent America's stake in Vietnamese security. And before we look
to the future, let us stop to review what the Diem Government has already accomplished by way of increasing
that security. Most striking of all, perhaps, has been the rehabilitation of more than ¾ of a million refugees from
the North. For these courageous people dedicated to the free way of life, approximately 45,000 houses have been
constructed, 2,500 wells dug, 100 schools established and dozens of medical centers and maternity homes
provided.
Equally impressive has been the increased solidarity and stability of the Government, the elimination of
rebellious sects and the taking of the first vital steps toward true democracy. Where once colonialism and
Communism struggled for supremacy, a free and independent republic has been proclaimed, recognized by over
40 countries of the free world. Where once a playboy emperor ruled from a distant shore, a constituent assembly
has been elected.
Social and economic reforms have likewise been remarkable. The living conditions of the peasants have been
vastly improved, the wastelands have been cultivated, and a wider ownership of the land is gradually being
encouraged. Farm cooperatives and farmer loans have modernized an outmoded agricultural economy; and a
tremendous dam in the center of the country has made possible the irrigation of a vast area previously
uncultivated. Legislation for better labor relations, health protection, working conditions and wages has been
completed under the leadership of President Diem.
Finally, the Vietnamese army - now fighting for its own homeland and not its colonial masters - has increased
tremendously in both quality and quantity. General O'Daniel can tell you more about these accomplishments.
But the responsibility of the United States for Vietnam does not conclude, obviously, with a review of what has
been accomplished thus far with our help. Much more needs to be done; much more, in fact, than we have been
doing up to now. Military alliances in Southeast Asia are necessary but not enough. Atomic superiority and the
development of new ultimate weapons are not enough. Informational and propaganda activities, warning of the
evils of Communism and the blessings of the American way of life, are not enough in a country where concepts of
free enterprise and capitalism are meaningless, where poverty and hunger are not enemies across the 17th
parallel but enemies within their midst. As Ambassador Chuong has recently said: "People cannot be expected to
fight for the Free World unless they have their own freedom to defend, their freedom from foreign domination as
well ass freedom from misery, oppression, corruption."
I shall not attempt to set forth the details of the type of aid program this nation should offer the Vietnamese - for
it is not the details of that program that are as important as the spirit with which it is offered and the objectives it
seeks to accomplish. We should not attempt to buy the friendship of the Vietnamese. Nor can we win their hearts
by making them dependent upon our handouts. What we must offer them is a revolution - a political, economic
and social revolution far superior to anything the Communists can offer - far more peaceful, far more democratic
and far more locally controlled. Such a Revolution will require much from the United States and much from
Vietnam. We must supply capital to replace that drained by the centuries of colonial exploitation; technicians to
train those handicapped by deliberate policies of illiteracy; guidance to assist a nation taking those first feeble
steps toward the complexities of a republican form of government. We must assist the inspiring growth of
Vietnamese democracy and economy, including the complete integration of those refugees who gave up their
homes and their belongings to seek freedom. We must provide military assistance to rebuild the new Vietnamese
Army, which every day faces the growing peril of Vietminh Armies across the border.
And finally, in the councils of the world, we must never permit any diplomatic action adverse to this, one of the
youngest members of the family of nations - and I include in that injunction a plea that the United States never
give its approval to the early nationwide elections called for by the Geneva Agreement of 1954. Neither the
United States nor Free Vietnam was a party to that agreement - and neither the United States nor Free Vietnam
is ever going to be a party to an election obviously stacked and subverted in advance, urged upon us by those who
have already broken their own pledges under the Agreement they now seek to enforce.
All this and more we can offer Free Vietnam, as it passes through the present period of transition on its way to a
new era - an era of pride and independence, and era of democratic and economic growth - an ear which, when
contrasted with the long years of colonial oppression, will truly represent a political, social and economic
revolution.
This is the revolution we can, we should, we must offer to the people of Vietnam - not as charity, not as a business
proposition, not as a political maneuver, nor simply to enlist them as soldiers against Communism or as chattels
of American foreign policy - but a revolution of their own making, for their own welfare, and for the security of
freedom everywhere. The Communists offer them another kind of revolution, glittering and seductive in its
superficial appeal. The choice between the two can be made only by the Vietnamese people themselves. But in
these times of trial and burden, true friendships stand out. As Premier Diem recently wrote a great friend of
Vietnam, Senator Mansfield, "It is only in winter that you can tell which trees are evergreen." And I am
confident that if this nation demonstrates that it has not forgotten the people of Vietnam, the people of Vietnam
will demonstrate that they have not forgotten us.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Fourth
Annual Rockhurst Day Banquet of Rockhurst College in
Kansas City, Missouri, Saturday June 2, 1956
In recent years, key farm states such as Missouri have been visited by an increasing number of politicians all over
the country. But I must confess that this is my first trip to this state - and I am thus deeply gratified for the honor
that Rockhurst College has bestowed upon me in presenting me with an Honorary Degree.
Much is different between Missouri and Massachusetts. We live on a beachhead on the cold Atlantic; you live
deep in the heartland of America. We harvest the rolling sea, you harvest the rolling prairie. You send us hogs
and corn; we send you carnations and cranberries.
Yes, much is different, but much is the same - the same sense of self-reliance, the common determination to see
our country progress, the mutual recognition of the responsibilities as well as the privileges of self-government.
Indeed, many citizens of your state and mine are descended from the same hardy forebears who forged the union
in which both states now unite.
I have not been unfamiliar with the history of Missouri and her statesmen - and I think one episode is of
considerable relevance to those of us commemorating this Fourth Annual Rockhurst Day. It was little more than
88 years ago today that Senator John Brooks Henderson of Missouri faced a decision more difficult than any he
had ever known and more far-reaching in its consequences than any he would ever have to make. That issue was
the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson by the radical Republican movement dedicated to his destruction
and to the exploitation of the defeated Southern states. Senator Henderson, then but 41 years old and the second
youngest member of the Senate, had already achieved national prominence. He was one o the most influential
leaders keeping the State of Missouri in the union and the sponsor of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution
abolishing slavery. He was in 1868 no staunch follower of Andrew Johnson - on the contrary, he was a supporter
of the Tenure-of-Office Act which had led to the impeachment charges and a severe critic of Johnson's conduct of
office. He was, on the other hand, noted for his political independence - he had, for example, defied his party by
becoming the only regular Republican to vote against the bill restricting the President's authority as
Commander-in-Chief of the Army.
Thus the radical Republicans knew that John Henderson's vote was not as certain as they might hope, and every
effort was exerted to obtain from him an advance committal to vote guilty. Only Edmund G. Ross of Kansas
endured more pressure and abuse than John Henderson. Missouri newspapers assailed him, party leaders bullied
him, spies hounded him during his every waking hour. Finally the full delegation of Republican Congressmen
from Missouri, accompanied by a prominent state legislator, called upon the Senator and demanded that he vote
for the President's conviction. To do otherwise, they warned, would be to rebel against the nearly unanimous
wishes of his party and state, and insure his own defeat for reelection the following year. Beset by doubts as to his
proper responsibility under a representative form of government, and feeling trapped in his own office by his
friends and associates, Henderson wavered. He meekly offered to wire his resignation to the Governor, enabling a
new appointee to vote for conviction; and, when it was doubted whether a new Senator would be permitted to
vote, he agreed to ascertain whether his own vote would be crucial.
But an insolent and threatening telegram from Missouri restored his sense of honor, and he swiftly wired his
reply: "Say to my friends that I am sworn to do impartial justice according to law and conscience, and I will try
to do it like an honest man."
John Henderson voted for the President's acquittal, the last important act of his Senatorial career. Denounced,
threatened and burned in effigy in Missouri, he did not even bother to seek reelection to the Senate. Years later
his party would realize its debt to him, and return him to lesser offices, but for the Senate, whose integrity he had
upheld, he was through.
It seems to me that, as the people of Missouri and indeed the nation look back upon the courageous but tragic
career of Senator Henderson, they will better appreciate the special contribution to our society made by
Rockhurst and similar institutions. For in 1956, as in 1868, the individual citizen has an urgent but difficult
responsibility to determine the facts and the policy decisions to be based upon those facts. And yet he knows that
his political leaders, and most of his newspapers, are stating the facts from their point of view - not dishonestly,
not carelessly, and frequently not even knowingly - but simply because their role is the role of the advocate not
the judge. Even government finds it difficult to present the truth in an age when "truth" has become a weapon in
the struggle for power - truth that is bent, twisted and subverted to fit the pattern of national policy. Frequently,
we in the West feel ourselves forced by the drum beat of lies and propaganda to be "discriminating" in our
selection of what facets of the truth we ourselves will disclose.
Thus, the responsibility of a free university to pursue its own objective studies, to carry on the continuing search
for the truth - both for its own sake and because only if we possess it can we really be free - is even more
important today than ever before. Rockhurst College has succeeded in carrying out this mission, so that today it
stands as a bulwark on the North American continent in the battle for the preservation of Christian civilization.
I would like to discuss with you today in more detail an example of one of those issues where the truth and the
right frequently are very difficult to determine - and where the use of catchwords and equivocal terms has made
more possible the misunderstanding of this issue by American citizens. The issue to which I refer is the growing
and recurrent problems of colonialism, nationalism and the attitude of the United States and her allies.
Since World War II rudely shook our attitude of isolation, we have, for the sake of our own security, found our
destiny to be closely linked with that of the British and the French, the Dutch and the Belgians - nations which
still hold under their subjugation large areas of the world upon which they feel their ultimate security depends.
And thus we have been caught up in a dilemma which up to now has been insoluble. We want our Allies to be
strong; and yet quite obviously a part of their strength comes from their overseas possessions. We want the
uncommitted peoples of the Middle East, Asia and Africa to remain free from the ever-reaching tentacles of
Soviet influence and responsive to the leadership of the United States and our allies - and yet those uncommitted
peoples look upon those allies with at least as much suspicion in most cases, and more in some, as they do the
Soviet Union. We fight to keep the world free from Communist imperialism - but in doing so we hamper our
efforts, and bring suspicion upon our motives, by being closely linked with Western imperialism. We want -
indeed we desperately need, if the deterrent power of our Strategic Air Command is to have any meaning - to
maintain Western bases in Cyprus, in North Africa and in all the other areas around the borders of the Soviet
Union - and yet we stand to lose those bases if the Communists are able to captivate the nationalistic movements
that seek to drive out all vestiges of Western domination. We have permitted the reputation of the United States
as a friend of oppressed people, in short, to be hitched to the chariot of the conqueror; because we have believed
we could have it both ways.
As a result, our policies and statements on these matters have too frequently been characterized by indecision,
confusion, haste, timidity, and an excessive fear of giving offense. In the United Nations we have abstained on
some key issues, vacillated on others, and prevented others from being even placed on the agenda. Our Secretary
of State has spoken of Goa, and our Ambassador to France has spoken of Algeria, in terms which have led our
motives and our sympathies to be questioned by those who seek the end of colonial rule. This is not a new pattern
- our course in Indo-China under the Democratic as well as the Republican Administrations antagonized the
Vietnamese people, refueled the propaganda machines of the Vietminh Communists and in the long-run proved
to be a disservice to the Free world as a whole and even to France itself.
This policy - if it can be called a policy - of trying to look both ways at once, of trying to bury our heads in the
sand when a colonial issue arises, of trying to please everybody and displease nobody - this is the policy which our
Department of State likes to call "neutrality" on colonial issues. And when asked about it at a recent news
conference, Secretary Dulles had this to say: "We expect to continue to take a position of neutrality because that
is our general policy with relation to these highly controversial matters which involve countries both of whom are
friends and where we ourselves are not directly involved."
I must respectfully disagree with the able Secretary, though I stress again the fact that this is no partisan matter.
We are directly involved, deeply involved in these issues. They may not involve our possessions - they may not
involve our treaties - they may not always even involve our military bases. But we are directly involved - our
standing in the eyes of the free world, our leadership in the fight to keep that world free, our geographical and
population advantages over the Communist orbit, our prestige, our security, our life and our way of life - these
are all directly involved. How then can we be wedded to this do-nothing policy called "neutrality". How can we
be afraid to touch these "highly controversial" disputes between two friends, when their continuation - and our
reluctance - only serve to strengthen the hand of the mutual enemy of us all?
I do not wish to oversimplify an endlessly complex problem. Nor do I wish to deny the success we have had in
helping free countries remain free, and the value of the steps we have taken in the right direction on this subject.
But the time has come for the United States to take a more forceful stand.
I urge, therefore, that this nation, acting within appropriate limits of judgment and discretion, inform our Allies
and the world at large that - after a reasonable period of transition for self-determination - this nation will speak
out boldly for freedom for all people - whether they are denied that freedom by an iron curtain of tyranny, or by
a paper curtain of colonial ties and constitutional manipulations. We shall no longer abstain in the United
Nations from voting on colonial issues - we shall no longer trade our vote on such issues for other supposed gains
- we shall no longer seek to prevent the subjugated peoples of the world from being heard. And we shall recognize
that the day of the colonial is through.
Of course such a stand will displease our allies - but it will displease the Soviets even more. For whether our allies
like it or not, and whether they act to impede it or not, sooner or later, one by one, the traditional colonies of the
Western powers are breaking free. The primary question is whether they will then turn for association and
support to the West - which has thus far too often hampered and discouraged their efforts for self-determination
- or turn to the Communist East - which has (however hypocritically, in view of its own colonial exploitation)
inflamed their nationalistic spirits and assumed the role of freedom's defender. I emphasize again that I do not
fail to appreciate the difficulties of our hard pressed Allies - but I feel that their present colonial policies only
serve to make easier the way of the Communist transgressor.
The path I suggest for this nation will not be easy. We will find our policies hailed by extremists, terrorists and
saboteurs for whom we could have no sympathy - and condemned by our oldest and most trusted friends who
will feel we have deserted them. We will encounter the most difficult problems of government and justice known
to man - the fate of the large and justifiably alarmed European minorities in North Africa - the lack of
preparation for self-government on the part of many peoples eager to govern themselves now - the likelihood of
this nation being forced to take the place of the present colonial powers in providing the economic assistance
which these new nations will need for many years - and the danger to Western naval and air bases located in
these key areas.
But we have faced difficult problems before - and we have faced them successfully whenever we were resolutely
determined to take the hard, bold steps necessary for their solution.
If we are to secure the friendship of the Arab, the African and the Asian, we cannot hope to accomplish it solely
by means of military pacts and assistance. Neither can we purchase it through extensive programs of economic
grants and subsidies. We cannot win their hearts by making them dependent upon our handouts. We cannot keep
them free by selling them free enterprise. Describing the perils of Communism or the prosperity of the United
States will be to no avail. No, the strength of our appeal to these key populations - and it is rightfully our appeal,
and not that of the Communists - lies in our traditional and deeply felt philosophy of freedom and independence
for all peoples everywhere. Whatever restraints may have been imposed upon this philosophy in our foreign
policy pronouncements during the past decade, there can be no doubt that it still represents the basic attitudes of
the overwhelming majority of the American people.
Today this issue confronts us in Algeria, Cyprus, West New Guinea and elsewhere. Tomorrow it may be in
Portugese Goa or Singapore - and the next day it may be in Togoland or Tanganyika.
There are some who recognize these issues but dismiss them as unimportant. What has all this to do, they say,
with the thought of war in the Middle East or the deterioration of our position in the Far East? The answer is, I
believe, that these issues are fundamental to practically every crisis now occurring or which will occur in the next
generation. For whatever the dispute may be that creates the headlines - we can never escape the fact that we are
dependent upon the decisions of people who have hated, as their ancestors before them for centuries hated, the
white men who bled them, beat them, exploited them and ruled them. Perhaps it is already too late for the United
States to repudiate these centuries of ill will, and to firmly but boldly press for a new generation of friendship
among equal and independent states. But we dare not fail to make the effort.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy introducing

Governor Abraham Ribicoff at the Massachusetts State
Democratic Convention in Worcester, Massachusetts on
Friday June 8, 1956
Exactly one hundred years ago, in the political campaign of 1856, a new element was introduced into American
politics - a secret party - secret because its members were instructed to reply, whenever they were asked about
the party's policies, "I know nothing". But the objectives of the Know-Nothing Party, as it was called, were not
secret - it was an anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, anti-immigrant organization. It was the party of bigotry and
intolerance of the American people. The Democratic Party, I am proud to say, met that challenge head-on -
declaring in its convention platform its unending opposition to secret parties and religious and national
intolerance, as not "in unison with the spirit of enlightened freedom which distinguishes the American system of
popular government."
Tonight, one hundred years later, the Democrats of Massachusetts of all races, creeds and national origins are
proud to play host to a man who symbolizes for all America the victories over know-nothingism that have been
scored in the past century. The Ribicoff home in New Britain, Connecticut, into which our speaker was born
some 46 years ago, was a poor Jewish home, without political influence, without economic security. From his
boyhood on, young Abe Ribicoff worked - as a newsboy, an errand boy, a store clerk and a road construction
worker; later as a manufacturer's representative while attending the University of Chicago; and finally as a
lawyer in Hartford.
For 18 years he has served his state faithfully and well - as a State Legislator who was voted ablest of all by
Hartford newsmen; as a Judge whose ability earned him appointment under Republican as well as Democratic
Governors of Connecticut; as a Member of the House of Representatives, where I became personally acquainted
with his conscientious and courageous devotion to duty and principle; and finally and currently, as a
distinguished Governor of our sister state, where he has won national acclaim for his sparkling and dynamic
efforts to meet the problem of floods, depressed areas and Republicans.
I was delighted to ask my good friend Abe Ribicoff to be your keynote speaker tonight - for he is one who has
carried the Democratic banner fearlessly and loyally in election after election - and kept it spotless.
So welcome to Massachusetts, Mr. Ribicoff - a Democratic state with a Democratic heart - a state that in the past
year or so has offered the party more state chairmen and more John F. Kennedys than anyone else in the nation.
I trust you won't be alarmed by these apparent divisions - for you know they are a traditional sigh of Democratic
strength. Here's how Will Rogers described the Democratic Convention before the sweep in 1932:
"They fought, the fit, the split, and adjourned in a dandy wave of dissension. That's the old Democratic spirit. A
whole day wasted and nothing done. I tell you they're getting back to normal."
And here's what Finley Peter Dunne's Mr. Dooley said about the party fifty years ago:
"The Democratic Party ain't on speaking terms with itself. When you see two men with white neckties set in
opposite corners while one mutters 'traitor' and the other hisses 'miscreant', ye can bet they're two Democratic
leaders trying to reunite the party. There's as many Democrats out of the party as there are in, settin' on the
doorstep to read themselves back and the other readers out. The loudest readers wins."
So don't worry about Massachusetts, Governor Ribicoff. For in the words of Adlai Stevenson:
"We are Americans first, last and always. May the day never come when the things that divide us seem more
important than the things that unite us."
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the
Commencement Exercises of Boston College, Chestnut
Hill, Massachusetts, June 13, 1956
Library. One draft includes Kennedy's handwritten changes, and these have been incorporated into the other
draft. The redaction is based on this later draft. Links to page images of the two drafts are given at the bottom of
this page.
I am deeply honored at being admitted to the ranks of the alumni of Boston College. Boston College has played a
notable part in the life of this community and it carries on a most distinguished and ancient tradition of Jesuit
education.
This college has the function of producing men who, whatever their fields of endeavor, will become leaders. I do
not mean leaders in the narrow sense of personal success. This great school, manned by dedicated religious and
lay-teachers, was not built and is not maintained, quite obviously, merely to give its graduates an advantage in
the life struggle. No, the object, as you well know, is more complex. The first thought, of course, is towards the
City of God, but there is also cognizance of our obligations to the City of Man. I would like to emphasize today
the civil obligations you have towards the government of this City of Man.
I do not mean by this that it is necessary that all of you should take up politics or government as a career. That
may be possible for many of you, I hope, if by temperament and opportunity you should feel equipped and
inclined.
But, I would like to emphasize the obligation of all who have had the benefit of your training, to assume their
proportionate share of the burden of self-government. The phrase "self-government" has fallen into disuse these
days. The center of government seems so far removed from us that we tend unconsciously in our minds to divide
ourselves into two groups, the governors and the governed.
In spite of the elaborate solar system of local, state and national units of government that encircle our lives, most
of us tend to regard ourselves as the objects of governmental policy and not the makers. This state of mind has
resulted in the feeling of great uninterest and faint distaste with which so many Americans view the
governmental process. We tend to look with disfavor at a political structure which seems to emphasize party and
factional disputes, where compromise runs rampant, where indirection seems to have become the shortest
distance between two points. But, to look at the political process in this superficial fashion is misleading; it is like
looking at an anthill as merely a bit of sand and failing to see that it is the cover for a whole labyrinth of life.
The important thing to remember is that your uninterest in politics will not mean that the various tasks will not
be done; they will be done, and usually in a way unsatisfactory to you. There are a great many Americans who do
take an intense interest in politics; they recognize that at stake is control of the most powerful and richest country
on earth. It is governed by one of two political parties; if a group or a combination of interests can master the
parties or can become a dominate influence in one of them, the stakes are well worthwhile.
Thus, underneath the clash of personalities, the serious struggles go on. In City Halls, in State Houses, in the
nation's Capitol, struggling groups, labor, business, agriculture and all the infinite subdivisions within each
group contend; all bringing the maximum pressure to bear on the party, the politician and the administration.
In the Federalist papers, Madison foresaw these contending factions, but, he expressed the hope that they would,
to a great extent, cancel each other out. This happens to a degree - the society for the protection of the taxpayer
fights the efforts of the society for the liquidation of the taxpayer, (not always successfully,) and a kind of
struggling equilibrium is maintained.
But I would like, after a decade of observing this curious business of self-government, to stress the need for
greater participation by men like you. I do not think you can always rely on this mutual canceling out to protect
the public interest. With your training here you have had an opportunity to realize that self-government involves
responsibilities as well as rights, duties as well as privileges. As Pope Pius XII has said, "Direct action is
indispensable if we do not want sane doctrines and solid convictions to remain, if not entirely of academic
interest, at least of little practical consequence."
To play your proper role in government, the role for which your education and training equips you, I would first
emphasize to you the necessity for using your own cool judgment. Do not forget that there are few wholly
objective sources of information. Nearly everything you read and hear is part of a polemic on one side of a
question or another. The final responsibility of the people to deem where truth and error lie is correspondingly
greater in a system such as ours. Because you have been trained by skilled teachers to think independently and to
make your judgments based on a strict moral code, your contribution here can be most important.
Secondly, politics is like any other profession, to be effective in it you must first understand it. You should be
discriminating enough to know that there are occasions when a politician must compromise in order to prevent
conflicting groups from tearing the country apart. All legislation, as Henry Clay reminded us, is founded upon
the principle of compromise. But, the politician has the responsibility of not confusing compromise for the public
interest with compromise for the sake of his own personal advancement.
Actually the people get, by and large, the kind of political representation that they desire and deserve. If the
people will support politicians of courage, will recognize and reward political courage, even when it may be
employed against what they conceive to be their own immediate interest, then the quality of our public service
will be correspondingly increased. Too often at the present time when the politician, obeying his conscience
refuses to give way to an unreasonable pressure, he stand nearly defenseless, the great mass of the people
uncomprehending and uninterested, as a revengeful minority turn to destroy him. The shores of our history are
littered with the wrecks of the careers of men who stood for their country against the storms of partisan fury and
prejudice only to founder on the shoals for want of help from the beach.
Never before in our history has there been a greater need for men of integrity and courage in the public service.
Never before in our history has there been a greater need for the people to take up willingly the responsibility of
free government. Certainly you as educated Catholics are committed to bear your share of the burden, for the
philosophy that you have been taught here at Boston College is needed in the solution of the problems we face.
With the issues of war and peace, with the fate of Western civilization hanging in the balance - the somber
question indeed of the survival of our Faith and country at stake, each man among you can afford in some
degree, at least, to answer the call to service.
High on the wall of the House of Representatives in Washington, above the Speaker's chair so that everyone can
see, are written words we should remember. They were from a speech by a distinguished Senator from our native
State of Massachusetts, Daniel Webster, "Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up
its institutions and promote all its great interests and see whether we, in our day and generation, may not
perform something worthy to be remembered."
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Harvard

University on Thursday, June 14, 1956
It is a pleasure to join with my fellow alumni in this pilgrimage to the second home of our youth.
Prince Bismarck once remarked that one-third of the students of German universities broke down from
overwork; another third broke down from dissipation; and the other third ruled Germany. As I look about this
campus today, I would hesitate to predict which third attends reunions (although I have some suspicion) but, I
am confident I am looking at rulers of America in the sense that all active, informed citizens rule.
I can think of nothing more reassuring for all of us than to come again to this institution whose whole purpose is
dedicated to the advancement of knowledge and the dissemination of truth.
I belong to a profession where the emphasis is somewhat different. Our political parties, our politicians are
interested, of necessity, in winning popular support - a majority; and only indirectly truth is the object of our
controversy. From this polemic of contending factions, the general public is expected to make a discriminating
judgment. As the problems have become more complex, as our role as a chief defender of Western civilization has
become enlarged, the responsibility of the electorate as a court of last resort has become almost too great. The
people desperately seek objectivity and a university such as this fulfills that function.
And the political profession needs to have its temperature lowered in the cooling waters of the scholastic pool. We
need both the technical judgment and the disinterested viewpoint of the scholar, to prevent us from becoming
imprisoned by our own slogans.
Therefore, it is regrettable that the gap between the intellectual and the politician seems to be growing. Instead of
synthesis, clash and discord now characterize the relations between the two groups much of the time. Authors,
scholars, and intellectuals can praise every aspect of American society but the political. My desk is flooded with
books, articles, and pamphlets criticizing Congress. But, rarely if ever, have I seen any intellectual bestow praise
on either the political profession or any political body for its accomplishments, its ability, or its integrity - much
less for its intelligence. To many universities and scholars we reap nothing but censure, investigators and
perpetrators of what has been called the swinish cult of anti-intellectualism.
James Russell Lowell's satiric attack more than 100 years ago on Caleb Cushing, a celebrated Attorney General
and Member of Congress, sets the tone, "Gineral C is a dreffle smart man, he's ben on all sides that give places or
pelt but consistency still wuz a part of his plan - he's ben true to one party, that is himself."
But in fairness, the way of the intellectual is not altogether serene; in fact, so great has become popular suspicion
that a recent survey of American intellectuals by a national magazine elicited from one of our foremost literary
figures the guarded response, "I ain't no intellectual."
Both sides in this battle, it seems to me, are motivated by largely unfounded feelings of distrust. The politician,
whose authority rests upon the mandate of the popular will, is resentful of the scholar who can, with dexterity,
slip from position to position without dragging the anchor of public opinion. It was this skill that caused Lord
Melbourne to say of the youthful historian Macauley that he wished he was as sure of anything as Macauley was
of everything. The intellectual, on the other hand, finds it difficult to accept the differences between the
laboratory and the legislature. In the former, the goal is truth, pure and simple, without regard to changing
currents of public opinion; in the latter, compromises and majorities and procedural customs and rights affect
the ultimate decision as to what is right or just or good. And even when they realize this difference, most
intellectuals consider their chief functions that of the critic - and politicians are sensitive to critics - (possibly
because we have so many of them). "Many intellectuals," Sidney Hook has said, "would rather die than agree
with the majority, even on the rare occasions when the majority is right."
It seems to me that the time has come for intellectuals and politicians alike to put aside those horrible weapons of
modern internecine warfare, the barbed thrust, the acid pen, and, most sinister of all, the rhetorical blast. Let us
not emphasize all on which we differ but all we have in common. Let us consider not what we fear separately but
what we share together.
First, I would ask both groups to recall that the American politician of today and the American intellectual of
today are descended from a common ancestry. Our Nation's first great politicians were also among the Nation's
first great writers and scholars. The founders of the American Constitution were also the founders of American
scholarship. The works of Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Franklin, Paine, and John Adams - to name but a few -
influenced the literature of the world as well as its geography. Books were their tools, not their enemies. Locke,
Milton, Sydney, Montesquieu, Coke, and Bollingbroke were among those widely read in political circles and
frequently quoted in political pamphlets. Our political leaders traded in the free commerce of ideas with lasting
results both here and abroad.
In those golden years, our political leaders moved from one field to another with amazing versatility and vitality.
Jefferson and Franklin still throw long shadows over many fields of learning. A contemporary described
Jefferson, "A gentleman of 32, who could calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice, try a
cause, break a horse, dance a minuet, and play the violin."
Daniel Webster could throw thunderbolts at Hayne on the Senate floor and then stroll a few steps down the
corridor and dominate the Supreme Court as the foremost lawyer of his time. John Quincy Adams, after being
summarily dismissed from the Senate for a notable display of independence, could become Boylston professor
rhetoric and oratory at Harvard and then become a great Secretary of State. (Those were the happy days when
Harvard professors had no difficulty getting Senate confirmation.)
The versatility also existed on the frontier. In an obituary of Missouri's first Senator, Thomas Hart Benton, the
man whose tavern brawl with Jackson in Tennessee caused him to flee the State, said, "With a readiness that was
often surprising, he could quote from a Roman law or a Greek philosopher, from Virgil's Georgics, the Arabian
Nights, Herodotus, or Sancho Panza, from the Sacred Carpets, the German reformers or Adam Smith; from
Fenelon or Hudibras, from the financial reports of Necca or the doings of the Council of Trent, from the debates
on the adoption of the Constitution or intrigues of the kitchen cabinet or from some forgotten speech of a
deceased Member of Congress."
This link between the American scholar and the American politician remained for more than a century. Just 100
years ago in the presidential campaign of 1856, the Republicans sent three brilliant orators around the campaign
circuit: William Cullen Bryant, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, and Ralph Waldo Emerson. Those were the
carefree days when the eggheads were all Republicans.
I would hope that both groups, recalling their common heritage, might once again forge a link between the
intellectual and political professions. I know that scholars may prefer the mysteries of pure scholarship or the
delights of abstract discourse. But, "Would you have counted him a friend of ancient Greece," as George William
Curtis asked a century ago during the Kansas-Nebraska controversy, "who quietly discussed patriotism on that
Greek summer day through whose hopeless and immortal hours Leonidas and his 300 stood at Thermopylae for
liberty? Was John Milton to conjugate Greek verbs in his library or talk of the liberty of the ancient Shunamites
when the liberty of Englishmen was imperiled?" No, the duty of the scholar, particularly in a republic such as
ours, is to contribute his objective views and his sense of liberty to the affairs of his State and Nation.
Secondly, I would remind both groups that the American politician and the American intellectual operate within
a common framework - a framework we call liberty. Freedom of expression is not divisible into political
expression and intellectual expression. The lock on the door of the legislature, the Parliament, or the assembly
hall - by order of the King, the Commissar, or the Fuehrer - has historically been followed or preceded by a lock
on the door of the university, the library, or the print shop. And if the first blow for freedom in any subjugated
land is struck by a political leader, the second is struck by a book, a newspaper, or a pamphlet.
Unfortunately, in more recent times, politicians and intellectuals have quarreled bitterly, too bitterly in some
cases, over how each group has met the modern challenge to freedom both at home and abroad. Politicians have
questioned the discernment with which intellectuals have reacted to the siren call of the extreme left; and
intellectuals have tended to accuse politicians of not always being aware, especially here at home, of the toxic
effects of freedom restrained.
While differences in judgment where freedom is endangered are perhaps inevitable, there should, nevertheless,
be more basic agreement on fundamentals. In this field we should be natural allies, working more closely
together for the common cause against the common enemy.
Third and finally, I would stress the great potential gain for both groups resulting from increased political
cooperation.
The American intellectual and scholar today must decide, as Goethe put it, whether he is to be an anvil - or a
hammer. Today, for many, the stage of the anvil, at least in its formal phase, is complete. The question he faces is
whether he is to be a hammer - whether he is to give to the world in which he was reared and educated the
broadest possible benefits of his learning. As one who is familiar with the political world, I can testify that we
need it.
For example: The password for all legislation, promoted by either party, is progress. But how well do we tell
what is progress and what is retreat? Those of us who may be too close to the issue, or too politically or
emotionally involved in it, look for the objective word of the scholar. Indeed, the operation of our political life is
such that we may not even be debating the real issues.
In foreign affairs, for example, the parties dispute over which is best fitted to implement the long-accepted
policies of collective security and Soviet containment. But perhaps these policies are no longer adequate, perhaps
these goals are no longer meaningful - the debate goes on nevertheless, for neither party is in a position to
undertake the reappraisal necessary, particularly if the solutions presented are more complex to, and less
popular with, the electorate.
Or take our agricultural program, for another example. Republicans and Democrats debate long over whether
flexible or rigid price supports should be in effect. But this may not be the real issue at all - and in fact I am
convinced that it is not, that neither program offers any long-range solution to our many real farm problems. The
scholars and the universities might reexamine this whole area and come up with some real answers - the political
parties and their conventions rarely will.
Other examples could be given indefinitely - where do we draw the line between free trade and protection, when
does taxation become prohibitive, what is the most effective use we can make of our present nuclear potential?
The intellectuals who can draw upon their rational disinterested approach and their fund of learning to help
reshape our political life can make a tremendous contribution to their society while gaining new respect for their
own group.
I do not say that our political and public life should be turned over to experts who ignore public opinion. Nor
would I adopt from the Belgian constitution of 1893 the provision giving 3 votes instead of 1 to college graduates;
or give Harvard a seat in the Congress as William and Mary was once represented in the Virginia House of
Burgesses.
But, I would urge that our political parties and our universities recognize the need for greater cooperation and
understanding between politicians and intellectuals. We do not need scholars or politicians like Lord John
Russell, of whom Queen Victoria remarked, he would be a better man if he knew a third subject - but he was
interested in nothing but the constitution of 1688 and himself. What we need are men who can ride easily over
broad fields of knowledge and recognize the mutual dependence of our two worlds.
"Don't teach my boy poetry," an English mother recently wrote the Provost of Harrow. "Don't teach my boy
poetry; he is going to stand for Parliament." Well, perhaps she was right - but if more politicians knew poetry
and more poets knew politics, I am convinced the world would be a little better place in which to live on this
commencement day of 1956.
Commencement Address by Senator John F. Kennedy at

Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts on
Sunday, June 17, 1956
Library. Links to page images of the speech are given at the bottom of this page.
I am proud and grateful for the honor bestowed upon me today by a University justly celebrated even beyond the
borders of Massachusetts - an honor I could not possibly have foreseen some 16 years ago as I attended my own
Commencement exercises.
There were some then, as now, who regard commencement as a very sad occasion. The pleasures, the values and
the friendships of college days are at an end - the identical group seated here now will probably never again
gather - this is the last [winter?] most of you will spend here on this campus - and the sands of time will gradually
erase most of the memories which seem so important today.
But a sorrowful commencement address to match this mood would in no way be appropriate to the more carefree
spirit which also characterizes such an occasion. In keeping with this spirit of rejoicing, a commencement address
would have to be a light and frothy mixture of hope and humor, reminiscing about the misdeeds of past
intramural battles and plotting the deviltry of future alumni gatherings. It is a peculiar phenomenon of American
college life, I might add, for the student to spend the early years of his life striving to attain the dignity of a
graduating senior, and to spend the later years of his life, at least at such affairs as class reunions, striving to
return to the dignity of an uninhibited sophomore.
In any event, it is apparent that neither a sad nor a joyful speech is quite adequate to this occasion. Something is
needed in the way of a message that recognizes both the bright honor achieved and the new responsibilities
awaiting - a message that might even presume to offer some advice to the graduating class about to undertake
those responsibilities.
But what kind of advice? A traditional Senatorial speech might advise all of you to select politics as your career,
to participate professionally in the governmental process. But most Northeastern graduates, I believe, already
know what they are going to do - and when I look over the career achievements of past Northeastern graduates,
or meet them in Washington, Boston, and all over the state, I am doubly proud to be even an honorary member
of that distinguished group.
Well, if I could not tell you what to do, I might, following the lines of the traditional commencement address,
instead concentrate on why you should do it - offering, if it were possible, new inspiration, high ideals and
philosophical gems for thought. But once again I have concluded that such an effort would be wasted here. Few,
if any, of you have attended Northeastern University for four or more years without deriving from your studies,
your instructors and most of all from your own inner hearts and souls some sense of inspiration and idealism - a
desire to serve others, an urge to contribute to your society, a deeply felt feeling that you could help make the
world a better place in which men might live at peace.
No, I would not tell you what to do, I would not tell you why to do it - but permit me, if you will, a few brief
comments on where to do it. And I address myself particularly to those of you who are residents, or returning
natives, of the state of Massachusetts. I had previously announced the title of my address as "It's Your America
Now" - for indeed that is in essence the theme of every commencement address today in every part of the nation.
But to the overwhelming majority of you who are citizens of Massachusetts, my title might more accurately be
"It's Your Massachusetts Now". For the theme of my advice to you can be summed up in two words - stay home.
I do not urge such a choice upon you for purely sentimental reasons. Nor would I want you to stay in
Massachusetts because it is easier or more convenient or less risky. I do not even ask you to stay in order to vote
Democratic in the Senatorial race of 1958. I want even the Republicans to stay - if there are any Republicans
here.
No, I would urge you to stay in Massachusetts, to have faith in Massachusetts, to build your homes and your
families and your careers here, for two reasons:
First, because Massachusetts presents unexcelled opportunities for today's college graduates; and secondly ,
because Massachusetts needs your efforts as no other state does.
First, what kind of opportunity does Massachusetts offer ? What are the prospects for the future, the chances for
growth? Some are very pessimistic. "New England," a noted scholar wrote a few years ago, "New England is a
finished place. Its destiny is that of Florence or Venice, not Milan, while the American empire careens onward
toward its unpredicted end. New England is the first section to be finished, the first old civilization in America."
Even more recently a well-known economist stirred considerable controversy by an article entitled "The
Economic Decline of New England", which made telling points on our state and region's failure to keep pace with
the industrial expansion of the South and the West.
This is not a false picture. The pessimists and the defeatists did not invent unemployment or business failures or
plant migrations. And some of those who have criticized those gloomy prophecies the most have been the most
responsible for them. Too many of our business leaders turn to New York for their shipping, the South for their
expansion, the Midwest for their markets and the Far West for new investments. They are more familiar with
Manhattan and Miami than with Boston and Nantucket.
All this is not an attractive picture for ambitious young men and women. And many of you, I have no doubt, have
felt the urge to leave for other parts without even consulting these pessimistic authorities. I think I know
something of the feeling, the desire to get away, the determination not to mark time or waste away in a declining,
unexciting area. Your commencement, as every commencement speaker has said since classes were held in caves
or trees, represents not an end but a beginning - not a victory but a challenge - and it is only natural that you
would want to begin to meet that challenge, to make your mark, to make some contribution to society, in a locale
which, superficially at least, seems to offer more of a challenge.
But I ask you to examine the prospects of Massachusetts more closely - to measure them not by the gloomy
defeatism of the past but by the bright hopes for the future. For a new era is dawning in this state - economically,
politically, and in every other way - an era in which young people such as yourselves, with an education such as
you now possess, will play an increasingly important role.
For we stand at the threshold of the atomic age, an age which offers this state more than any other a revolution -
a revolution in our industrial structure, in our standard of living, in our way of life. We stand, too, at the
threshold of automation, which will transform an industrialized state such as our long before other states have
even heard of it. We are already seeing new industries, new products, new processes - and we may soon see new
and growing cities defying the doubts of the pessimists. In such as exciting and challenging period of change and
growth, the opportunities for younger people in this state are greater than ever.
We in Massachusetts cannot offer the world great deposits of uranium or growing fields of cotton or vast
hydroelectric power projects - but we can offer the leadership and the vision and the determination, on the part
of all our citizens, without which that uranium will be meaningless, that cotton will rot and those power projects
will churn for naught.
It is not only an economic or technological transformation which the future offers. The whole nature of politics
and public service is changing in this state. Young men and women, with high ability and high ideals, are to be
welcomed, not scoffed at - and they will find inspiration, not disillusionment. The old political order in this state
is changing, in both parties. And on the state, local or precinct level - in the State Legislature or the Town School
Committee - young people are to play an increasingly important role.
I could go on to describe the potentialities of the future in many other areas - the social and cultural development
of our state which continues to offer more to a young family than any other - the recreational possibilities, the
employment opportunities, the educational facilities. I might remind those of you who feel eager to get away of
those who are entering, not leaving our borders - coming from all over the nation, indeed all over the world, to
Massachusetts - to enjoy our concerts, to remodel our factories, to attend our schools, to be treated in our
hospitals, to study our history, to vacation on our beaches, to buy our products, and finally to just sample our
rich culture, our appealing charms and our famous clam chowder.
All this and more I could remind you - but I am hopeful that enough has been said to cause you to pause and
consider your plans and your travels - except perhaps, to add these words of Daniel Webster's some 126 years
ago:
"I shall enter on no encomium upon Massachusetts; she needs none. There she is. Behold her, and judge for
yourselves."
(2) But I mentioned a second reason for staying in Massachusetts - a reason which might at first seem
contradictory with the first - and that is that Massachusetts needs you . She needs you if she is to build the kind of
future I have described, to realize its full potential, to make it more meaningful for us all. We need young people
to do this job - and I hope I can still include in that category one who (like Jack Benny) is a youthful 39 - we need
young people with a new approach, with new ideas, with their eyes on the future instead of the past.
Massachusetts will never be ashamed of her past. The state of Adams and Winthrop and Sumner and Webster -
the home of the Pilgrims, the Puritans and Paul Revere - the land that led the nation into new ways of
agriculture, commerce, manufacturing, government and social legislation - that is a heritage which we cannot
and would not cast aside. But the past is not always the guide for the future - and deeds once done are not always
enough - as the poet tells us so well in his legend of the wandering calf:
One day thought a primeval wood
A calf walked home, as good calves should,
And left a trail all bent askew,
A crooked trail, as all calves do.
The trail was taken up next day
By a lone dog that passed that way,
And from that day over hill and glade
Through those old woods a path was made.
And many men wound in and out,
And turned and bent and crooked about,
And uttered words of righteous wrath
Because 'twas such a crooked path.
But still they followed - do not laugh -
The first migrations of that calf,
And through the winding wood-way stalked
Because he wobbled when he walked.
And for two centuries and a half
Men trod the footsteps of that calf,
For men are prone to go it blind
Along the calf-ways of the mind,
And work away from sun to sun
To do as other men have done.
This poem probably refers to the streets of Boston. I do not know. I do know that Massachusetts has too often, in
too many ways, in too many fields of endeavor, followed the calf-ways of the mind. The dead hand of the past has
affected our industry, our politics, our welfare and the welfare of our state. It is up to you and me and all who
will join with us to bring new leadership and new vision to our state.
I do not promise you riches. I do not promise you greater fame or a longer life or even a pennant-winning ball
club. As a politician I have been told to guard my promises more carefully than that. But I do promise those of
you who will have faith in Massachusetts and her future, those of you who will dedicate your careers to the
betterment of your state and all her people - to you I can promise a lifetime of challenge and opportunity,
sometimes exciting and rewarding, sometimes slow and difficult, but always, always worthwhile.
Will you join me in that effort? Will you pour back into the state from which it came that talent and vigor which
your degree represents? [High on the Chamber Wall of the United States House of Representatives, inscribed
behind the Speaker's desk for all to see and all to ponder, are these words of the most famous statesman my state
of Massachusetts ever sent to the halls of Congress, Daniel Webster - words which I ask you to take with you as
you consider the path ahead:
"Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its power, build up its institutions, promote all its great
interests and see whether we also in our day and generation may not perform something worthy to be
remembered."
Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy at the Democratic

National Convention, Conrad Hilton, Chicago, Illinois
on August 16, 1956
Library. A link to page images of this speech is given at the bottom of this page.
FELLOW DELEGATES AND FELLOW DEMOCRATS:
We have come here today not merely to nominate a Democratic candidate, but to nominate a President of the
United States.
Sometimes in the heat of a political convention, we forget the grave responsibilities which we as delegates possess.
For we here today are selecting a man who must be something more than a good candidate, something more than
a good speaker, more than a good politician, a good liberal or a good conservative. We are selecting the head of
the most powerful nation on earth, the man who literally will hold in his hands the powers of survival or
destruction, of freedom or slavery, of success or failure for us all. We are selecting here today the man who for
the next four years will be guiding, for good or evil, for better or worse, the destinies of our nation and, to a large
extent, the destiny of the free world.
I ask you, therefore, to think beyond the balloting of tonight and tomorrow - to think beyond even the election in
November - and to think instead of those four years that lie ahead, and of the crises that will come with them.
Of overwhelming importance are the ever-mounting threats of our survival that confront us abroad, threats that
require a prompt return to firm, decisive leadership. Each Republican year of indecision and hesitation has
brought new Communist advances - in Indo-China, in the Middle East, in North Africa, in all the tense and
troubled areas of the world. The Grand Alliance of the West - that chain for freedom forged by Truman and
Marshall and the rest - is cracking, its unity deteriorating, its strength dissipating. We are hesitant on Suez, silent
on colonialism, uncertain on disarmament, and contradictory on the other major issues of the day. And, I regret
to say that once we are able to cut through the slogans and the press releases and the vague reassurances, we
realize to our shock and dismay that the next four years of this hydrogen age represent the most dangerous and
the most difficult period in the history of our nation.
And, consider, too, the four years that face us as a nation at home. For here, too, the absence of new ideas, the
lack of new leadership, the failure to keep pace with new developments, have all contributed to the growth of
gigantic economic and social problems - problems that can perhaps be postponed or explained away or ignored
now - but problems that during the next four years will burst forth with continuing velocity. The problem of the
nation's distressed farmers - the problem of our declining small business - the problem of our maldistribution of
economic gains - the problem of our hopelessly inadequate schools - and the problem of our nation's health - and
many more. Conferences are held, to be sure - commissions are convened - but no new steps are taken and no
bold programs are effected.
These are problems that cry out for solution - they cry out for leadership - they cry out for a man equal to the
times. And the Democratic Party can say to the nation today - we have such a man!!
We can offer to the nation today a man uniquely qualified by inheritance, by training and by conviction, to lead
us out of this crisis of complacency, and into a new era of life and fulfillment. During the past four years his wise
and perceptive analyses of the world crisis have pierced through the vacillations and the contradictions of official
Washington to give understanding and hope to people at home and abroad. And his eloquent, courageous and
experienced outlook on our problems here at home have stood in shining contrast to the collection of broken
promises, neglected problems and dangerous blunders that pave the road from Gettysburg to the White House.
Of course, in a democracy, it is not enough to have the right man - for first he must be elected, he must show the
nation that he is the right man, he must be a winner. And I say we have a winner - in the man who became
Governor of this state in 1948 with the largest majority in the history of Illinois - in the man who in 1956 has
shown in primary after primary that he, and only he, is the top vote getter in the Democratic Party today.
And let us be frank about the campaign that lies ahead. Our party will be up against two of the toughest, most
skillful campaigners in its history - one who takes the high road, and one who takes the low. If we are to
overcome that combination in November this Convention must nominate the candidate who can best carry our
case to the American people - the one who is by all odds and by all counts our most eloquent, our most forceful,
our most appealing figure.
The American people saw and heard and admired this man for the first time four years ago, when, out of the
usual sea of campaign promises and dreary oratory and catchy slogans, there came something new and different -
something great and good - a campaign and a candidate dedicated to telling the truth. Sometimes the truth hurt
sometimes it wasn't believed - sometimes it wasn't popular - but it was always the truth, the same truth, North,
South, East and West. It was a campaign that brought home to the American people two great qualities of the
candidate - his natural talent for Government, which had previously been demonstrated in his able, efficient and
economical administration of the State of Illinois - and, secondly, his natural talent for campaigning, for meeting
people of all kinds, under all circumstances, with a zest for hard work and a will to win.
These are, as I have said, critical times - times that demand the best we have - times that demand the best
America has. We have, therefore, an obligation to pick the man best qualified, not only to lead our Party, but to
lead our country. The nation is entitled to expect that of us. For what we do here today affects more than a
nomination, more than an election - it affects the life and the way of life of all of our fellow-Americans.
The time is ripe. The hour has struck. The man is here; and he is ready. Let the word go forth that we have
fulfilled our responsibility to the nation.
Ladies and gentlemen of the convention: it is now my privilege to present to this convention, as candidate for
President of the United States, the name of the man uniquely qualified - by virtue of his compassion, his
conscience, and his courage - to follow in the great traditions of Jefferson, Jackson, Wilson, Roosevelt, and the
man from Independence. Fellow Delegates, I give you the man from Libertyville - the next Democratic nominee
and the next President of the United States - Adlai E. Stevenson.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at United

Steelworkers Convention, Los Angeles, California,
September 19, 1956
Library, an apparent draft and a text published in the "Minutes of the Eighth Constitutional Convention of the
United Steelworkers of America." We have based our text on that publication and provided a link to page images
of the draft version at the bottom of the page.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful for your very generous reception and for the kind words of your President.
He and I shared a floor at the Chicago Convention. I was in Suite 1005 and he was in 1005A. I remember one day
someone was trying to get in my suite. Finally the phone rang and the voice said, "Senator, I will tell you what we
will do. If you will send us all the pretty girl volunteers that you have who are going to your headquarters, I will
send you all the delegates who are going to our headquarters."
As you know, I did not make out very well in Chicago, but I never did get a report on whoever was at the other
end of the telephone. I suppose every time I think of that second ballot at the Chicago Convention I shall be
reminded of the story of the Western pioneer who was a member of a wagon train coming westward. The little
band was attacked by Indians, and the pioneer was picked up three days later with some arrows in his back and
a piece of his scalp missing. They gave him some whiskey and finally revived him. They asked him if it hurt. He
replied, "Only when I laugh."
As you know, the Democratic Presidential Candidate, Mr. Stevenson, is engaged in a hard campaign. What
makes it so difficult is that the Republican Party and the Republican spokesman are singing all songs in whatever
key they may be sung in, hoping that all of them will bring success to them in November. It is not very difficult
for the Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Sinclair Weeks and the Secretary of Treasury, Mr. George Humphrey to
assure their corporate friends that everything is in safe hands, while at the same time Jim Mitchell, Secretary of
Labor, and one of the most respected members of the Eisenhower Administration, Professor Larson, go around
telling some of the rest of us that everything is in very good hands. It reminds me of the explanation of the success
of a prominent western Governor, who seemed to have the popularity of all people, Republicans and Democrats,
and yet the contention was the poor people thought he was a friend of poor people and the rich people knew he
was not.
As I say, I like Jim Mitchell, and I think the Democrats like Jim Mitchell. We are sorry he does not speak with a
somewhat stronger voice. He likes Ike. The only real question is whether Ike likes him. You may recall that
Secretary Mitchell in 1953 told a labor convention that one of his first objectives was to shore up our minimum
wage laws. The President asked the Republican Congress to amend the Republican budget for enforcing those
laws, and after Secretary Mitchell in 1954 said he categorically opposed the right-to-work laws, the President told
his press conference that Mr. Mitchell's views did not necessarily represent the Administration's views. And after
Secretary of Labor Mitchell in 1955 appeared before our Senate Labor Committee in support of greater
minimum wage coverage, particularly in retail stores, the President told his news conference that he had not
specifically recommended extending coverage to any class or group, retail or otherwise, and one of Mr. Mitchell's
subordinates came back and told our Labor Committee that they really only wanted the problem studied, not
acted upon. I can just see Secretary Mitchell in his office, observing one command after another coming from the
White House repudiating his generous offer, saying, "Somebody up there doesn't like me."
From what I read in the newspaper, the secretary seems to have several points. First of all, this is a year of
prosperity that is equally shared in by business and labor. It is a fact that the corporate profits of business have
gone up 28 per cent while workers' wages have gone up 6 per cent in the last year. That sort of equal division of
prosperity is like the rabbit stew that they used to serve during the meat shortage of World War II. One
customer challenged it and said, "There must be some horse meat in it."
The butcher said, "Not more than 50-50, one horse for every rabbit."
That is the kind of division of prosperity we have. They have been getting the horses.
The second point Mr. Mitchell has talked about is that the Democratic Platform is a pretty good platform but it
cannot be carried out because of the power of the Southern Democrats in the House and Senate. There is some
truth in that, although there are some Democrats like Senate Labor Committee Chairman Lister Hill, who led
the battle against the confirmation of the Eisenhower Anti-Labor appointee to the N.L.R.B., and Senator Lyndon
Johnson, who led our party victories for a higher minimum wage, and Senator Walter George of the Finance
Committee, whose tireless battle over determined Republican opposition made possible the payment of
retirement benefits to multitudes of disabled workers. But it is true there is a handful of Democrats from various
sections of the country who oppose these steps forward and who have prevented a break-through in the
legislative program of the last few years.
Now, I am ready to make Secretary Mitchell a fair offer in four categories that he talked to you about yesterday.
The first was the Taft-Hartley Act. You can tell it is election year because they talk about repealing the Taft-
Hartley Act. I have been a member of the Labor Committee for ten years. I was a member, as was Mr. Nixon, of
the Labor Committee that wrote the Taft-Hartley Bill, although I voted against it. And the Taft-Hartley Bill,
except for one minor change in 1950, as you know, has not been amended. Now, if Mr. Mitchell will give us one-
third of the votes of the Republicans in the House and the Senate we can promise that we will amend the Taft-
Hartley Bill basically; if he will give us one-third of the Republicans to amend Section 14-B, which will end all of
these infamous right-to-work laws. There is no sense in trying to go from state to state repealing them. All you
have to do is repeal Section 14-B, and that would be an end to it. And if the President will recommend it or if he
will give us one-third of the votes in the House and Senate in the Republican Party we can end the right-to-work
laws and there will be no longer any necessity for him to speak to Union conventions all over the country.
Secondly, he talked yesterday about the minimum wage. I have been Acting Chairman of the Senate Labor
Subcommittee on minimum wage and I know something about the Administration's position on it. We finally
passed a dollar. The Administration wanted 90 cents. If Secretary Mitchell will recommend extending the
coverage to millions of workers of the United States who are not covered by minimum wage laws we can do
something really important in the Congress. I think it is most important, because, even though your wages, as you
know, are well up in the scale at least comparatively, you know that there are millions of your fellow workers
who are not protected by the minimum wage law, particularly in the retail stores, particularly women who are
not protected and deserve protection. Therefore I think it is the responsibility of the Republicans and Secretary
Mitchell to mean what they say to come before us next January, and we will pass a decent minimum wage law
and extend the coverage.
The third thing he talked about is the Republican program to aid distressed areas which is especially important,
as Martin Walsh knows from firsthand experience. Last year we held hearings on a Democratic program which
did not vary much, but I thought importantly, from the Republicans', and we passed it in the Senate with only
five Republican Senators voting with us for this program. The last two days of the session it came up in the House
and I called the Administration and I was referred, not to Mr. Mitchell but to the Under-Secretary of Labor who
told me that unless we took all of the Republican bill that bill would not be passed.
So I don't blame Secretary of Labor Mitchell. He just does not speak with the voice of the Republican Party in
the Congress and in the Administration.
If we could carry out that sort of a program which I believe is vitally important, and if he will support us, and if
the Republicans will, I believe that we can really do a good job next year.
The last point I wanted to mention, which he talked about not only here and on other occasions, is this question of
unemployment compensation, because I think what has happened in this regard is the key to this whole
Republican program of promising liberal legislation, but not doing anything about it. In 1954 the President sent
up a recommendation which asked all of the States to pass a law which would give any worker who is
unemployed two-thirds of his wages or one-half of the average wage of the State, whichever is the less. No State in
the Union at that time was doing it. We waited about six months and no State put the program into effect. I
offered an amendment when the Social Security Bill was up on the floor, not to write in a bill better than the
President, but to write in the law the recommendations of the President. And when we finally came to the vote we
had almost two-thirds of the Democratic Senators and we had four Republican Senators for the President's own
program. So there is no sense to come before you yesterday or to come before other working people all over the
country and say what you are going to do in view of this record.
I think there is a great opportunity for Democrats and Republicans. We can't put forward any of these programs
without their support in the Congress, but we don't need very many votes. All we need is a few, and I think this
Congress in the coming year will do a great job. To make it more secure, however, I think we need Democratic
Congressmen and Democratic Senators, a great many more.
As you know, we have been handicapped by the fact that for about ten years we have enjoyed hairline majorities
in all committees in both houses of Congress. But if you can give us a strong Democratic Senate, a strong
Democratic House, I think for the first time since the end of World War II - in fact, the first time since almost
1938, the United States can really begin to move forward to really expand all of the gains which were made 15 or
20 years ago. I think that is the big job of the next Congress, because it is not that we are not enjoying prosperity
today, but there are going to be big problems with increasing populations in the years to come. And our job, I
think, is to make sure that all these people, particularly those on the bottom of the scale who don't have unions
now, who don't enjoy union wages, who don't have unemployment compensation, who don't have social security,
- to expand all these programs to them. And I think this is a program in which you are vitally interested, and I
think you have recognized that in all of your work, not only for the welfare of your own members but for the
welfare of all people, all Americans.
This is what your Union under the leadership of Mr. Murray and now Mr. McDonald has stood for. And
therefore I am very proud to have been extended your invitation today and I wish you and I know you wish all of
us who are working for the Party great success in the months ahead. Thank you.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Los Angeles

World Affairs Council Luncheon at the Biltmore Hotel
on September 21, 1956
It is a genuine honor and pleasure to have this opportunity to address the members of an admirably outstanding
and widely-needed community organization, The Los Angeles World Affairs Council. It is indeed kind for you to
invite me to this Luncheon while I am here in California spreading the gospel of the Democratic Party. For I
realize that this is a strictly non-partisan organization….and that it was for this reason that my good friend,
Democratic National Committeeman Paul Ziffren, had suggested to me that my address might consist of a strictly
non-partisan attack upon the foreign policies of the Republican administration.
Actually, my subject today is one of truly bi-partisan import - the proper role of foreign policy in the 1956
political campaign. If, for my examples of criticism, I seem to draw more heavily upon the shortcomings of
Republicans than Democrats, I trust you will understand that this is due first in large measure to the fact that a
Republican administration is currently in charge of our foreign policy, and, also due, secondly, in part, to the fact
that as a politician talking about a question of politics, I have a natural difficulty in overcoming the partisan
influences of my environment and my profession.
Although this subject of foreign policy in a political campaign may seem to be less directly concerned with the
more substantive issues of world affairs which I assume your usual programs discuss, this Luncheon seems to me
to be a particularly apt place for such a topic. For the very existence of your organization, your very presence
here today, indicates your awareness of the relationship between American foreign policy and American public
opinion - and a Presidential election campaign, probably more than any other part of our public life, helps to
materialize and shape that relationship for better or worse.
My message, therefore, is not addressed to Democrats alone - or to Republicans - but to all thinking citizens
aware of the critical international issues confronting our nation on every side, and the potential values and the
potential dangers of subjecting those issues to the rigors of a political campaign. In times such as these,
confronted by a ruthless enemy who need pay little heed to a public opinion he controls and manipulates, we
might, in a sense, consider Democracy, political parties and political campaigns to be luxuries - absolutely
essential luxuries, to be sure, if that is not a complete paradox of terms, but luxuries nevertheless in terms of the
hard necessities of national security. Recognizing that we should and must continue such luxuries, as necessary to
our very way of life as well as its survival, there remain nevertheless certain political practices and techniques,
particularly in a campaign year, which we cannot afford, in this critical and sensitive area.
Thus I would urge upon you and upon all citizens, as the 1956 campaign opens, the following three criteria or
guideposts to political maturity and responsibility in the field of world affairs:
- First, that we cannot afford in 1956 to ignore the real foreign policy issues in this campaign.
- Secondly, that we cannot afford in 1956 to approach foreign policy campaign issues with partisan distortion,
exaggeration or oversimplification.
- Third and finally, that we cannot afford in 1956 to alter unwisely the conduct or course of our foreign policy for
purposes of political campaign strategy.
Permit me, if you will, to expand and explain each of these points further - for, like so many codes of political
conduct, they are more readily agreed to by all concerned only as long as they remain a general statement of
ideals without further explanation or specific examples. I. First: We cannot afford in 1956 to ignore the real
foreign policy issues in this campaign. There has been considerable emphasis thus far in the campaign upon what
are called "pocketbook" or "breadbasket" issues. Each candidate, from time to time, of course, talked hopefully
or pessimistically, as the case may be - about the prospects for world peace. But each has also demonstrated his
own conviction that the outcome in November hinges more upon the prospects for, and distribution of, continued
prosperity. This is not extraordinary. For foreign policy issues according to many of my fellow politicians have
always been considered too complex, too gloomy, too far-away for the average voter. He is much more interested,
they say, in his job or business or farm, in his level of wages or income, his social insurance, his taxes, his housing
and health needs, his cost of living, and so on.
These are important issues, true, particularly in their demonstration of the differences between the two great
political parties and the approach of each to the individual and his needs. And, true, foreign policy issues are
often complex and they are often gloomy. But they are not far-away - not in the age of atomic rockets and
intercontinental missiles - not in these times when they loom nearer and larger than ever before, towering over
every other aspect of our lives, rendering close to comparative insignificance the so-called pocketbook issues of
the campaign. For we shall have no pocketbooks and no campaigns and nothing else if we fail to master these
complex and gloomy issues.
Moreover, we make a great mistake when we attempt to divide too sharply these so-called foreign and domestic
issues. Many of those matters of local political impact upon which candidates for all offices, from the Presidency
on down, will offer hasty comment and solemn promises - certainly without regard to their international
implications in most cases - are in reality issues vitally affecting our foreign affairs and national security. The
inequities and outmoded restrictions of the McCarran-Walter Immigration Act, for example, deeply affect our
relations with a number of allies. So do our vacillations on the issue of Reciprocal Trade Agreements and our
uncertain tariff barriers. So do the size of our defense budget, the adequacy of our tax structure, the disposal of
our farm surpluses, and so on down a long list. These should be considered foreign as well as domestic issues -
and approached with the same care by all candidates during the current campaign.
But, returning to the overriding issue of war and peace, there are some who say there is no issue here, for there
are no major differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties on this matter. It is true, and
fortunately true, that the dominant majorities in each party are in general agreement on the long-range goals of
American foreign policy. Republicans and Democrats alike do agree that we want world peace, prosperity and
justice, not war, power or glory. We do agree that the principle of collective security has replaced the outmoded
concept of isolationism. But where we differ, and sometimes differ sharply, is on the manner, methods and the
tactics of implementing those goals and principles. My own list of differences, of course, necessarily involves my
criticisms of and disappointments in the present administration, and might not be appropriate for this occasion -
but the objective record will show, I believe, sharp differences in the manner in which the two parties approach
the problems of collective security, international trade, foreign aid, the UN and her affiliates, our defense budget,
and so on.
One of the causes of this mistaken belief in party similarity and perhaps one of the greatest errors we all make in
this campaign, is the assumption that American foreign policy is simply a question of the battle against
communism, a battle which obviously both parties and all Americans support. If that were the case, that might
make our task much clearer - but that is simply not the case. The truth of the matter is that the leadership of the
West and the maintenance of peace are currently threatened most seriously in four Middle Eastern-
Mediterranean areas - Suez, Cyprus, Israel and French North Africa. In not a single one of these conflicts is the
East-West struggle directly or indirectly involved. And in all but the special case of Israel, the conflict is an out-
growth of the revolution we have almost ignored while concentrating on the communist revolution - and that is
the Asian-African revolution of nationalism, the revolt against colonialism, the determination of people to control
their national destinies.
Strangely enough, the home of the Declaration of Independence has not understood this movement…Tied too
blindly and too closely to the policies of England, France and other colonial powers, we have permitted the
Soviets to falsely pose as the worlds anti-colonialism leader, and we have appeared in the eyes of millions of key
uncommitted people to have abandoned our proud traditions of self-determination and independence. Thus
arrogant extremists and communists now seek to exploit the most powerful new force to shape the world since
World War II - not an atomic weapon, not a military pact, but - more powerful than these - the force of a surging
African-Asian nationalism. In my opinion, the tragic failure of both Republican and Democratic administrations
since World War II to comprehend the nature of this revolution, and its potentialities for good and evil, has
reaped a bitter harvest today - and it is by rights and by necessity a major foreign policy campaign issue that has
nothing to do with anti-communism.
Still another obstacle to the proper consideration of foreign policy as a campaign issue is the traditional
argument that politics should stop at the water's edge and all Americans should support their nation's actions
abroad. Thus it is said, foreign policy issues should be ruled out of the campaign. It seems to me that the
Democrats were more emphatic about this four years ago, when they were in office, than they are today - and the
Republicans, who exploited the issue of Korea to dangerous extremes in 1952, now take just the reverse position.
Moreover, this tradition of bi-partisan support abroad was never intended, in my opinion, to prevent healthy
discussion at home. True, care must be taken to avoid bitter political splits that will make subsequent bi-partisan
support impossible - party policies must be so shaped as to prevent extreme fluctuations with each change of
administration - and responsible candidates must of course refrain from undermining by their headlines any
delicate and difficult negotiations being conducted abroad. But to eliminate all such discussions from the
campaign, as was suggested earlier in the year, would be, in my opinion, the height of folly.
Finally, there are those who would deny the necessity of foreign policy's role in the campaign for a more tragic
reason - a tragic belief that the American people are not capable of deciding these issues at the polls or anyplace
else. Popular whims and prejudices are dangers, indeed, as I will discuss more fully in a moment - but in a nation
committed to democracy, as Jefferson said, whenever the people are not sufficiently enlightened to exercise their
right of decision, the solution is not to withhold it from them but to enlighten them. If our candidates and
officials, therefore, will entrust these matters to public judgment in a responsible and mature fashion, the public
will, I am confident, act with equally good judgment and responsibility in deciding the nation's course.
The question, of course, is whether or not each side will present its case to the people in a responsible fashion.
And this brings me to my second major criteria for this campaign - namely:
II. Secondly, we cannot afford in 1956 to approach foreign policy campaign issues with partisan distortion,
exaggeration or oversimplification. Some of my fellow Democratic orators, for example are too often repeating
the alarming charges that we are unquestionably losing both the cold war and the armaments race, while the
Republican platform, on the other hand, boasts that in the past four years the spread of Communist influence has
been checked, the danger of war has receded and the position of the free world has become much stronger.
Neither description, of course, is correct - and little service is done to the cause of healthy foreign policy debates
by continued exaggerations of this sort.
Criticism, where justified, is, as I said, desirable; and the task of criticizing our nation's current conduct of
foreign policy falls, of course, to the opposition party - today the Democratic Party. I hope and pray that my
fellow Democrats will not look upon the Republican strategy of 1952, however successful, as a guide for re-
winning control of the Government in 1956. For, although in this and other areas Democratic administrations
have also been guilty of irresponsibility, I feel that the 1952 Republican campaign provides us with our best and
most recent example of the irresponsible approach to foreign policy during a political campaign. I trust that the
Democratic Party will not speak as intemperately of Suez and Indo China as the Republicans did of Korea - that
we will neither make a deceptively meaningless promise to "go there" or seek, but such slogans as "win or get
out," to appeal at the same time to those desiring more aggressiveness and those desiring less. I trust that we will
not in order to win their votes exploit the hopes and miseries of millions of Americans looking in vain for the
"liberation" of their iron curtain relatives. And I trust that we shall make no assertions concerning the use of our
military forces, such as those made regarding use of the Seventh Fleet in the Formosan Straits, that confuse the
issues, alarm our Allies and endanger our own security.
On the contrary, I have high hopes that 1956 will offer the voters a far saner, a far sounder discussion of foreign
policy issues than 1952. After all, as the result of the change in administrations both parties should now be able to
concentrate on current policies instead of berating and distorting the distant past. By any fair standard, Yalta,
the loss of China and our entry into Korea, for example, should not be campaign issues today; and neither should
the Republican isolationism of 1940, or the old battle of Asia-first versus Europe-first. Let us all agree that
neither party is a "war party"; and that neither party's errors in the conduct of foreign affairs - and both have
made plenty of them - were motivated by sinister designs or by a softness toward Communism. Let us also agree,
for example, that the Republicans do not deserve the blame for the instability of French Governments; and
neither do they deserve the credit for Stalin's death or the hydrogen stalemate and basic changes in Soviet foreign
policy that followed that death as a matter of course. The sooner we clear out all such nonsensical charges and
claims by both sides, the sooner we can get to the real issues But assuming we do discuss the real issues, let us
approach them with hard reason and accurate statements. Let us avoid, on both sides, the use of emotionally
loaded but meaningless terms like appeasement or co-existence. Let us avoid the use of slogans and catch-words
that promise everything while promising nothing. And let us, above all, admit that the problems we face are
difficult problems indeed - difficult to solve, difficult sometimes to ever explain, difficult in the burdens they
require the voters to bear. The temptation to describe some problems in simple black and white terms, and to
offer easy, quick solutions, is a very great temptation indeed - but I am hopeful that neither party will do
anything to obtain the support of the American voter that is in itself unworthy of that support. The pressures are
great to take the seemingly popular way out - with lower taxes, thundering denunciations, and glittering but
irredeemable promises - but courage and constancy are not dead, I know, in either political party.
Enough then of these frantic boasts and foolish words, enough of painless superficial solutions. Words will not
stop wars; intemperate criticism will not bring constructive action; and cruel disillusions at home and bitter
misunderstandings abroad are too high a price to pay for the empty promises of magic solutions. This is no time
to kid ourselves, our people and our allies with press agent platitudes - and I know we won't be kidding our
enemies. Let us instead ask the American people to face up to these hard, ugly questions before disaster, not
afterwards when we have but one choice. And I am confident that the people thus entrusted, will in the long run
reward the courageous and not the cowardly - that they will honor those who faced up to the fact that there are
no easy shortcuts instead of those who glibly obscured the issues with false hopes and promises.
Third and finally, we cannot afford in 1956 to alter unwisely the conduct or course of our foreign policy for
purposes of political campaign strategy. There is, I know, considerable pressure on the present administration to
consider the domestic political situation as a part of the foreign policy decision-making process. Trade barriers
are being demanded by influential economic groups. Increased attention to the problems of their homelands are
being demanded by important nationality groups. And a wide variety of public myths and public prejudices
demand appealing campaign promises and commitments that may be regretted once the battle is over and the
harsh facts of the world struggle are once again considered in the sober light of the post-election dawn.
Let us hope that the administration will not yield to these campaign pressures. Let us hope that neither side will
attempt some dramatic but dubious scheme, such as President Truman's decision - finally revoked - to send Chief
Justice Vinson to Moscow during the course of the 1948 campaign, and General Eisenhower's pledge of four
years ago to go to Korea if he were elected. (Many of you may know, incidentally, that sometime earlier in the
campaign of 1952, Governor Stevenson had quietly turned down a post-election invitation to appear in California
because of his determination to go to Korea if elected - a decision which he refused to announce publicly for fear
that it would be interpreted as a political artifice.)
Perhaps the greatest danger is the pressure for delay. Every four years, the United Nations General Assembly
postpones its Fall meeting until an unusually late date following the American elections, no matter what urgent
matters need prompt attention, a practice that is hardly a tribute to the courage and independence of our foreign
policy spokesmen or to the calm and maturity of our political campaigns, and whatever administration is in
power is likewise confronted with the temptation to delay its own unpopular decisions until after the second
Tuesday in November. In 1952 this was true of our attitude on Korea; in 1954 this affected our role in the
partition of Indo China; and now in 1956, I suspect that the exigencies of the political campaign are causing the
administration to delay making public any cold appraisal of the steps which must be ultimately taken to meet the
Suez crisis.
As long as we back the British and French in Suez, but only so far - as long as we support British policy in
Cyprus but do not vote for it - as long as we proclaim our sympathy to the end of Colonialism but abstain from
voting on specific issues - as long as we are neither members nor non-members of the Bagdad Pact but some kind
of half-member - in short so long as we can continue to play the game both ways and hopefully antagonize no one
- then, the administration feels, we can get through the election. But this kind of indecision, compromise and half-
heartedness, which has characterized Democratic Administrations in election years also, has tragic consequences.
Both parties, too, have been all too willing in the past to make inflammatory statements intended for domestic
policy consumption without regard to the antagonisms they arouse among our puzzled friends abroad.
I think, therefore, that this 1956 election presents a crucial test to the role of public opinion in a democratic
foreign policy. Historians have remarked that the decline of Great Britain's power and glory in world affairs
began when British public opinion first began to exercise influence upon the course of her policies. On the other
hand, there is considerable evidence to support the proposition that American public opinion, with our
traditional sympathies for people seeking their freedom, has wisely prevented American foreign policy on
colonial issues from being associated even more closely with the European Colonial powers.
In short the role of public opinion in the coming election and in the years to follow can be a source for great good
or great evil - a source of weakness or a source of strength. We can fluctuate between hysteria and complacency,
between recklessness and cowardice - or we can contribute the wisdom and support of an enlightened public to
the guidance of a sound and constructive foreign policy.
This year, 1956, is the test. In 1952, as I already mentioned, demagoguery and distortions played too large a role
in the political campaign and too large a role in the decision of the electorate. If this is repeated by either political
party with success in 1956, then we may expect in the future a foreign policy which is not really a foreign policy
at all but one tied essentially to domestic policy considerations.
The conduct of our policies with respect to Israel, Ireland, Greece, Italy, Poland and others will be determined
more by the political potency of nationality groups in this country than by the stricter requirements of our
national interest as a whole. Our policy for China - if indeed we have any policy today - will be determined by
emotional appeals and local pressure groups rather than our long-range objectives for the Far East. Bi-
partisanship, reason and decisiveness will disappear from the foreign-policy making process.
If, on the other hand, our political parties and their leaders demonstrate that they are willing and capable of
debating these solemn issues without resort to half-truth, slogans, and hypocritical promises and appeals - if they
have the courage to state the unpleasant facts of the alternatives facing us - if they refuse to bid for the votes of
pressure groups and the uninformed by means of short-cut promises - then 1956 will indeed be a year of promise
and greatness, a year of hope for the era of peace that lies ahead, and a year of fulfillment for the vision we call
the democratic way of life.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Stevenson-
Kefauver Campaign at the Fairmont Hotel in San
Francisco, California, September 21, 1956
This is a redaction of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A single, incomplete draft
of this speech exists in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F.
Kennedy Library. The text follows this draft closely, with a few minor typographical corrections of spelling and
punctuation. A link to page images of the draft is given at the bottom of this page.
It is a great pleasure for me to be here in San Francisco on behalf of the Stevenson Kefauver ticket and to urge
support of your great Democratic candidates for the Senate and House, and I am particularly delighted to see
again the many San Franciscans who were so kind to me at the Chicago convention. As a matter of fact, I seem to
receive more support in this state and elsewhere from the cities such as San Francisco where I have never spoken
- and you may draw your own conclusions as to why this occurred.
Actually, when I think of that second ballot for the Vice Presidency at Chicago, I am most reminded of the early
California pioneer who was on a wagon train etc.
The emergence of so many Senators as potential candidates for the national ticket should not have been
surprising, however, if we had recalled the somewhat sarcastic prediction made two generations ago by a speaker
of the house, Thomas Reed. Speaker Reed prophesied that the day would come when the people, tired of second
rate presidents, would amend the constitution to require that the President be elected by the Senate from the
membership of the Senate. And this is how he described it: "As the presiding officer completed his tally of votes,
the hushed crowd in the galleries sat with tense excitement awaiting the outcome of the first determination of the
wisest by the wisest. The pallor of the presiding officer's face indicated that something unexpected had happened
and the crowd leaned forward to catch his words as he cried out "Ninety-six Senators had each received one
vote". Never before had the people realized that the Senate of the United States was one great level mass of
wisdom, equal in all of its parts". Actually speaker Reeds' sarcastic fantasy was an exaggeration in 1956 - all
Senators were not candidates for President - some were only candidates for Vice President.
But I have come to California not on behalf of myself but on behalf of the National and State Democratic tickets.
Prior to my arrival here only 3 short days ago, and my decision that Roger Kent and Paul Ziffren schedule me as
they saw fit, I always thought California was a vacation state. I am one of the first vacationers in history to come
from Los Angeles to San Francisco by way of Santa Ana and San Diego. During the past three days, I have made
a dozen or more appearances in at least four cities - that I remember. I have spoken to Democratic groups, to the
Steel Workers Convention, to television audiences, to a Committee on the Arts, and to a World Affairs Council -
and I at first thought that my purpose in coming to this hotel was to address the Republican Associates.
I have enjoyed returning to California, however, for it is here that I briefly attended school and considered
becoming a career newspaperman before I returned to Boston and the more placid life of politics. California, I
am sure, lost a great newspaperman and Massachusetts gained a Senator - but I am not sure which state came off
the better - and I have not dared to ask either one. In any event, you may be sure that my attitude toward your
city is more friendly than that of an earlier Massachusetts Senator, Daniel Webster, who, when asked to support
an appropriation for a railroad to this growing area replied: "Not one damned cent will I give to bring that
______ one inch closer to Boston". No doubt he was fearful that too many Bostonians would come here to stay -
and I find that many of them have. If this weather keeps up, they may even have difficulty getting me to return.
The real test of whether the Republican leopard has changed his spots lies not in the campaign oratory, not in the
platform of platitudes and not in the smile on the face of the candidates - but in the Republican record for the
past four years.
DOMESTIC ISSUES
Consider, for example, the Republican boast of peak prosperity. Prosperity for whom, we should ask. True, the
profits of our largest corporations under the Eisenhower administration have risen some 61% - but factory wages
have risen only 10%; farm prices have declined 18%; and small business profits are down 52%. Twenty-four
states still include within their borders depressed areas of chronic unemployment; and nearly two-thirds of our
workers still lack the protection of the $1 an hour minimum wage. The Republicans insist that their prosperity
has been shared equally by everyone - but that is too much like the rabbit stew served during the great shortages
of World War II ---etc. etc.
To demonstrate their new concern for the working man, the Republicans have been sending Secretary of Labor
Mitchell around to all of the labor conventions, including the steelworkers convention I addressed the other day.
Inasmuch as Secretaries Humphrey and Weeks are simultaneously reassuring their business friends that all is in
good hands, the situation is like the tremendous popularity of a well-known western governor as it was described
to me yesterday. The poor people, it seems, think he is a friend of the poor, and the rich people know that he is
not.
Now I like Jim Mitchell. A lot of Democrats like him. A lot of Labor people like him. And undoubtedly, he likes
Ike. But the question is: Does Ike like Mitchell? When in 1953 Secretary Mitchell told a Labor convention that
one of his first tasks was to shore up the enforcement of our minimum wage laws, President Eisenhower
promptly cut his enforcement budget by 28%. When in 1954, Secretary Mitchell announced his vigorous
opposition to state right-to-work laws, President Eisenhower told his news conference that Mr. Mitchell did not
necessarily reflect administration views on this subject. When in 1955, Secretary Mitchell asked our Senate
Labor Committee to broadly extend the coverage of the minimum wage Laws, particularly to retail workers,
President Eisenhower told another news conference that he had made no recommendations for extension, to
retail workers or anyone else. I can just hear Mr. Nixon sitting in his office as one repudiation after another
comes down from the White House and complaining to his aide: "Somebody up there doesn't like no."
3. A similar case of pledges turning into hedges and those who elected being neglected is, of course, the case of our
nation's farmers. As farm prices, farm income and the farmers share of our food dollars all continue to decline,
while farm mortgage debts increase, we cannot blame our farm friends for believing the story circulating around
Washington - that General Eisenhower asked Secretary Benson how the farmer was doing and Benson replied
that the farmer's income was still "well below par." "Well under par!", said Ike as he hurried off to the golf
course, "excellent, excellent!"
4. Still another tragic story has been the fate of small business under a supposedly business administration. As
small business failures and mergers rise rapidly, and small business' share of our economic gains and our defense
contracts decline steadily, the small businessmen in my State are pointing with nodding heads to the legal opinion
put out by Attorney for the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge on whether visiting Republicans should be given
free passes. That practice, we understand, the attorney said, would be "discriminating in favor of a privileged
class ."
5. The lack of vigorous full-time leadership in the White House has held back the nation in a number of other
fields. The voters are, I believe, sorely disappointed in the President's lack of courage and determination in
meeting the problems of our day. Certainly you must be disappointed here in California, where you once boasted
a Congressman who was one of my heroes of political courage, Congressman John Steven McGroarty. Do you
remember the letter he wrote: "One of the countless drawbacks…. etc. etc.
In surveying the supposed changes in the so-called new Republican Party with respect to domestic issues, you can
see, we find that it is about as much change as going from Los Angeles to San Francisco on a damp and rainy
day…that's the Republican story, from smog to fog - for, although they insist there is an important difference, it
is hardly visible to the naked eye.
Now let us look for a moment to see what changes we can find in the new Republican Party approach to foreign
affairs, to see whether they have substituted responsibility for the shocking irresponsibility on this subject which
characterized their campaign in 1952. I can speak with some objectivity on this subject because I was asked to
address a strictly nonpartisan world affairs group in Los Angeles this noon…and I delivered a strictly
nonpartisan attack on the foreign policies of the Eisenhower administration.
Let me begin by saying in all seriousness that I earnestly hope that the Democratic Party, now that it is the
opposition party, will not imitate the tragically irresponsible campaign on foreign policy issues adopted by the
Republicans in 1952 - despite the success of those methods. Let us avoid exaggeration of our weaknesses,
distortion of the record and oversimplification of the issues. Let us not exploit the miseries and hopes of millions
of Americans who long in vain for the "liberation" of their relatives behind the Iron Curtain. And let us make no
intemperate remarks on Suez or Indo-China similar to the Republicans' remarks on Korea in 1952, which
promised both more aggression and complete withdrawal of our troops at the same time - which endangered our
security and alarmed our allies by falsifying the status of the seventh fleet in the Formosan Straits - and which
shamelessly played on the emotions of the people in General Eisenhower's promise to "go there"…..for what, no
one knew.
This is not to say that we will not have plenty of ammunition and justification to debate foreign policy issues - for
Republican drift, inaction, and vacillation have harmed our interests and principles of collective security in
practically every corner of the world. At least they have learned - after once presenting him with the pistol he
now holds at our head - that what is good for General Nasser is not necessarily good for this country. We will give
credit where credit is due, and find fault only where it is justified. We shall not blame the Republicans for the
instability of French governments or give them credit for the death of Stalin.
One of the many issues which I have felt should play a larger role in this campaign has little or nothing to do with
the worldwide struggle against Communism. For the leadership of the West [break in text ]
I should point out by way of conclusion that one of the chief causes for the barren record of the Eisenhower
administration has been the failure of his fellow Republicans in Congress to support his more enlightened
proposals. Indeed, they have on occasion so heavily opposed him that Mr. Eisenhower was in the position of the
pitcher for the San Francisco Seals who was beaten by a score of twenty to two - and when he was berated by the
manager for his performance, he replied: "How do you expect me to win any games if you fellows won't get me
any runs."
In the coming election, California will play a crucial role - and from what I've seen in three days I am confident
of our Party's prospects in this State. I am confident that you will send a Democratic Senator and a host of
Democratic congressmen to work with Adlai Stevenson in Washington. The Democratic Party faces this decision
of the people with confidence, because we have always placed our confidence in the people. I am sure that we will
not be disappointed on November sixth.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Annual

Convention Banquet of Young Democrats of North
Carolina in Winston-Salem, NC, October 5, 1956
…This meeting represents the very heart of the Democratic Party in the years to come. For the future of our
Party is dependent upon its younger members - men and women such as I see here tonight. Perhaps the most
striking contrast between our Party leadership and that of the Republicans - a contrast particularly visible to all
the nation at this year's two national conventions - is the predominance of young leadership in the Democratic
Party and the absence of that leadership on the Republican side. Young men sit in positions of authority on the
Democratic side of the aisle in the Senate - Albert Gore of Tennessee, Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, George
Smathers of Florida, Henry Jackson of Washington, Russell Long of Louisiana, Mike Mansfield of Montana, and
a whole host of others, including, of course, our distinguished Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson and our
distinguished Vice Presidential nominee, Estes Kefauver of Tennessee. And occupying the Governor's chair in
many of our States are more young Democrats - Muskie of Maine, Meyner of New Jersey, Williams of Michigan,
Ribicoff of Connecticut, Freeman of Minnesota, Collins of Florida, Simms of New Mexico, and many others. Our
candidates for the Senate this year share this youthful vigor - Richards in California, Dodd in Connecticut,
Talmadge in Georgia, Church in Idaho, Stingle in Illinois, Wagner in New York, Clark in Pennsylvania, Marland
in West Virginia, and many others.
I give you this long list of names because I think its length is almost as impressive as the high quality of these
whose names I have mentioned. And they, of course, are only a few of those in positions of responsibility on the
Federal and State levels, to say nothing of those occupying other important posts in their States, counties and
local communities. The Democratic Party has been blessed with a wealth of young leadership - a new, bold,
vigorous leadership dedicated to the Party and the people - young men, their minds fertile with new ideas and
fervent with a new spirit. Thus, when Adlai Stevenson talks about a "new America", about the challenges and
opportunities that face this nation in the years ahead, he knows he is speaking for a party which will be well
equipped to meet those challenges and seize those opportunities.
But when, on the other hand, President Eisenhower talks about "the party of the future", we must ask ourselves:
where is it? Where are the "Young Turks" who were to sweep to power with President Eisenhower in 1952?
Where are the young men who were going to reform the party once the Republicans gained control? They are not
in the Cabinet - they are not in the leadership of the Senate - they are not in the leadership of the House - they are
not in the Governors' Mansions. They are all gone - all, that is, save one - the Vice President of the United States.
In short, when Mr. Eisenhower talks about "the party of the future", he is talking about the party of Richard
Nixon. And I believe that the American voters will settle his future on November 6.
Consequently, you can understand why I am a bit skeptical about the constant references to the "new"
Republican Party. It is true that they have a new platform which quietly ignores all of the promises of 1952. And
it is true that they can present on the surface a new unity between the two wings of the Republican Party - the
right-wing and the far-right-wing. But the truth of the matter is that this practically new Republican Party is
very much like the used cars which many of you have inspected after they, too, were advertised as practically new
- they had a little more shine, a little more polish, and maybe some new accessories - but underneath were the
same worn-out, inadequate works.
For the actual record of the Republican Administration and the Republicans in Congress, as contrasted with
their promises in 1952 and their claims in 1956, represents the same Republican pattern of the past - the pattern
that offered no hope, no inspiration, no assistance and no opportunity to the young voters of America. Thus,
although I am thankful that the young men and women of this country - who will hold the political balance of
power during the next decade - are turning to the Democratic Party, I am not surprised. For ours is the party of
youth and vigor, the party that offers real leadership - the kind of leadership young people want - instead of
drifting, part-time leadership. And although our opponents may have in the past cried out "It is time for a
change"! - a clarion call we have not heard from them in recent years - actually it is the Democratic Party that is
the party of change, the party of tomorrow as well as today.
Let us consider, for example, the needs of a young man and his family just starting out in life. He doesn't want a
handout - he doesn't want to be overly-protected - he doesn't want anything more than that to which he is
entitled. All he requires is a chance to get started, a chance to build for himself and his family the niche in our
world that is rightfully theirs. But without the leadership of a youthful vigorous Democratic Party, what would
he find - what does he find today under a Republican Administration?
…When he seeks employment, he find that nearly two-thirds of the jobs in this country do not even have the bare
protection of a dollar minimum wage; and that if he is laid-off, as so many young people without seniority are in
the fluctuations of our economy, he finds that there are no nationwide standards of unemployment compensation
which will keep him from becoming a relief case until he can find work again.
…If he wants to buy his own farm, he finds that in the past four years the amount of credit available from the
Farmer's Home Administration has been steadily declining while the interest rates have been raised to a point he
cannot afford.
…If he wants to start his own business, and small businesses are the life-line of your State and mine, he finds it is
now almost impossible to get a loan from the Small Business Administration with all of its inadequate funds,
higher interest rates and excessive red tape requirements. He finds that his chances of getting a defense contract
are almost negligible under and administration where 68% of all such contracts go to the 100 largest
corporations. And with no legislation to prevent price discrimination and economic cannablism on the part of the
big firms, he soon finds that his independent business, too, must be gobbled up in the increasing trend toward
corporate mergers.
…He finds, both as a small business man, and as a family man, that the only tax relief granted in recent years has
been to those who need it the least.
…He finds that he must send his children to overcrowded schools and send his wife to an overcrowded hospital;
and he is forced, in addition, to support his aged parents because, with the cost of living at a peak, they are
unable to stretch their inadequate social security benefits.
Finally, young men and women - perhaps more than any others in our society - are concerned about the present
drift of our foreign policy. John Foster Dulles may lead us to the brink of war, but it is the young men and
women of the country who are catapulted into the middle of it. Many are concerned about the vacillations of the
present Administration and the Republicans in Congress on the issues of foreign aid and collective security - and
these are young men who know that battles not fought at Inchon or Saigon are likely to be fought in Winston
Salem or Woonsocket. Many of those who fought in Korea were resentful of Republican distortion and
exploitation of that issue in 1952; and many of those who might have to fight in the Middle East are distressed by
Republican confusion and the deterioration of our position in 1956.
I am encouraged, moreover, by the refusal of young men and women today to be deceived by the Republican
boast of world peace - for they realize that it is possible for use in a period of peace to lose the cold war, to
endanger our security - without a shot ever being fired.
The most serious aspect of our drifting foreign policy during the past four years has little or nothing to do
directly with the continued growth of Communist military might. The security and leadership of the United
States and her allies, and in fact the maintenance of peace itself, are currently threatened most seriously in three
Middle Eastern-Mediterranean areas - Suez, Cyprus and French North Africa. In not a one is our interest
threatened by Communist armies. Instead, these conflicts are an outgrowth of the revolution which we have
virtually ignored while they were concentrating on the Communist revolution - and I am referring to the Asian-
African revolution of nationalism, the revolt against colonialism, the determination of people to control their
national destinies.
The great failure of this Administration to comprehend the nature of this revolution, and its potentialities for
good and evil, has reaped a bitter harvest in the Middle East today, just as it did in Indo-China two years ago,
and just as it may in some other area of Asia or Africa in the near future. We have permitted our own attitude on
colonial issues to be tied too blindly and too closely to the policies of our Western allies. We have permitted
millions of key uncommitted people - people who hold in their hands the balance of power in the world during
the next ten years - to believe this nation has abandoned its proud traditions of self-determination and
independence. And we have permitted the Soviet Union - the most ruthless colonial power on earth - to falsely
pretend to be the leader of the struggle against colonialism. Now, in Suez, in Algeria, in every troubled and tense
area in the world, extremists and communists are seeking to exploit for their own selfish and dangerous ends this
powerful, surging spirit of freedom and independence - a spirit which can rightfully be a force for the free world
if this nation will give it encouragement instead of neglect.
This is only one of many issues where the nation and the world cry out for a return to firm, decisive leadership in
Washington. Fortunately, we have a man equal to the times - with the courage and the vigor and the vision equal
to the task. Adlai Stevenson, in my opinion, is uniquely qualified to pierce through the turmoil that surrounds us
abroad and lead this nation safely through its present crises at home and abroad.
Adlai Stevenson, and the young men and women who are supporting him and running for office with him, truly
represent a new America. And so it is that in 1956 young men and women in every state of the union will turn in
tremendous numbers to the Democratic Party, the party that recognizes their needs and represents their future -
not the party of stand pat and status quo, but the party of progress for all the people.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Junior
Chamber of Commerce Dinner in Richmond, Virginia,
October 15, 1956
Library. A lilnk to page images of the speech is given at the bottom of this page.
My mission here today is to present the case for the Democratic Party. I am the advocate - you are the jury - and
your verdict will be rendered on the sixth of November. The political advocate, like the trial lawyer, necessarily
operates under certain limitations. He presents the case for his client as persuasively as he can, in what we all
hope will be a factual and truthful manner. But he does not present the case for his opponent nor point out to the
jury the weaknesses in his own client's cause. Consequently, a political campaign does not always furnish the best
foundation for a wise verdict at the polls. The oratory is too often exaggerated; the promises are too often
meaningless; and the appeal to emotions and personalities too often confuses the substantive issues. I would ask
you to judge the Democratic Party therefore not on its promises for the future but on its record of the past - not
only on the personalities of its current leaders but on the realities of its past leadership.
Many political analyists have written in recent times that 1956 presents a race between a party and a man -
between the solid strength of the Democratic Party and the immense personal popularity of President
Eisenhower. But it seems to me that, however this may describe the motivations of the electorate, this is not, or
should not be, the actual choice facing the country. For one man, however popular and however powerful, cannot
control his party in the Congress, or, as we have seen, even in his own administration - and this will be
particularly true during his last term in office. We must therefore compare party against party, not party against
man. And I am confident that once that comparison is made upon the basis of the past record, the people will
again turn to the leadership of the Democratic Party.
But before we examine more closely the record of the past, let us consider one pertinent aspect of the future - the
Republican claim that they are the party of the future. For the question is: who in the future is going to lead that
party? In contrast with the Republican Convention in San Francisco, the Democratic Convention showed to the
Nation dozens of young and vigorous Senators, Governors, Congressmen and others in position of leadership.
When Adlai Stevenson talks about the New America, he can point to the many able young leaders of the
Democratic Party - including those here with me tonight - who will be able to build that New America, to meet its
challenges and seize its opportunities.
But when, on the other hand, President Eisenhower talks about "the party of the future", we must ask ourselves:
where is it? Where are the "Young Turks" who were to sweep to power with President Eisenhower in 1952?
Where are the young men who were going to reform the party once the Republicans gained control? They are not
in the Cabinet - they are not in the leadership of the Senate - they are not in the leadership of the House - they are
not in the Governors' Manions. Who is left to lead the party of the future? Certainly not poor, old, brainwashed
Harold Stassen. No, they are all gone - all, that is, save one - the Vice President of the United States. In short,
when Mr. Eisenhower talks about "the party of the future", he is talking about the party of Richard Nixon. And
I cannot believe that the majority of American voters would want to entrust their future to Mr. Nixon.
The Democratic Party, on the other hand, is today emerging under a new leadership, with new vision and new
ideals. In a sense, the Democratic Convention at Chicago represented a contest for supremacy within the party
between these new forces, led by Adlai Stevenson, and the older ways of the party symbolized by former
President Truman. The decision of the Convention by an overwhelming margin was in favor of Mr. Stevenson
and his philosophy - a philosophy of moderation that did not yield to irresponsibility on either the left or the right
- a philosophy of candid and conscientious courage, that did not believe in a campaign of vilification or
oversimplification. This, I believe, is the philosophy of the future - and by its decision at Chicago, the Democratic
Party resolved to become the party of the future - a role for which it is richly endowed with leaders, programs
and enthusiasm.
The two issues of this campaign, if we think for a moment in terms of Republican slogans, are Peace and
Prosperity. I would ask you in judging these issues to look beneath the labels and to examine the record.
First, with respect to Prosperity, let us ask: Prosperity for whom? Where is the prosperity for our farmers who
have seen their prices and income go steadily down as their debts go steadily up? Where is the prosperity for our
small businessmen who have seen their profits decline while business failures jumped? Where is the prosperity
for our working men and women whose average earnings have increased less than 1/6th the increase of big
business profits? Where is the prosperity for the consumer who sees prices at an all time high, his installment
debt increasing and his personal savings declining? What kind of prosperity is it that sends children to
overcrowded schools, that sends the sick and disabled to overcrowded hospitals and that maintains pockets of
chronic unemployment in at least 20 states?
Permit me to mention in particular this problem of small business. Since Inauguration Day 1953, the profits of
our largest corporations have increased 61 per cent. But small business profits have declined 52 per cent,
business failures have increased, and new business starts have declined. In Virginia, for example, the rate of
business failures which had been steadily declining during the last three years of Democratic Administration
increased by 9 per cent during the first three years of Republican rule.
Little or nothing has been done by the Republican Administration to meet these problems. Little or nothing has
been done to stop the growth of monopolies, with mergers at their highest point in history. Little or nothing has
been done to give more defense contracts to small businessmen, with 68 per cent of all contracts going to the 100
largest firms. Little or nothing has been done to replace the credit opportunities taken away from independent
businessmen by the Republican tight money policies. For government loans from the Small Business
Administration having been shockingly few while the interest rate has been shockingly raised.
We Democrats refuse to agree with the Republican official who said: "Let's face it. Big business is going to get
bigger and small business is going to get smaller and there is nothing we can do about it." We think we can do
something about it. We can give small business an agency that will really represent them and really help them -
help them get working capital and long-term credit - help them get a fairer share of government contracts - and
help them in other ways to survive a world of economic giants. We can tighten up and enforce our anti-monopoly
and restrictive trade legislation. And we can revise our corporate tax laws to give small businessmen the relief
they deserve. Small business has been the neglected stepchild of the Republican Administration, and we
Democrats propose to bring it back into the family.
Secondly, what about the question of Peace? Many have said in recent times, including the President at his last
press conference, that the outcome of the campaign would be determined by domestic or pocketbook issues,
rather than foreign policy. There are several reasons for this. In the first place, some say there are no major
differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties on this matter. It is true, and fortunately true, that
the dominant majorities in each party are in general agreement on the long-range goals of American foreign
policy. Republicans and Democrats alike do agree that we want world peace, prosperity and justice, not war,
power or glory. We do agree that the principle of collective security has replaced the outmoded concept of
isolationism. But where we differ, and sometimes differ sharply, is on the manner, methods and the tactics of
implementing those goals and principles - in our approach to the problems of collective security, international
trade, foreign aid, the UN and her affiliates, our defense budget and so on.
Still another obstacle to the proper consideration of foreign policy as a campaign issue is the traditional
argument that politics should stop at the water's edge and all Americans should support their nation's actions
abroad. Thus it is said, foreign policy issues should be ruled out of the campaign. It seems to me that the
Democrats were more emphatic about this four years ago, when they were in office, than they are today - and the
Republicans, who exploited the issue of Korea to dangerous extremes in 1952, now take just the reverse position.
Moreover, this tradition of bi-partisan support abroad was never intended, in my opinion, to prevent healthy
discussion at home. True, care must be taken to avoid bitter political splits that will make subsequent bi-partisan
support impossible - party policies must be so shaped as to prevent extreme fluctuations with each change of
administration - and responsible candidates must of course refrain from undermining by their headlines any
delicate and difficult negotiations being conducted abroad. But to eliminate all such discussions from the
campaign, as was suggested earlier in the year, would be, in my opinion, the height of folly.
Yet let me make it clear that I would prefer no foreign policy discussion at all to a campaign characterized by
partisan distortion, exaggeration or oversimplification. Despite the obvious invalidity of the boasts contained in
the 1956 Republican platform - that in the past four years the spread of Communist influence has been checked,
the danger of war has receded and the position of the free world has become much stronger - the level of foreign
policy debate will be primarily determined by the Democratic Party as the party of opposition. I hope and pray
that my fellow Democrats will not look upon the Republican strategy of 1952, however successful, as a guide for
re-winning control of the Government in 1956. I trust that the Democratic Party will not speak as intemperately
of Suez and Indo China as the Republicans did of Korea - that we will neither make a deceptively meaningless
promise to "go there" or seek, with such slogans as "win or get out", to appeal at the same time to those desiring
more aggressiveness and those desiring less. I trust that we will not, in order to win their votes, exploit the hopes
and miseries of millions of Americans looking in vain for the "liberation" of their iron curtain relatives. And I
trust that we shall make no assertions concerning the use of our military forces, such as those made regarding use
of the Seventh Fleet in the Formosan Straits, that confuse the issues, alarm our Allies and endanger our own
security.
On the contrary, I have high hopes that 1956 will offer the voters a far saner, a far sounder discussion of foreign
policy issues than 1952. By any fair standard, Yalta, the loss of China and our entry into Korea, for example,
should not be campaign issues today; and neither should the Republican isolationism of 1940, or the old battle of
Asia-first versus Europe-first. Let us all agree that neither party is a "war party"; and that neither party's errors
in the conduct of foreign affairs were motivated by sinister designs or by a softness toward Communism. Let us
also agree, for example, that the Republicans do not deserve the blame for the instability of French
Governments; and neither do they deserve the credit for Stalin's death or the hydrogen stalemate and basic
changes in Soviet foreign policy that followed that death as a matter of course. The sooner we clear out all such
nonsensical charges and claims by both sides, the sooner we can get to the real issues.
The Democrats, and particularly our standard-bearer Adlai Stevenson, are determined to discuss the real issues,
and to approach them with hard reason and accurate statements. We want to avoid, on both sides, the use of
emotionally loaded but meaningless terms like appeasement or co-existence. We want to avoid the use of slogans
and catch-words that promise everything while promising nothing. And we admit that the problems we face are
difficult problems indeed - difficult to solve, difficult sometimes to even explain, difficult in the burdens they
require the voters to bear.
We heard enough in 1952 of frantic boasts and foolish words, enough painless superficial solutions. Words, we
know, will not stop wars; intemperate criticism will not bring constructive action; and cruel disillusions at home
and bitter misunderstandings abroad are too high a price to pay for the empty promises of magic solutions.
And that is why I am not impressed by the continued Republican talk about peace. For a peace without security,
without preparation for the future, is no peace at all. And the last four years have made it abundantly clear that
we could lose the cold war and imperil our security without a shot being fired.
For there are two pathways to peace - one of weakness and one of strength. The Republican Administration, and
the Republican Party traditionally have followed the pathway of weakness - weakness in our defensive strength,
so that our enemies know we are unwilling and unable to fight local "brushfire" wars; weakness in our
diplomatic position, so that the Soviets can take advantage of us, particularly in an election year, weakness in our
Western alliances, corroded by our vacillations on foreign aid and by the continuous threats and misstatements
of our wandering Secretary of State, and finally a deplorable moral weakness, caused by our failure to speak up
clearly on the great moral issues of the day such as colonialism, equality of nations and disarmament. Indecision,
compromise and halfheartedness characterize too many of our actions. We back the British and French in Suez,
but only so far - we support British policy in Cyprus but do not vote for it - we proclaim our sympathy to the end
of Colonialism but abstain from voting on specific issues - we are neither members nor non-members of the
Bagdad Pact but some kind of half-member - in short we try to play the game both ways and hopefully
antagonize no one. That is one kind of peace.
The other pathway to peace is the pathway of strength - and this is the pathway which we Democrats have
followed in the past and will follow in the future. We followed that pathway when we resisted Republican cuts in
the Air Force that set back our air buildup by at least two years. We followed it when we resisted Republican cuts
in the Army that left us, according to General Ridgeway, unable to meet our military obligations. We believe in
peace through strength, not weakness - the strength of our allies, strength of our leadership, the strength of our
ideas and of our bargaining position abroad.
Perhaps most important of all, in the field of foreign policy, we believe in the strength of moral leadership. It is
here that I believe our nation and world desperately need the ability and the courage and the compassion of that
uniquely qualified statesman, Adlai E. Stevenson.
For the major crises facing us abroad today are not simply matters of anti-communism. The security and
leadership of the United States and her allies, and in fact the maintenance of peace itself, are currently threatened
most seriously in three Middle Eastern-Mediterranean areas - Suez, Cyprus and North Africa. In not a single one
of these conflicts is the Communist cold war directly involved. In not a one is our interest threatened by
Communist armies. Instead, these conflicts are an outgrowth of the revolution which we have virtually ignored
while they were concentrating on the Communist revolution - and I am referring to the Asian-American
revolution of nationalism, the revolt against colonialism, the determination of people to control their national
destinies.
The great failure of this Administration to comprehend the nature of this revolution, and its potentialities for
good and evil, has reaped a bitter harvest in the Middle East today, just as it did in Indo-China two years ago,
and just as it may in some other area of Asia or Africa in the near future. We have permitted our own attitude on
colonial issues to be tied too blindly and too closely to the policies of our Western allies. We have permitted
millions of key uncommitted people - people who hold in their hands the balance of power in the world during
the next ten years - to believe this nation has abandoned its proud traditions of self-determination and
independence. And we have permitted the Soviet Union - the most ruthless colonial power on earth - to falsely
pretend to be the leader of the struggle against colonialism. Now, in Suez, in Algeria, in every troubled and tense
area in the world, extremists and communists are seeking to exploit for their own selfish and dangerous ends this
powerful, surging spirit of freedom and independence - a spirit which can rightfully be a force for the free world
if the nation will give it encouragement instead of neglect.
This is only one of many foreign policy issues where the nation and the world cry out for a return to firm,
decisive leadership in Washington - and they will find that leadership in a Democratic Congress and a
Democratic President.
I do not pretend to say that the future will always be rosy, even under a Democratic Administration. There will
be crises, there will be problems. But the Democratic Party has the enthusiasm and the determination and the
new ideas necessary to meet those problems. We can build the schools and the hospitals and the homes and the
highways that our nation needs. We can wage unrelentless war against slums and poverty and illiteracy and
illness and economic insecurity. We can build, through strength and justice and moral leadership, a lasting peace.
And we can go forward to the New America of which Governor Stevenson speaks, never satisfied with things as
they are, daring always to try the new, daring nobly and doing greatly. "For unto whomsoever much is given, of
him shall much be required." It is in this spirit that I present to you tonight the case for the Democratic Party.
And it is in this spirit that we ask for your confidence in November.
Remarks given at the Springfield Rotary Club,

Springfield, Massachusetts, October 19, 1956
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. One draft of the speech
Library. A link to the page images of the speech is given at the bottom of this page.
We are - as I am sure you are all painfully aware - in the midst of our national biennial stock-taking season - that
period when the "in's" "point with pride" to the same record and conditions that the "out's" "view with alarm."
I would like to deviate somewhat from this customary fare of our election season and discuss with you this
afternoon - in a non-partisan fashion - the progress that we have made in Washington in our efforts to restore the
New England economy to a healthy condition; and the problems yet to be resolved, and progress still to be made,
in this area.
Fundamental, I think you will agree, to the recognition and treatment of the economic ills of New England has
been the formation of the first New England Senators Conference. Since the first formal meeting of the 12
Senators from our region, called by Senator Saltonstall and myself early in 1954, the members of our delegation
have exchanged information, opinions and viewpoints, without regard to party affiliation, on issues of common
interest to the six States of New England. We are not a voting bloc, although there have been many matters of
particular concern to our region upon which we have taken joint action. One example was our successful efforts
in behalf of the Yankee Atomic Electric Company's application for a license to construct a reactor here in
Western Massachusetts. Another was our letter to and meeting with the Director of the Office of Defense
Mobilization to protest any Governmental action restricting the importation of fuel oil so necessary for our
industries and for the heating of our homes. The experience of our first three years has convinced us of the
usefulness to New England of these periodic meetings; and they enable each of us to better discharge his
responsibilities to the citizens of his State, and meet the problems of particular interest to our region. Permit me
to mention ten of these problems briefly.
(1) The problem of migratory industry - Perhaps the most serious problem besetting New England in the recent
past has been the migration of industry to the South and West. An excellent job has been done by many of our
local Industrial Development Commissions, established through the efforts of local Governmental units, and by
the intensive drive of many of our private citizens concerned about the economic plight of their communities.
They have done a laudable job; but action on the Federal level was also necessary. I am glad to report that we in
the National Government also have a list of achievements in this field worthy of note.
As a member of the Senate Labor Committee, I opposed the amendments to the Taft-Hartley Act which would
have encouraged additional States to adopt the badly-named "Right to Work" laws, the prime inducement for
many runaway shops. Our efforts were successful and the amendments were sent back to the Committee, never
to be heard from again. We successfully urged greater funds for enforcing the minimum wage laws and a policy
of granting minimum wage learner permits only in proper and legitimate instances - two factors which are
important in eliminating "unfair" competition from other sections of the country. I might digress here a minute
to note that although the strains of "Dixie" arouse different reactions in me than they did before that long Friday
afternoon last August in Chicago, my attitude towards competition between regions of the United States for
industry remains the same - namely, the natural advantages each region has to offer can and should be exploited
to the fullest possible extent; but "unfair practices" should not be permitted as inducements for runaway
industry. In the first classification, that of legitimate advantages, I place such items as a bountiful water supply,
good climate, a competent and adaptable labor force, and nearness to markets. Unfair practices include
violations of minimum wage laws, the use of municipal tax-free bonds to build factories, and the maintenance of
varying minimum wage levels in different parts of the country for work done on Government contracts. It is not
difficult to distinguish between the two and I shall continue to oppose those in the "unfair" group.
(2) The problem of labor surplus areas - It is disturbing to me - as I am sure it is to you - to realize that in this
general period of prosperity there are islands of economic distress. Although significant steps have been taken to
correct this situation, and although the problem is not so acute as it was a few years ago, there are still over
62,000 unemployed in the State of Massachusetts, and Lawrence and Lowell remain on the Government's list of
labor surplus areas. We have developed some highly satisfactory devices for guarding the economy of the nation
as a whole and for taking preventive and remedial action when danger signals in that economy are apparent. To
those communities which are in economic trouble on a local scale, the problem is just as real. Many - as I have
indicated earlier - have been able to assist themselves; others need immediate help. I regret that the House of
Representatives did not agree to the Senate-approved bill introduced by five of my colleagues and myself which
would have provided a program to meet this need. This nation's credit and the technical knowledge of our
Government agencies should be extended to those industries in distressed areas desiring to modernize and
expand their operations, thereby bringing employment to their communities and reversing the downward spiral
of industrial activity.
(3) The problem of power - Atomic energy - the most threatening and at the same time the most promising
natural resource the world possesses - holds one of the most important keys to New England's economic future.
We know we are at a great competitive disadvantage with our Southern and Western competitors insofar as
electrical energy is concerned - the same power that costs $8.28 in Springfield and $9.53 in Boston, costs $5.00 in
Chattanooga, Tennessee, and $3.20 in Tacoma, Washington. However, the prospect of cheap power for our
region from atomic energy is a tantalizing goal which more and more seems capable of attainment. I was
gratified when the Congress accepted my amendment to the Atomic Energy Act and gave preference to areas
with high power costs in the location of reactors, for surely atomic power will be competitive with conventional
power here in Massachusetts long before it will be in other areas where hydroelectric power is more abundant.
Similarly, there was encouragement in the successful application of the Yankee Atomic Power Company for a
license to construct a reactor. The City of Holyoke has also had encouragement and support in its efforts to
participate in the atomic reactor development program. Its application is still pending. The earlier and more
extensive our participation in this hopeful field, the sooner the benefits of atomic power will aid our area.
In addition to the hope afforded by atomic energy, there is the possibility that some power from the new St.
Lawrence power project can be made available to Western Massachusetts. We are a considerable distance from
the generating site, but the Federal Power Commission is considering the application of Massachusetts for a
portion of that power. The feasibility of harnessing the power in the great tides at Passamaquoddy in Maine also
continues to have our interest and we are presently awaiting the report of the Corps of Engineers on that
question.
(4) The problem of transportation - As our nation's population center has moved westward, New England's
geographical location in a relatively remote corner of the United States has made the problem of transportation a
crucial one, particularly to a manufacturing area like southern New England which, by and large, brings in raw
materials, processes them, and then ships the finished product to the distant markets of the country. The New
England Senators are very much aware of the importance of national transportation policies to our region, and
we have sought to have those policies re-examined in the hope that the present discrimination against New
England will be eliminated. At present we find that ocean cargo rates are "equalized" so that a European shipper
pays the same ocean rate to ship to a South Atlantic port such as Baltimore that he pays to Boston, even though
the Boston run is hundreds of miles shorter. When, however, his goods are transferred to railroad cars at the
port, he finds it is cheaper, under present rate schedules, to ship from a Southern port to the Midwest than from
Boston. This inequitable "squeeze" will continue to receive our attention until the situation is corrected. The
railroads serving New England ports are presently seeking to establish rates competitive with Southern rail
carriers, a program which has the support of all New England Senators and the numerous shippers of this area. I
have been especially interested in the efforts of railroads serving Boston to secure approval from the Interstate
Commerce Commission to carry iron ore from Labrador to the midwestern steel mills at rates which will attract
that lucrative business to the Port of Boston. I might add that our success in securing increased air service to New
England was heartening, as was the Federal Government's agreement to participate in the rehabilitation of the
Boston Army Pier.
(5) Problems of the fishing industry - High on the list of recent Federal legislation benefiting New England has
been the Kennedy-Saltonstall Fisheries Research Act which has made possible extensive studies in the techniques
of harvesting, processing, distributing, and marketing fish. The first three experimental years were so successful
that during the last session of Congress the program was made permanent. But as helpful as this long-range
program is to the industry, immediate aid is also essential. A ten million dollar emergency loan program was
authorized by the Congress to provide much-needed credit to fishermen so that their vessels and equipment could
be repaired and modernized. At the same time, Congress ordered a reorganization of the Department of Interior
to ensure that the lack of emphasis given the problems of commercial fishermen by the Department in the past
would be remedied. Yet another significant law enacted to aid the fishing industry will provide an educational
program for fishing personnel so that the benefits of increased knowledge of fishing techniques can be translated
into practical results. All in all, the fishing industry has received more attention from Congress in the past three
years than it did in the preceding thirty.
Moreover, the Tariff Commission last week recommended to the President that the tariff on groundfish be
increased to alleviate the "serious injury" suffered by the industry. Indicative of this injury is the fact that the
Boston Fishing Fleet has declined from 110 vessels at the end of 1951 to 80 at the end of 1955. During that same
period the domestic production of groundfish fillets declined from 148 million pounds to 105 million pounds,
while imports increased from 87 million pounds to 128 million pounds. All of us who are concerned about the
plight of the domestic fishing industry are hopeful that the President will accept the latest recommendations of
the Tariff Commission instead of rejecting them as he did in 1954. I am in complete sympathy with the policy of
increasing trade between the United States and the other countries of the free world; and I know that we must do
everything within reason to bolster the economy of our friends. But, in so doing, we must not lose sight of the
difficulties imposed on certain of our domestic industries as a result of these national policies. Every means for
distributing the burden of this program must be employed to ensure that our more depressed and vulnerable
industries do not bear a disproportionate share of that burden.
(6) Problems of the textile industry - The American textile industry - and especially that segment of it located in
New England which produces higher quality textiles - has also been plagued with drastically increasing imports.
But just this month we have achieved an agreement by Japan to curtail her cotton exports; and a decision by the
President - aided by our persistent prodding - will raise the tariff on woolen textile imports from 25 to 45 percent
whenever imports equal 5 percent of the domestic production, in keeping with the reservation written into our
reciprocal trade agreements on woolens. In addition, the Senate this year approved a resolution, backed by the
New England Senators, calling for a complete investigation of the textile situation by the Tariff Commission; and
it is to be hoped that the results of that investigation now proceeding will be further beneficial. Our successful
efforts in connection with the minimum wage and its enforcement, and in effecting higher nation-wide wage
levels on Government textile contracts, have also been helpful to New England.
(7) Problems of agriculture - Our New England farmers have not been immune to the problems experienced by
their counterparts in other sections of the country. In fact, we have frequently found that action aimed at solving
agricultural problems elsewhere has only aggravated our New England situation. The artificial support of basic
crops at a rigid 90 percent parity figure has resulted only in higher feed grain prices for our dairy farmers.
Similarly, any effort to limit the importation of feed grain into this country makes more untenable the position of
New England's farmers, and, accordingly, we have opposed legislation aimed at that goal. Other Massachusetts
farmers face special problems: the cranberry farmers seek to come within the agricultural marketing program;
the cigar tobacco growers need the kind of relief represented by the new soil bank program, and Federal funds to
combat the gypsy moths, so destructive to many farms, were increased with the support of all the New England
Senators.
(8) Problems of small business - Our nation's generally prosperous economy has tended to obscure the problems
peculiar to small business, upon which our area depends. Small business failures and mergers have increased
alarmingly, while at the same time their share of the Government's business has suffered a marked decline. Most
Massachusetts small business men who responded to a letter which I recently addressed to them indicate that the
most needed reform is tax relief. Of course, I have yet to hear that any segment of our American economy has
demanded increased taxes - the unanimity of view on the need for tax decreases is phenomenal. But it does seem
to me that the case for small business tax relief is unusually strong; and there is reason to hope that the Congress
will give favorable consideration to legislation along the lines of that which a number of my colleagues and I
introduced in the last Congress.
(9) The problem of floods - The tragic floods of 1955 created an extra and unexpected strain on our economy.
Many plants which had experienced devastating floods were reluctant to rebuild in the same areas, thereby
risking repeat performances, and understandably so. Our efforts to achieve a comprehensive and effective flood
control program for New England have met with at least initial success. The Congress this year appropriated 25
million dollars as the Federal Government's contribution to flood control projects in our region, a vast increase
over appropriations of earlier years, which averaged around three million dollars. Furthermore, a flood
insurance program on a limited and experimental basis will be undertaken by the Federal Government patterned
after a proposal which I introduced at the beginning of this year. Of course, it is not feasible to eliminate all
floods by control and all losses resulting from floods by insurance. But we can minimize the damage and spread
some of its financial burden over our total economy.
(10) The problem of tax drain - A continuing, difficult and sometimes almost intangible problem is that of the
heavy net tax drain which operates upon our region by virtue of the various Federal programs. No region expects
to get back, in the form of grants, services and projects, all of the funds she sends to Washington - but the nature
of many Federal programs, and the formulae by which their funds are distributed, are particularly injurious to
our area in this regard. The recent highway bill demonstrates this problem - the bill initially recommended by
the Public Works Committee was most unfair, but I am glad to say that the compromise formula ultimately
agreed to by the Congress, as a result of our insistence, treats our region fairly. Our task in Washington is not
only to oppose unnecessary expenditures and wasteful projects, but also to be alert to our own area's needs to
share in planned and existing programs. Much, of course, remains to be done - in the fields of unemployment,
transportation, power, stream pollution, unreasonable competition from imports, industrial dislocation,
distressed areas, and the special problems of small businesses and agriculture. But I believe there has been a
desirable improvement in the attitude of the Federal Government toward New England - and in the attitude of
New England toward the Federal Government. If each will continue to recognize the importance and the proper
role of the other in the solution of these problems, we may look forward to a better, a greater, a newer New
England in the years that lie ahead.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy on New England

Economic Prospects, Massachusetts, October 19, 1956
Library. A link to the page images of the speech is given at the bottom of this page.
I would like to talk to you at this time about our own economic situation here at home, in this state and in this
region - about some of the progress we have made and some of the problems we face. I realize that there are still
some in New England who refuse to recognize that a United States Senator, or the Federal Government, has any
responsibility in this area. Certainly it is true that no Federal program could ever solve all the problems of the
New England economy without action on the state and local level - and particularly without assistance from
private organizations, industry and individuals. No bill which you may request Senator Saltonstall or myself to
introduce will ever replace community leadership and community spirit as the essential ingredients for
maintaining or rebuilding our economic prosperity. No set of Federal subsidies or controls can ever replace
responsible attitudes by labor and management, improved educational and scientific achievements and, above all
else, the faith in New England which must be shared and practiced by New Englanders themselves.
However, the proper role of the Federal Government cannot be denied - not in the expenditure of large Federal
grants, in the establishment of new bureaucracies, or in special advantages for our area which are contrary to the
national interest or discriminate against the needs of other areas - but in obtaining attention on a national level to
problems, industries and communities that are essential to the well-being of the entire country. In many ways, as
I have told the Senate on several occasions, the problems of New England are national problems - and we can no
longer attempt to solve those problems on a local level only, pouring our tax funds into the economic development
of other regions without receiving from the Congress fair consideration of our own needs.
It is not my intention today to prophesy doom and depression. I do not share the exaggerated views of those
pessimists who have been talking about the decline of New England for the past thirty years. We are still, in
terms of per capita income and standard of living, one of the more prosperous areas of the country. Our financial
institutions have a higher proportion of assets, our workers a higher take-home pay and our families more
savings accounts, life insurance, telephones and television sets than their counterparts in any similar area on
earth. We have many assets no other region can match - an energetic climate and an intelligent citizenry - world
famous educational institutions and industrial research laboratories - the nation's best record of harmonious
industrial relations - and excellent access to capital investment, skilled manpower, new plant sites and markets.
In addition, we have that all-important factor of unity - the twelve Senators from the New England region meet
regularly to further their joint consideration and action on the common needs of our area; our delegations in the
House of Representatives, and our Governors in their own six-state conference, provide similar cooperation. In
short, New England is not a backward region, an undeveloped area or in the throes of a depression - and we have
every reason to be optimistic and little reason to complain.
But at the same time, if we are to continue to move ahead, if we are to take a realistic inventory of our assets and
liabilities, we must speak very frankly with respect to the real problems which threaten our prosperity, which
have damaged the economic welfare of many of our citizens and which require action on the Federal level. New
England is the oldest regional civilization and economy in the United States - and we must be aware of the ills and
problems of old age. We must prevent the dreaded diseases of economic arteriosclerosis and senescence from
weakening our cities and industries - and we must attack them promptly and effectively whenever and wherever
they occur.
These problems are aggravated by our lack of industrial raw materials - we have no oil, no coal, no huge resource
of water power. Our fuel costs are high - and so are our freight and other transportation costs. What resources
we do have, such as fisheries and forests, are being depleted. Along with all of the advantages of economic
maturity - industrialization, leadership and the other advantages already mentioned - we witness also the
handicaps of old age: the development of markets, industries and the center of population in other parts of the
country - a failure to keep pace with other regions in terms of long-range economic growth, population and per
capita income - and a dependence in too many communities and industries upon the outmoded methods,
machinery and management of the past. The outlook, I repeat, does not call for a gloomy attitude of despair and
helplessness - but it does call for action.
The New England Economy Today
Permit me to translate this general statement of our position into the specific facts that confront us today. Our
great hope in recent years has been the development of new industries attracted to our state - a new
diversification of our economy which it has needed for so many years - a new strength which was gained
regretfully only by the loss of our so-called soft goods (such as textiles and leather) which made pools of
manpower and plants available. These new industries have increased per capita income in Massachusetts, offset
unemployment and maintained a degree of economic stability we could not otherwise have expected. The
dynamic, rapidly growing electronics industry, for example, has been responsible for 20% of the new
manufacturing jobs in this region since 1939 and last year spent over $50 million in Massachusetts alone on new
plants and equipment.
I have never supported the view that Massachusetts should favor new industry over the old - that we should
forget about such old friends as textiles and regard their decline as a blessing. For new industries do not always
employ the same people or move into the same locality. The encouraging statistics they present for the state as a
whole are likely to conceal individual suffering in Lawrence, Lowell, Fall River, New Bedford, Gardner,
Worcester and most recently in Springfield, Pittsfield and the western part of the state. Our efforts, in short,
must be directed at retaining the old as well as attracting the new. I am happy to say that there is every indication
that the movement of our industry to the South and west has passed its peak.
But many economists have been bothered by the question as to what would happen here in Massachusetts when a
nationwide economic re-adjustment affected these new durable goods industries. I am very much afraid that
their fears are being borne out today. New England lost nearly one hundred thousand manufacturing jobs last
year. To be sure, a large part of this decline is due to our still seriously harassed textile industry, which lost more
than 23,000 jobs. But employment declined by more than 51,000 workers in our New England durable goods
industries - including electrical machinery, metal industries and other types of machine shops. These are ominous
trends which we must make every effort to reverse.
There is every indication that the United States faces an economic recession and that it will be felt more deeply
here in Massachusetts than in some other parts of the country. Last year the average work week in this state fell
below 40 hours a week. The average weekly earnings of our industrial workers actually declined. We lost some
43,000 manufacturing jobs, nearly half of them in durable goods industries.
Federal Action To Date
With this brief review of our economic situation in mind, recognizing the bright spots as well as the dark, I would
like to turn again to the role of the Federal Government concerning these matters and the responsibilities which
those of us whom you send to Washington must assume. Much of the progress which I have reported has
stemmed directly or indirectly from action on the Federal level - and many of the problems which I have cited
still require attention by Congress or the Administration.
To review for a moment our progress thus far, permit me to express my gratification at our achievements to date
and my gratitude for the cooperation of our Senior Senator, our House delegation and the other members of our
New England delegation - for that cooperation and teamwork, without resort to partisanship, have been largely
responsible for those achievements. A new minimum wage and a reinvigoration of the Walsh-Healey Public
Contracts Act have helped reduce drastically the wage differentials between New England industries and their
Southern competitors. A voluntary quota on Japanese cotton textile exports, a new increase in the tariff on
woolen textiles and a greater recognition of New England's higher quality product in the Geneva tariff
negotiations have, I am convinced, prevented our traditionally largest industry from going completely down the
drain. Meanwhile, we have safeguarded the cost to our mills of raw wool through the new Wool Act, new
restrictions on speculation, and the prevention of higher tariff duties.
In our commercial fisheries, the achievements already made possible by the Saltonstall-Kennedy Fishing
Research and Market Development Bill, tariff recognition of our new Fish Sticks industry, and a $10 million loan
fund have all helped keep a struggling industry on its feet. Our shipbuilders have finally received more contracts
and a new Congressional program; our watchmakers received at least a part of the tariff protection they needed;
our electric companies received permission and help to build the new Yankee Atomic Power plant; and a new
steel mill for New England, a new port pier for Boston, new air service, a new attack on gypsy moths and new
compacts on flood control and higher education have all been among our projects in Washington in recent years.
And of both direct and indirect benefit to our region's economy is the record share of Federal funds for
hurricane and flood control protection we have finally secured.
This is but a partial listing - all of you whose votes, support and cooperation helped make it all possible may take
pride in this record - but this is no time to rest our oars. For weak spots and danger signs remain - our program
of needs has not yet been completed - and complacency now could undermine all our earlier gains.
A Program for Federal Action
Many of our current problems are largely state, local or private in nature - such as the fiscal predicament and tax
rates of our municipalities, the adequacy of our rail and other transportation, and the rate of plant investment
and modernization. Other problems we face are difficult to solve with a strictly New England approach - such as
the aircraft and general defense cutbacks, the twin evils of tight money and inflation, and general weaknesses in
our national credit-inflated economy.
But I would respectfully suggest to you at this time ten areas of Federal action on which we in New England
might concentrate in this session of Congress - ten items I might review for you now in only the briefest fashion.
First, the economy of our entire state and region would receive a shot in the arm if we could eliminate the rail
freight rate differentials that discriminate against Port of Boston traffic in favor of South Atlantic Ocean cargoes.
After an initial setback in an earlier case involving only iron ore, we have succeeded in reopening the entire
question in hearings now being conducted before the ICC. Success will bring new business to our port and
railroads, new jobs and purchasing power for our state - and above all an end to an outmoded, inequitable
handicap to our area's growth, a handicap that was originally imposed as a balance to our natural advantage in
ocean freight rates and which continues now years after that advantage has been taken from us.
Secondly, our hopes for the future are closely tied to the development of low cost, competitive atomic power,
bringing new energy to our industries, new industries to our state and new benefits to our people. Already we are
seeking additional private nuclear projects, a large share of those planned for the entire nation - and our
leadership in research and development in this field will someday cut our electric bills, our dependence on fossil
fuels and our current disadvantage in competing with low-cost power regions of the South, Northwest and
elsewhere.
Third, the nature of our business community, more dependent upon small business than any other region, makes
essential to our well-being a revision of Federal small business policies - particularly its tax structure and credit
programs. Tight money, high interest and credit restriction policies have hit the smaller businessman much
harder than they have his larger competitor, who has access to other sources of capital for modernization and
expansion. A more selective credit policy which permits expansion of certain segments of the economy and with
greater credit available from the Small Business Administration, is needed. Present tax laws also unnecessarily
discriminate against small businessmen by not permitting the accumulation of earnings which normally would be
plowed back into their businesses - also giving an unfair advantage to larger producers who have greater access
to equity capital markets. We shall try again to secure passage of the Internal Revenue Code Amendment which
recognizes the different needs and status of small business without any loss of net revenue.
Fourth, we must prevent any undue restriction on a maximum flow of oil imports into New England. Our
businessmen and home-owners are dependent in large measure upon oil from Venezuela and other nations. We
cannot afford to pay further price increases, to be restricted to domestic oil, or to convert to coal. Yet those are
the ultimate objectives of those now pushing for further limitations on these imports - and the Administration's
present program to restrict crude oil imports bears our most careful and constant attention.
Fifth and Sixth on our agenda are two related needs of our still vital textile industry - import protection and
cheaper raw cotton. The new restrictions on woolen and on Japanese cotton textile imports which I previously
mentioned must be watched, maintained and strengthened - and additional measures sought as needed. We must
particularly concern ourselves with imports produced with our own surplus cotton sold abroad at cut-rate prices,
under a farm program that at the same time artificially increases its cost to our own mills. Fortunately both
cotton farmers and processors are now nearing agreement on a solution comparable to that earlier provided for
wool - and I am hopeful that this issue will receive major attention in this Congress.
Seventh, we must continue to provide appropriate action on certain needs of our fishing industry which that
industry cannot be expected to meet on its own - including the financing of vessel construction, loans to
processing plants and the promulgation of vessel and individual insurance. We cannot imagine New England
without its fishing fleet, its bustling fish piers and markets, its traditions of the sea - but they will require action,
not veneration, in view of their current problems of price and import competition.
Eighth and Ninth, finally, involve problems of unemployment - a program of realistic aid to our labor surplus
areas; and nation-wide standards of unemployment benefits, to eliminate any tax disadvantages suffered by a
high-standard state like Massachusetts that acts on these problems with a social conscience and a heart. We are
all too familiar in this state with the problems of communities suffering from a chronic labor surplus - the one-
industry towns, the former textile towns, and others - but we have as yet failed to get effective action by either
Congress or the Administration to help those communities, their businessmen and their workers help themselves
to a better future.
There are no magic solutions in this list - no quick and easy answers - no way to avoid the hard burdens which
our state and local governments, and all our citizens, must bear. But there, at any rate, is a program for action on
the Federal level: action to meet the economic problems that confront us, action to secure a better life for every
Massachusetts businessman, worker and his family. I know the members of this organization will join with me in
seeking such action, to do more for Massachusetts, to build a better state and nation, and to enable ourselves and
our children to look forward to the future with confidence and with hope.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at a Dinner
Honoring Mrs. Golda Meir, Israel's Foreign Minister in
Boston, Massachusetts, November 25, 1956
It is a genuine pleasure to be here this evening to join with you in tribute to our honored guest. Her eloquence,
which is internationally famous, is a pleasure which we rarely enjoy and which I will not postpone for the
purpose of any remarks on my own.
But I do want to say a few words about our distinguished lady guest, and the high esteem in which she is held by
all of us in Washington. Her eloquent and determined role as spokesman for Israel in the community of nations,
her persuasive and charming personality, and her extraordinary and heroic career all serve as an inspirational
and forceful example to every one of us, regardless of our position, our nationality or our religious faith.
In many ways, it has always seemed to me, the story of Mrs. Golda Meir is the story of modern Israel. She was, as
you know, born in Russia and raised in this country, where she taught in the public schools of Milwaukee. She
migrated with her late husband to a primitive pioneer settlement in Palestine some 25 years ago, where she raised
poultry by day and studied Hebrew and Arabic by night. And as her new homeland grew from these humble,
impoverished pioneer beginnings, into a courageous and respected independent nation, so did Golda Meir rise
from that impoverished poultry farm to become one of the greatest, most courageous, most respected diplomats
of our time. She was elected to the Women's Labor Council, and active in other labor and business affairs of her
nation, including recently a cabinet post as Minister of Labor; and she served as Israel's first Minister to
Moscow, Chief Delegate to the United Nations, Defense Administrator and now finally Foreign Minister. But, just
as Israel in the midst of its international crisis has never neglected its domestic affairs, the needs of her people
and the development of her economy, so has Mrs. Meir continued to devote herself to her home and her family
despite her rise in public fame and responsibilities.
I know that those gathered at this Dinner, in much the same spirit, will not permit the complexities of the present
turmoil in the Middle East to lessen their concern for the people of Israel. Whatever may be the background, the
difficulties, the merits or the eventual outcome of those conflicts, we know that the State of Israel will remain --
and we know that assistance from her friends in this country is still desperately needed. The nation will continue
to grow; and the exiles from all over the world will continue to gather. Only last week, when the nations of the
world were asked to offer a haven for the Hungarian refugees from Communist tyranny, there was a gratifying
response; the United States, for example, announced its willingness to take five thousand; Australia three
thousand; Britain two and one-half thousand; but Israel, little Israel, announced that she would take not one
thousand or five thousand or ten thousand but all who wanted to come.
I am happy to join with you tonight in that spirit of unselfish giving which has always characterized the State of
Israel, the Jewish people and our illustrious speaker; and I share your anticipation and pleasure at her presence
here tonight.
Banquet of Histadrut Zionist Organization, Baltimore,
Maryland, November 27, 1956
Library. A link to page images is given at the bottom of this page.
It is a genuine pleasure to be here tonight to join with you in tribute to my distinguished friend and your State
Senator, Philip Goodman. I first met Phil Goodman at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago last
summer. But in that short period of time, and particularly on that occasion, I have come to know the warm
loyalty of his friendship and his able determination as a political leader. His support of me at Chicago, which I
did not solicit and for which he did not bargain, was one of the most gratifying surprises I received during those
exciting days. And I am grateful to him for his efforts even though he did not succeed in obtaining for me the
votes of the Maryland delegation -- in fact, I am more grateful than ever, for if he had succeeded, I might have
been made the Vice-Presidential nominee! In any event, my friendship with Phil Goodman is one of the lasting
benefits for me to come out of that Convention; and I am delighted that so many of you have gathered tonight to
pay him a yell-deserved tribute. Equally fitting is the dedication in his name of a hospital wing of the Medical
Center in Jaffa. For his career has been one of service -- service to his city, state and nation -- service to the
Jewish people and homeland -- and service to his party and the principles for which he has fought all his life.
Politicians are always being asked to address testimonial dinners, for this individual or that, for this cause or
that, to join in a lengthy procession of eulogies that are embarrassing to the subject and boring to the audience.
But this is one case where I believe the cause and the individual to be worthy of every tribute we can pay -- and I
was delighted to come for that purpose.
I want to also take this opportunity to greet my good friend Congressman San Friedel, in whose district this
dinner is being held. His years of service to you on your City Council, in your State Legislature and as a
particularly hard working Congressman have, I know, merited from you the same respect and affection he now
enjoys from all of his colleagues in Washington. I am
looking forward to many more years of working in the Congress with Sam Friedel. I know that you will do your
bit to make this possible, and I am hopeful the voters of Massachusetts will do their part also.
Tonight's dinner, I understand, is the annual highlight of your Histadrut campaign here in Baltimore, which is
emphasizing this year the construction of the Medical Center in Jaffa named for your great and good Dr.
Herman Seidel and its new wing named for Senator Goodman. I have no doubt that the tensions and crises that
now swirl about Israel and the whole Middle Eastern area have introduced a new factor into your campaign. And
yet I am equally certain that those of you who are gathered here tonight will no more permit that present
turmoil to lessen your concern for the people of Israel than that brave democracy has permitted its problems
abroad to interfere with its humanitarian progress at home.
Whatever may be the background, the difficulties, the merits or the eventual outcome of those conflicts, we know
that the State of Israel will remain - and we know that assistance from her friends in this country will still be
desperately needed. The nation will continue to grow; and the exiles from all over the world will continue to
gather. Only last week, when the nations of the world were asked to offer a haven for the Hungarian refugees
from the Communist tyranny, there was a gratifying response; the United States, for example, announced its
willingness to take five thousand; Australia three thousand; Britain two and one-half thousand; but Israel, little
Israel, announced that she would take not one thousand or five thousand or ten thousand but all who wanted to
come.
While we, along with the leaders of our nation and the world, are concerned tonight with the daily developments
in the Middle East, I think whatever comments I might offer concerning that area might better be directed
toward a more long-range view of the situation. The present negotiations are too delicate, the issues at stake too
sensitive and the causes and merits of each dispute too complex to be made the subject of a public address at this
time -- particularly by one who has neither the administrative responsibility nor the full data necessary for an
authoritative evaluation of the Middle Eastern picture today. I think, however, that it would be worthwhile for all
of us to give some attention to a more long-range review of the Middle Eastern situation, to examine the problems
that will still be present once hostilities have ceased, borders redrawn and alliances rebuilt. Truces, treaties and a
variety of temporary solutions are sure to come and go; so, too, will personalities, whether they be Mr. Eden, Mr.
Dulles, Mr. Nasser, Mr. Ben Gurion or others. But some factors remain constant; and it is upon these factors that
any long-range analysis of the Middle Eastern situation must be based. It is in the light of such fundamental
factors that foreign affairs, and particularly the tangled affairs of the Middle East, can be understood and our
policies adjusted. Personalities, battles and movements only express and illustrate these long-range conditions
and interests.
It seems to me that the best way of isolating these long-range factors from the temporary conditions which
presently command our attention is to ask ourselves: what issues, what factors, what causes and conditions will
remain, once the present situation has ended or been clarified? And of particular importance, which among these
are permanent factors -- factors with which we will still be reckoning a generation from now -- which were not
present a generation ago? Much in the Middle East, of course, is the same as it was a generation ago; such will
regain the same: the special importance of the Middle East to the great religions of the world, Jewish, Moslem
and Christian; the economic interests of Britain and France in the area, present today as they were a generation
ago; the traditional rivalries between the various Arab blocs, between the Saudis and the Hashemites, between
the Nile and the Euphrates-Tigris Valleys, between northern Arabs and southern Arabs, rich states and poor. All
of these are factors fundamental to an understanding of the Middle East and its problems; all of these are factors
which existed 25 years ego as much as they do today and as such as they will, in all likelihood, tomorrow.
But let us consider the new trends and developments which have altered the character and significance of the
Middle East and its problems, and with which we will be reckoning long after the present crisis has ended. There
are, it seems to me, seven such facts -- and I might discuss each of them very briefly this evening.
1. The first such factor is the highly strategic position occupied by the Middle East in the world's political,
ideological and military battles. Located midway between the giants of the East and the West, and populated by
millions not yet firmly committed to either, the Middle East has consequently assumed an importance in the
"cold war" out of proportion to its size, strength and previous significance. As the Soviet Union approaches this
country in terms of the quality and quantity of its weapons, including nuclear weapons, missiles and others, and
in terms of quantity and quality of air strength, the significance of what has been called the "geographic factor"
increases. Our greatest advantage in harsh military terms today, our greatest deterrent to Soviet attack, is a
geographic one -- the Soviet vulnerability to direct attack from bases on its own land mass and the parallel
decline of American vulnerability as the result of its present ability to spread over the world a strategic dispersal
of our attack bases. Thus the air-atomic age gives to the Middle East a significance it has never previously
possessed -- and the nations and peoples of that vital area may expect to be wooed, pursued, threatened and used
by outside powers, whatever the status of their own disputes might be.
2. The second permanent factor in the Middle East of which we must never lose sight is oil. The dependence of
the world upon Middle Eastern oil and its transportation through the Suez Canal has been made abundantly
clear during the past weeks. Whatever political and military settlements are made, whatever tensions are lifted
and problems solved, we must remember that Europe's dependence upon these oil supplies will continue -- and
continue indefinitely, regardless of our developments in atomic energy. Thus even an end to the struggle between
East and West would not diminish the concern of a large share of the world over its access to the resources of the
Middle East.
3. The third fact which will remain once the dust of the present battle has settled and the smoke has cleared will
be the unprecedented success of Soviet penetration in the Middle East. Charles Malik, the Lebanese diplomat and
philosopher, has written that "Moscow probably has never in history had the direct or indirect influence it now
enjoys in the Near East . . . This Communist penetration is the most important phenomenon in the Near East at
present, and the interpretation or adjustment of every other situation should be made with this matter in view."
Much of this is apparent to us in this country in the statements of Arab and Communist leaders, in the delivery of
Communist arms to the area and in the exchange of trade missions and trade agreements. Much of it, however,
we are less aware of and alert to -- the steady penetration of Communist agents into key positions in Middle
Eastern governments, newspapers, trade unions and other organizations; the steadily climbing circulation of
Communist literature in contrast with anti-Communist publications; the steadily growing acceptance by Middle
Eastern people of the Soviets as their friend end benefactor, a leader in their fight against Western domination
and a sympathizer in their struggle with Israel. All of these and a host of other items have increased the strength
of Communism among the Arab nations while the Western nations, divided and suspected, have steadily lost
influence and prestige in the area. However successful the West may be in ending the present conflict and
rebuilding a Middle Eastern policy, the new significance of Soviet Communism in the area will be a factor to
reckon with for years to come.
4. Fourth, we must never consider the problems of the nations of the Middle East apart from the economic and
social conditions which surround them. Life in the Middle East, it has been said, is a perpetual fight against the
desert, and always the desert has iron in the past -with poverty and illiteracy and disease and underdevelopment
dominating an area where only a few enjoy the benefits of great oil and land-holdings. Indeed, the increase in
outside capital poured into the area to exploit its oil and other resources has only aggravated the problems of
unequal distribution of wealth and inadequate development of human resources. These are problems with which
the new nations of the Middle East must struggle for the next generation; and no amount of nationalistic oratory
can create the scientific and technological revolution necessary to raise the standard of living of their people. Nor
is such a revolution easily purchased by oil royalties. It requires the closest association and assistance of either
Western Europe, who is mistrusted, or the Soviet Union or the United States. This decision will be a continuing
one facing our nation and the nations of the Middle East for many years after the close of the present hostilities.
5. This leads us directly to another factor which was of little importance a generation ago but which will continue
to grow in significance in the foreseeable future -- and that is the new rise of Arab nationalism, the revolt in the
Middle East against Western colonialism. In Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia; in Jordan, Yemen, Iraq, Saudi
Arabia and Aden; and in Egypt and throughout the entire area, the desire to be free from direct or indirect
Western influence has become a powerful and sometimes violent force. Policies of repression have only fanned
the flames of discontent; and the close ties between this nation, home of the Declaration of Independence, and the
great colonial powers have caused Arab spokesmen to warn our State Department that the nations of the Middle
East were beginning to regard America as a supporter of colonialism. In recent weeks, particularly with respect
to the present crisis, we have proclaimed our independence from our traditional allies on issues affected by the
colonialism-nationalism struggle; but it is not yet clear that we have recognized this factor to be the most
powerful, dynamic force for good or evil in the Middle East today.
6. A sixth factor, related to but separate from, the growing force of Arab nationalism, has been the emergence of
Egypt as the leader of the Arab bloc, the champion of Arab unity and the chief provocator against the West. The
explanation involves more than the personality of Mr. Nasser. Its roots are in the history of Egypt's bitter
relations against the British, in the influence of Egypt and its university in the Moslem, world and in a series of
more recent Western actions in the area which Egypt regarded either as on affront or a threat to its prestige. It is
doubtful, therefore, that any changes in government or personnel could insure Egyptian friendship for the West
or diminish Egyptian power in Middle Eastern affairs during the next generation.
7. Seventh and finally, the character of the Middle East will be shaped for generations to come by one more
factor which vas not present a generation ago -- the State of Israel. It is time that all the nations of the world, in
the Middle East and elsewhere, realized that Israel is here to stay. Surrounded on every side by violent hate and
prejudice, living each day in an atmosphere of constant tension and fear, Israel is certain to survive the present
crisis and all future crises; and all negotiations between the United States and Arab nations may as well accept
that fact.
The future of the Middle East is far from clear. But it is clear, in my opinion, that its future will be based upon
the interrelation of these seven factors -- its strategic position, its oil, increase in Communist influence, economic
and social problems, Arab nationalism, Egypt and Israel. No nation can neglect or forget any of these seven
factors in formulating future policies in the Middle East -- particularly the United States. There was a time, not
so long ago, when our primary concerns abroad were with Europe and the Far East. Even last summer, at the
time our policies in Suez were established, the Middle East was not looked upon as one of our primary interests.
But now, I hope and I am sure, that view has changed. We now realize that there is no problem in the Middle
East in which the security of the United States is not involved and to the solution of which we do not have some
responsibility. But we shall fulfill those responsibilities with lasting benefits for ourselves and the world only if we
develop a Middle Eastern policy of our own; and only if we base that policy upon a long range point of view,
upon the interlacing and interaction of the facts and factors which I have mentioned. With vision, wisdom and
determination, we can meet this challenge of incredible complexity with courageous and resourceful solutions
that will bring injustice to no one and lasting peace and prosperity to all.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the American

Farm Bureau Federation National Convention in Miami
Beach, Florida, December 12, 1956
It is a genuine pleasure to be here today on the occasion of the Annual Convention of the American Farm Bureau
Federation. Your organization is greatly respected on Capitol Hill by members of both political parties, by those
who agree with you and those who disagree with you. Your able and articulate officers, your unique and
democratic system of policy-making and your persistent, consistent presentation of your position on the issues -
these are characteristics for which the Farm Bureau is widely known and rightfully admired by all.
This is the first convention of any kind which I have addressed since the Democratic National Convention last
August -- and I must say I find this a much pleasanter task. Miami Beach in December makes more sense and
better speeches than Chicago in August -- and the Roney-Plaza Hotel here has a certain atmosphere about it that
is superior to the atmosphere in the Chicago Stockyards.
But after all the talk about the "farm vote" and my own status that circulated cut at that Convention, it is quite a
challenge to be standing here face to face with a large segment of it. Some of my friends have advised me to use
this speech to capture the "farm vote", to outpromise and outflatter all my fellow politicians. Others have urged
me to speak words calculated to win the support of one or more of the major farm organizations, who could
deliver the "farm vote" in some future election.
But I intend to follow neither course this afternoon. For I am frank to say that I have long doubted whether there
is any such thing as a "farm vote" in the sense in which it is usually meant, or of the size that is usually described.
I am convinced that there are more mythical rules, mistaken assumptions, and fictional reports about the so-
called "farm vote" than practically any other political phenomenon. And I believe that continued reliance upon
these myths and fallacies is doing a grave disservice to sound farming and sound government alike.
Now these, I will admit, are strong words from a city boy from an eastern state who has never milked a cow or
plowed a furrow, straight or crooked. Indeed, my very appearance here is contrary to accepted practice. For in
Washington, although Senators from farm states may decide whether Boston should have an urban
redevelopment program, and what labor relations laws should govern our major cities, a "city Senator" from an
eastern state is not supposed to have any positive thoughts of his own on farm issues or have anything to say of
interest to farmers.
I think, of course, that this is a great mistake -- not only because my own state's 200 million dollar farm economy
boasts some of the nation's finest farmlands, most modern methods and most famous products - but also because
it is wrong to assume that eastern and urban Congressmen are so narrow in their views and interests that they
are unable to consider farm issues, or talk to farm families, on a par with farm-state Senators.
Nevertheless I speak today not as a farm expert discussing farm policy, but as an amateur political scientist and
practicing politician discussing some prevalent political theories about farm voters -- theories which I think are
not only fallacious but harmful, an injustice to farmers, and a barrier to sound farm policies and politics.
I ask you to examine with me the four most common farm fallacies we hear in Washington today, to see if by
refuting them we might strengthen the bonds of mutual understanding between agriculture and politics.
FARM FALLACY NUMBER ONE - The basic, overriding issue in agricultural policy today is the choice
between flexible and rigid price supports.
This one issue alone occupies practically all of the time and attention devoted to farm problems by the Congress,
the political parties, the press and the public. We give comparatively little thought to most of the truly major
issues -- such as the disappearance of the family-size farm, the spread between farm and consumer prices and the
rising costs of the farmer's purchases. Instead we concentrate, year after year, with bitter emotional divisions,
upon an issue which now has little more than symbolic value.
For the truth of the matter is that in recent years there has been very little real difference between the parties
and the candidates on the question of parity price supports, and very little real difference between the so-called
rigid and flexible programs -- this year roughly a choice between 90% and about 86%. It can hardly be said that
either approach offers a perfect, permanent, comprehensive answer to all the ills of agriculture; or that either
program is free of the faults for which its own adherents condemn the other.
Both depend upon the storage of surpluses too big to handle, and expensive to store. Neither diminishes
appreciably the production of surplus commodities or increases appreciably their markets. Both offer support to
some farmers in some parts of the country that hurts other farmers in other parts of the country. Neither offers
substantially lower prices to consumers and industry, or substantially lower costs to the taxpayers. Both subsidize
inefficient and well-to-do farmers while giving little help to those who need it most. Both concentrate more on the
farmer's price than on his net income. Both depend upon rigid controls. Both restrict, through price structures
and necessary tariff barriers, the world market for farm exports.
In short, with all of the basic weaknesses they share, the dispute over "fairly rigid" versus "slightly flexible"
should hardly rank as the fundamental issue in agriculture today.
FARM FALLACY NUMBER TWO - A Congressman's or candidate's stand on farm price supports is the basic
test of his attitude toward farmers and their problems, and the basic test of whether he will win their support at
the polls.
When a politician asks "How does he stand on the farm problem?", or "Is he right with the farmer?" he really
means: Did he vote for or against 90% of parity? Some farm leaders say a true friend of the farmer is one who
voted for 90% of parity; others say the real test is just the opposite.
Yet few tests could be so artificial and so meaningless. One vote either way on this issue does not make a man
either a friend or an enemy of the farmer. Other farm issues are important; basic attitudes toward the farmer's
problems are important; and so are all the personal characteristics of integrity and sincerity that win a farmer's
respect and confidence. I would not want the farm voters of Massachusetts or any other state to either support
me or oppose me on the basis of how I stood on this one complex issue -- an issue on which farmers themselves
disagree, and where the differences, as I have mentioned, have in practice become very limited.
It is clear that on both sides of this question may be found men devoted to the best interests of our farmers -- men
like Senator Anderson or Senator Russell, who split on this issue but neither of whom could be called "anti-
farmer" in any sense of the word. Moreover, both opponents and proponents are usually simply representing the
best interests of the farmers in their respective states -- a responsibility which frequently finds opponents of high
supports on some commodities favoring them on others. They cannot properly be considered "anti-farmer" for
taking either position.
I would hope, therefore, that our major farm organizations, instead of publishing analyses of Congressional
voting records showing so many "right" and so many "wrong" votes, will look with more understanding upon a
legislator's responsibility to his constituents, and will measure his acceptability to farm voters in broader, more
realistic terms.
FARM FALLACY NUMBER THREE - The "farm vote" is cast for the party or candidate who promises
farmers the most financial assistance.
This is perhaps the most basic, the most widespread, and the most dangerous, assumption of them all. It has led
to political campaigns filled with glowing exaggerations, cleverly-worded promises and shameful political
hypocrisy. Running throughout last fall's campaign debates
about price supports and early Soil Bank payments was the clear implication that the nation's farmers would
vote for whichever candidates offered them the most economic security.
But the vote of no farmer, I am convinced, is for sale to the highest bidder; and I am sure that farmers
everywhere resent the implication that it is. And although farm voters, like everyone else, naturally take into
account their economic future, it is clear that they are influenced by a multitude of other considerations (which I
will mention in a moment). Indeed, a Roper Poll of 1952 showed that a majority of the nation's farmers outside
the South believed they would probably be better off financially under the Democrats -- but that they were going
to vote Republican. This year each side is now presenting a maze of statistics to prove that the election was a
mandate for or against the Benson program or 90% supports; but candidates on both sides of the issue in both
parties having won and lost, with other issues and personalities obviously having entered in, I personally doubt
that anyone can find a mandate from a united farm vote in 1956 for any single farm policy.
Even the so-called "farm revolt" of 1948 does not prove that farmers vote their pocketbooks; for farmers were
deeply split in that election, with Mr. Truman -- who was running, it might also be recalled, on a flexible parity
platform -- losing as many farm states as he won, and winning others only by virtue of his vote in the cities. I
think most objective observers would agree that those farmers -- by no means all -- who did express a preference
for Mr. Truman over Mr. Dewey and for Mr. Eisenhower over Mr. Stevenson, were motivated by more than
promises of financial assistance.
FARM FALLACY NUMBER FOUR - The "farm vote" is cast in accordance with the level of farm prices or
farm income at the time of election.
Last fall the political pundits thought Democratic chances were rising as farm prices fell and the drought
continued. Mr. Nixon said in October that he expected the farm vote would hinge on "what happens to farm
income between now and election." The political maxim accepted in Washington is that farmers would vote
against the party in power when prices or income were low; and the effect of soil bank payments, drought relief
and a stepped up pork purchase program were considered in that light.
But how could it be believed that farmers would take such a short-range view -- that they would decide on an
administration for the next four critical years because of what happened to their pocketbooks during a campaign
of four months? Undeniably farmers who are at the end of their rope financially, ruined by drought and falling
prices, are more ready to try a change -- and yet even they, I am convinced, are not so narrow and short-sighted
in their political thinking as to permit a temporary rise or fall in prosperity, or a sudden burst of rainfall, to alter
their political beliefs. Too many other considerations are at stake; and too many other measurements of the farm
economy, such as assets, indebtedness and tenure of ownership, are ignored by such a single explanation. The
man who at long last owns his own farm free of debt, and sees his land values rising, will not cast a protest vote
just because prices are low on election day.
Moreover, these generalized rules of the farmer's political behavior are always risky. Rising grain prices for some
farmers may mean rising feed prices for others. A heavy rainfall may be a blessing for some farmers and a
catastrophe for others. (Indeed, I have rarely met a farmer who didn't have some complaint about the weather!
And I wish you would tell me the answer to that old political argument -- does a rainy election day bring the
farmers out because they can't work in the fields, or does it keep them home because of poor travel conditions?)
The continued prevalence of these four fallacies, I am convinced, makes more difficult the evolution of a sounder
farm program and greater understanding between farmers and politicians. It is my hope that men of intelligence
and goodwill in both groups, in both parties and on both sides of the parity issue can work together to eliminate
these fallacies in popular and official thinking.
Let us substitute facts for fallacies, the proven record for mistaken assumptions, and recognition of individual
needs for gross generalizations. Let us keep in mind when we speak hereafter of farm policies and farm voters, or
when others speak loosely of the "farm vote", not these four farm fallacies but some solid farm facts, such as
these:
FARM FACT NUMBER ONE - Farm voters do not agree on the issue of parity price supports.
They disagree not only in their organizations, party affiliations or economic philosophy, but also on grounds of
economic interest. Too many politicians looking for the "farm vote" forget that while some farmers, of some
commodities in some states, are benefited by high rigid price supports, others are not; and, in fact, many farmers
are hurt by the very supports that help others.
FARM FACT NUMBER TWO - Farm voters are interested in more issues than parity price supports and other
farm measures.
Many other issues, of course, help shape a candidate's farm record -- including his votes on such matters as
agricultural research, rural electrification, soil conservation, reclamation and irrigation, the St. Lawrence
Seaway and surplus disposal programs. But, in addition, the farmer has a special interest in legislation affecting
highways, schools, hospitals, and postal service because of his location in the country. He is vitally concerned with
laws affecting transportation and freight rates, public power, cooperatives and Federal land policies because of
the nature of his business. He has discovered, in recent years, as his export markets have become less accessible,
his special stake in trade and tariff policies, foreign aid programs, and the availability of American Merchant
Marine facilities. And more important to remember, farmers, like all the rest of us, are interested in issues of
health, taxation, atomic power, labor relations and, above all, in a secure and peaceful nation. The issues of war
and peace, the record shows, have time and time again been far more important to farmers than their own
economic gains.
FARM FACT NUMBER THREE - Farm voters are subject to the same influences and pressures as all other
voters.
All farm dwellers no more think and vote as a unit than all city dwellers. Both are subject to the same kinds of
ties, appeals, pressures and influences -- of popular personalities, ethnic patterns, income, age, sex and so on. All
farmers do not vote as farmers, regardless of whether they are German or Czech, young or old, rich or poor, big
farmers or little farmers. Women and young people on the farm are subject to the same influences as women and
young people in the towns and cities; and appealing personalities, such as Mr. Eisenhower, that are able to
captivate voters in other areas regardless of the issues, can have the same effect on farmers.
FARM FACT NUMBER FOUR - Farm voters are not the captive of any one political party, are not deliverable
by any one farm organization, and are not represented by any one legislator or public official.
No one voice speaks for all American farmers, no cabinet member, no Senator, no party leader, no farm
organization. That is as it should be -- for the interests and circumstances of our farmers are too varied and too
inconsistent with each other. Some farm belt politicians -- (and even a majority of their constituents, in most
cases, are not farmers) -- may assume the role of spokesmen for the American farmer; but they cannot speak for
those who will be unhelped or even hurt by their policies. The American farmer, voting statistics show, is more
independent and more politically sophisticated than ever before. He may belong to a national organization such
as yours, and a producers organization, and a local cooperative and possibly others, all in disagreement with each
other and the political parties over some issue. They cannot all speak for him accurately or promise his vote; and
when he enters the voting booth, he speaks for himself.
In reviewing these facts and fallacies, I may have said more than a "city Senator" is entitled to say on these
sensitive subjects. But my intention has been not to deprecate your importance as farmers but to appreciate your
importance as citizens -- citizens who are interested in more than farm issues, affected by more than farm profits
and convinced by more than expensive farm promises -- citizens who vote not as a bloc but as thoughtful
individuals, not with their pocketbooks but with their heads and their hearts. For in this way, and only in this
way, can that complicated, vulnerable, sometimes discouraging political machinery which we call democracy
produce a better world for ourselves and for our children.
Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy at Irish Institute,

New York City, January 12, 1957
Suggested Opening for Speech:

I am always a bit uneasy when I come to New York and read the headlines in the New York papers - such
headlines as "Kennedy vows search for mad bomber," or "Kennedy's life threatened by escaped con," or
"Kennedy says he's proud of enemies he's made." My only chance to get even with your distinguished Police
Commissioner, I suppose, is to propose a Democratic slate for 1960 and get a headline of my own reading:
"Kennedy says he'll fix ticket."
My great pleasure in being here with you, however, and the very kind reception you have given me, have not
deceived me into being so presumptuous as to believe that you will long remember what I have to say. In fact, I'm
not sure all of you (in the back of the room) will even hear what I have to say. I am thinking in particular of the
experience of Cecil B. DeMille, who was directing a tremendous battle scene for one of his epic pictures being
shot on location in Ireland. The cost for this one scene alone was estimated to be at least 400 thousand dollars. It
required 10 thousand men on each side, 5 thousand horses, and a tremendous array of expensively authentic
costumes, weapons and other equipment. To be absolutely certain of getting the entire scene the first time it was
run off, Mr. DeMille stationed three cameramen at strategic points - one on the scene of the battle, one on a
platform 30 feet above the battleground, and the third, a local Irish photographer equipped with a telescopic lens,
completely across the river and up in the hills above the battle. Mr. DeMille gave the signal to begin - the armies
charged - the horses fell - the cannons roared - the props were destroyed - and the battle was completed. It was a
gigantic, if expensive, spectacle. "Did you get it?", DeMille excitedly asked the cameraman on the scene. "I'm
sorry, Mr. DeMille," he replied, "but it was just too dusty and smoky down here. My pictures won't show a
thing." Alarmed, the great director turned to his second cameraman on the elevated platform. "I'm sorry, Mr.
DeMille," came the reply, "but my camera jammed and didn't take a single inch." Frantically, DeMille called
and waved to the local Irish cameraman located in the hills far across the river. "Pad-dy" - he called, "Pad-dy -
did you get it, Pad-dy?". And the faint answer came back across the river: "Any time you're ready, Mr.
DeMille."
Main Text of Speech:
I am delighted to be in New York tonight, not only because my family has close ties with this city, but also
because I feel strongly the bonds of a common kinship with this distinguished organization. All of us of Irish
descent are bound together by the ties that come from a common experience, experience which may exist only in
memories and in legend, but which is real enough to those who possess it. And thus whether we live in Cork or in
Boston, in New York or in Sydney, we are all members of a great family which is linked together by that
strongest of chains - a common past. It is strange to think that the wellspring from which this great fraternal
empire has sprung is but a small island in the far Atlantic with a population only a fraction of the size of this
empire state. But this is the source, and it is this green and misty island to the east that we honor here tonight -
honoring it particularly, I have in mind, for its devotion to human liberty.
I do not maintain that the Irish were the only race to display extraordinary devotion to liberty, or the only people
to struggle unceasingly for their national independence. History proves otherwise. But the special contribution of
the Irish, I believe - the emerald thread that runs throughout the tapestry of their past - has been the constancy,
the endurance, the faith that they displayed through endless centuries of foreign oppression - centuries in which
even the most rudimentary religious and civil rights were denied to them - centuries in which their mass
destruction by poverty, disease and starvation were ignored by their conquerors.
(For example, on February 19, 1847, it was announced in the House of Commons that 15,000 persons were dying
of starvation in Ireland every day; and Queen Victoria was so moved by this pitiful news that to the society for
Irish relief she contributed five pounds. Perhaps we should not be too quick to condemn the good queen, however
- for in those days the English pound was no doubt worth more than it is today.)
But all that is now past. No outlander rules over Eire, no despot prohibits the wearin' o' the green. Yet is it not a
bitter and tragic irony that the Irish should now enjoy their freedom at a time when a billion people are held in
an iron captivity, held in a great half circle stretching from the plains beyond the captive city of Budapest in the
West to the Red River Delta beyond the trampled city of Hanoi in the East?
I know of few men in our land, and none in this room, who would ignore these tyrannies as far-off troubles of no
concern to us here at home. For we realize, as John Boyle O'Reilly once wrote, that:
The world is large, when its weary leagues
Two loving hearts divide;
But the world is small, when your enemy
Is loose on the other side.
Irishmen, moreover, have always been concerned with totalitarianism and repression in other lands. The
commodity that Ireland has exported most widely to other nations is neither potatoes nor linen - but human
freedom. Throughout the history of that tiny island, its exiles and emigrants have fought notably, with sword and
pen, for freedom in other parts of the globe. Particularly noted were the "Wild Geese" - the officers and soldiers
forced to flee their native Ireland after the Battle of the Boyne. Fighting for the French, they broke the ranks of
the English at Fontenoy. Fighting for the Spanish, they turned the tide of battle against the Germans at Melazzo.
And fighting for the American Union Army, they bore the brunt of the slaughter at Fredericksburg.
"War-battered dogs are we, (they said)
gnawing a naked bone;
Fighters in every land and clime -
(for) every cause but our own."
And thus we who are gathered here tonight, as the heirs and the successors to the wild Geese, are saddened by
the tragic course of recent events in captive Hungary. For the story of last fall's Hungarian martyrdom holds for
us a familiar ring. To be sure, the time, the place and the cast of characters may be different. But the techniques
of oppression, the alternating hope and despair of the oppressed, and the unquenchable thirst for human liberty
that lingers on despite all defeats and disappointments - these are merely modern repetitions of events that took
place in Ireland more than 300 years ago.
I think it is important that we make that comparison tonight - not to revive the unhappy memories and national
animosities of an age gone by - but to remind us all that, along with the need to worship God, there has been
implanted in every man's soul the desire to be free. The centuries long faith of the Irish, and their ultimate
success against overwhelming odds, should be remembered today by those in the cellars and garrets of Budapest
who feel that all hope is lost. It should be remembered by the masters of the Kremlin who are smugly confident
that a free people can be forever crushed beneath their heel. And it should be remembered by our own foreign
policy makers, whenever they are urged to accept as permanent the enslaved status of the Satellite countries.
Perhaps the chapter of Irish history which is most sharply brought to mind by the Hungarian uprising of 1956 is
the story of the Irish rebellion of 1641, and its hero Owen Roe O'Neill. The story actually begins with the famous
"Flight of the Earls" in 1607. His homeland crushed, his family threatened and his own usefulness to the cause
about to be abruptly ended by assassination or imprisonment, the Earl of Tyrone, Hugh O'Neill, sailed sadly into
exile on the continent accompanied by his family and Rory, the Earl of Tyrconnell. Among those making the
gloomy journey was Hugh's young nephew, Owen Roe. The "Flight of the Earls" left the Irish people with
nothing to sustain them but hope - and very little of that.
"O, sad in green Tyrone when you left us, Hugh O'Neill,
In our grief and bitter need, to the spoiler's cruel steel!...
Will you come again, O Hugh, in all your olden power,
In all the strength and skill we knew, with Rory, in that hour
When the Sword leaps from its scabbard, and the Night hath passed away,
And Banba's battle-cry rings loud at Dawning of the Day?"
Hugh O'Neill would not come again. He died in 1616, still dreaming of returning to free his native land. And in
Ireland, hope gave way to despair. For now the Irish people were hard put to keep alive the memory of their lost
freedom. The education of their children and the preservation of their native language and customs were
controlled by a foreign dictator in a manner no less ruthless than that demonstrated by the Soviets in Hungary
today. Then, as now, priests were imprisoned, tortured and murdered, and the Catholic religion all but totally
suppressed. Then, as now, the lands and property of the people were confiscated, their legal rights denied, their
meetings banned, their very existence regarded with contempt - and with fear. A secret court - the Court of
Castle Chamber - imposed a so-called justice no less harsh than that imposed by the commissar courts operating
today in Budapest.
Massacre, murder, torture, cruel and inhuman punishment were widespread. When, in 1644, one Captain
Swanley seized a ship, picked out from amongst its passengers 70 whom he considered to be Irish - and threw
them overboard - the Journal of the House of Commons records that "Captain Swanley was called into the
House, and thanks given to him for his good service, along with a chain of gold of 200 pounds in value." "To kill
an Irishman," it was commonly said at that time, "was no more than to kill a dog."
But, just as the Hungarian people rose to cast off their chains when the Russians were troubled in Poland and
elsewhere, so the Irish rose during the struggle between Throne and Parliament in 1641. Their initial successes,
however, could not be maintained. Lacking arms, lacking experienced military leadership and sorely divided by
factional disputes, their revolt was brutally crushed. On February 25, 1642, anticipating the slaughter of
Budapest by more than 300 years, the English High Command gave the following order to its generals in Ireland:
"Wound, kill, slay, and destroy, by all the ways and means you may, all rebels and adherents and relievers; and
burn, spoil, wasted, consume and demolish all places, towns and houses, where the said rebels are, or have been,
relieved and harboured, and all hay and corn there; and kill and destroy all the men inhabitants therein who are
able to bear arms."
Overwhelmed with despair, outnumbered and outclassed, the Irish revolutionaries - led by a dedicated but
untrained lawyer named Phelim O'Neill - were prepared to surrender all that remained. Then, suddenly, from
the Boyne to the sea, from county to county, from mouth to mouth, the joyous word was passed: "Owen Roe has
come!"
"Glad news for aching hearts comes from the northern shore!
Ho! Phelim, rouse your sorrowing soul, and raise your head once more!
Magennis and Maguire, come from out your 'leagured tower,
And spit upon their Saxon laws - defy their Saxon power!
For eyes are fired that erst shone mask, and tongues loosed that were dumb -
Up Gaels! Up Gaels! Revenge! Revenge! Owen Roe, Owen Roe is come!"
On July 6, 1642, having successfully evaded the British Fleet, Owen Roe O'Neill stepped ashore in the north of
Donegal. Nephew of the famous Earl of Tyrone, already famous in his own right for his brilliant battle for Spain
at Arras, the greatest Irish general of his time was home at last - and he rallied round him a once ragged army
and a once despondent citizenry. Owen Roe "The Liberator", he was called - "the worthiest warrier of them all";
and ignoring the jealousies and the petty divisions that hampered his efforts, he went steadily forward to his
appointed task of building an army and driving the enemy from his native shores.
Finally, in June of 1646, with a greatly outnumbered army and with no artillery whatsoever, he fought and won
his greatest battle, the famous victory of Benburb. Launching a whirlwind attack with the cry of "Sancta
Maria!", he wiped out the enemy's army in one brief hour, captured enough equipment to outfit his entire force,
and left 3300 of the enemy dead on the battlefield. Fatalities in his own ranks numbered exactly 70.
It was a great day for the Irish - just as October 23, 1956 was a great day for the Hungarians - and these are the
days that live in the minds of men long after all else has been crushed. For, although Owen Roe O'Neill was able
to win several more victories, the Irish were unable to take full advantage of his successes. "In my time" he had
warned, "and in all other times of which books tell us anything, foreign fingers close tightly on whatever comes
within their grip."
But rival factions, ignoring his warnings, sued for an unworthy peace; dissident parties and jealous leaders
fought among themselves and against Owen Roe; and thus a divided Irish nation was dismally unprepared for
the invasion of Oliver Cromwell. And when at last they instinctively turned to the great liberator whom they had
shamed and abused, Owen Roe fell ill before he could rejoin his army - and died the victim, it was said, of a
poisoned nail placed in his shoe by an enemy agent.
The entire Irish nation was overwhelmed with grief.
"Did they dare, did they dare, to slay Owen Roe O'Neill?
Yes, they slew with poison him they had feared to meet with steel.
Had he lived - had he lived - our dear country had been free;
But he's dead - but he's dead - and 'tis slaves we'll ever be.
Sagest in the council was he, kindest in the Hall:

Sure we never won a battle - 'twas Owen won them all.
Soft as woman's was your voice, O'Neill; bright was your eye,
Oh! Why did you leave us, Owen? Why did you die?
Your troubles are all over, you're at rest with God on high;
But we're slaves, and we're orphans, Owen! - why did you die?
We're sheep without a Shepard, when the snow shuts out the sky-
Oh! why did you leave us, Owen? Why did you die?"
So ends the story of the Irish rising of 1641. O'Neill's wife fled into exile; his son was captured in battle and
beheaded; and, their armies overwhelmed, the Irish people were brutally slaughtered and enslaved by a ruthless
and relentless Cromwell. In still another parallel to today's tragic events in Hungary, the entire population of
Ireland within a few years after O'Neill's death had declined by more than 50% - the result of human slaughter,
mass deportation and a great exodus of exiles and emigrants.
"They are going, going, going, and we cannot bid them stay;
Their fields are now the stranger's, where the stranger's cattle stray…
But no foreign skies hold beauty like the rainy skies they knew;
Nor any night-wind cool the brow as did the foggy dew…".
To those hapless exiles from the Emerald Isle, as to those fleeing Budapest today, the prospects for the liberation
of their homeland seemed very remote indeed. And yet, as Sir Roger Casement told the British jury that
sentenced him to hang for high treason in 1914: "Ireland has outlived the failure of all her hopes - and yet she
still hopes."
"Ireland has seen her sons - aye, and her daughters too - suffer from generation to generation always for
the same cause, meeting always the same fate, and always at the hands of the same power; and yet always
a fresh generation has passed on to withstand the same oppression. The cause that begets this indomitable
persistency, preserving through centuries of misery the remembrance of lost liberty, this surely is the
noblest cause men ever strove for, ever lived for, ever died for."
May this spirit, and this story, and all the stories of Irish martyrdom like it, be recalled tonight in the cellars of
Budapest, in the council halls of the Kremlin, and in our nation's capital. And let us here tonight resolve that our
nation will forever hold out its hands to those who struggle for freedom today, as Ireland struggled for a
thousand years. We will not leave them to be "sheep without a Shepard when the snow shuts out the sky".
Instead we will recognize what the events of the past year in Hungary and Poland have firmly demonstrated - as
the struggles in Ireland and elsewhere demonstrated in centuries gone by - what must of necessity be the
cornerstone of our foreign policy, and every nation's foreign policy, for all time to come - that there may be
satellite governments, but there are never satellite peoples - and that whether a man be Hungarian or Irish,
Catholic or Moslem, white or black, there forever burns within his breast the unquenchable desire to be free.
Remarks of John F. Kennedy at a Dinner Honoring The

Honorable Herbert Hoover, February 4, 1957
This is a redaction of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. Four drafts of the speech
Library. The first draft differs significantly from the other three drafts. The text below uses what we have
designated as the fourth draft.
I deem it a great privilege to be here tonight, not only because of my esteem for the guest of honor, but also
because of my sense of gratitude for your invitation. Senators are not always asked to participate in ceremonies
lauding economy and budget reductions. On the contrary, some schoolboys believe the Constitution gives the
House the power to originate taxes and the Senate the right to originate spending. And Will Rogers always said
that "It is not the initial cost of a Senator we have to look out for, it's the upkeep. He may be the deciding vote on
an appropriation bill that will cost us more than a hundred high priced men."
One way in which we in public life can assist you who labor long and without notice in the cause of governmental
economy and efficiency is to help clear up misconceptions in the public mind which impede your work. There are
three popular misconceptions about the work of the Second Hoover Commission which I would like to mention
tonight.
First is the mistaken belief held by a few cynics that the greatest benefit given the Commission by former
President Hoover was the use of his name and reputation. But anyone who makes this assertion doesn't know
Herbert Hoover very well. He is totally unlike Senator John Sherman of Ohio over half a century ago, who was
famous for two laws: the Sherman Silver Purchase Law and the Sherman Anti-Trust Law, although a
contemporary Senator observed: "The first was adopted against his protest; the other he introduced by request. I
doubt very much whether he ever read it, or, if he did, whether he ever understood it."
No. Herbert Hoover does not propose measures he has not read, nor approve those he does not understand. At
the age of 81 - when most men are firmly fixed to their rocking chairs - he accepted without hesitation the
challenge offered by President Eisenhower to undertake once again an examination of the Executive Branch of
the Government. And I have it from an unusually reliable source that he was a working chairman, probably the
"workingest" chairman any commission or committee ever had. His prodigous efforts were reflected in the
preparation of every draft and report, in the harmonizing of men with conflicting attitudes, and in the acceptance
of their findings by the public, the Congress and the Administration. The name of Herbert Hoover has truly
become synonomous with efficiency and economy in government; and I am privileged to join with those gathered
here tonight to pay tribute and thanks to you, President Hoover, for your notable achievements in the
improvement of the operation of our government.
Secondly, I want to mention a misconception which has resulted from the adverse comments of some pressure
groups and politicians - and some of my best friends are politicians - and that is the notion that the Second
Hoover Commission was a biased, reactionary group which reached preconceived conclusions in a slanted,
controversial report that would deny services to millions of Americans. This position is best refuted by the facts.
During the 84th Congress, a Democratic Congress, it was my privilege to act as Chairman of the Senate
Reorganization Subcommittee, to conduct hearings on many Hoover Commission legislative proposals and to
participate in the Senate's discussion of them. Of the 59 measures relating to the Second Hoover Commission's
recommendations which were referred to the Senate Committee on Government Operations, 36 were favorably
acted upon by our Subcommittee. After consolidations and approval by the full Committee on Government
Operations, 16 bills, incorporating the objectives of these 36 bills on which the Subcommittee had acted, passed
the Senate, all by unanimous vote; and of those 16, 13 are already law.
Still another Hoover Commission measure I was privileged to co-sponsor, with Senator Lister Hill, far from
being a step backward, established our nation's first great medical library. Still another measure expanded, not
reduced, funds for basic research in medicine and other fields. Whatever differences President Hoover and I may
have politically or otherwise, this will never prevent us from working together in the interests of better
government.
Third and finally is the misconception that must discourage you the most - the notion that since the Hoover
Commission has completed its work the job is over. "What happened to all those budget savings?", taxpayers are
going to be asking in a few months. But the job is far from complete, despite the gratifying progress which I
reported to you. The legislative process in a democracy is a slow process, and it always will be. For as Winston
Churchill once said: "Democracy is the worst form of government - except all those other forms that have been
tried from time to time."
However slowly, there is every sign that we will continue to move ahead. A major piece of unfinished business is
the bill which passed the Senate unanimously last year, and which provides that our national budgets be based on
the actual expenditures to be incurred by the Federal departments and agencies during the budget year, the cost-
type budget. This bill is important not only in terms of the savings it will bring, but even more significantly, I
believe, in terms of developing greater cost consciousness on the part of all citizens, employees of the Government
and otherwise.
If all of us, in the Congress, in the citizens organizations and in the general public, can share but a small part of
President Hoover's unselfish dedication to this task, regardless of critics and pressure groups and political
considerations, then continued progress and achievement are ours. We may say of him whom we honor tonight as
Edmund Burke said of Charles James Fox:
"He has put to hazard his ease, his security, his interest, his power, even his … popularity …. He is
traduced and abused…. He may live long, he may do much. But here is the summit. He never can exceed
what he does this day."
Chamber of Commerce Dinner, Albany, Georgia,
February 7, 1957
Library. The two drafts are very different, with one having handwritten edits by John F. Kennedy. The heavy
revising indicates Kennedy's investment in that text, strongly suggesting that it is the version he used. The text
below is therefore based on that draft, and incorporates those edits to the best of our ability.
It is a real pleasure for me to be here this evening as the guest of the Albany Chamber of Commerce and your
affable and distinguished publisher, James Gray. I was glad to come to Georgia tonight, for I have a deep
affection for your state and what it did for me in the Democratic National Convention last August. I have been
particularly impressed, not only at that Convention but subsequent to it, by the ability of your nationally
recognized Governor, Marvin Griffin, and many of your other state officials whom I have had the pleasure of
meeting. And I owe a special debt to Jim Smith of Albany who nominated me at the Georgia caucus and who first
asked me to address this Chamber meeting.
But this is not surprising, for in Washington Georgia is noted for her statesmen. Few men in our day and age
have made such an impression upon the Senate, the nation and the world as the beloved Walter George. His wise
and firm counsel is already missed in the Senate as we debate the tangled Middle East situation; and we are
pleased that his talents and energies are still being utilized in the cause of a better and more peaceful world. Your
Senior Senator, Richard Russell, is without question one of the most respected men in the entire Senate, whose
words in committee and on the Senate Floor earn him attention and respect which few, if any, others can
command. I am privileged to call him my friend. We all look for great things, as well, from your new Junior
Senator, Herman Talmadge, whose fame as an orator and spokesman for the South preceded him to Washington
where he has already made a host of new friends from every part of the country.
The most pressing issue before the entire country at this time – is the development of a foreign policy that will
maintain the security of the United States.
Our responsibility in this field is to influence the conduct of others by our own behavior and example in the effort
to obtain a strongly secured peace. In this matter of influence and responsibility beyond our borders both the
President and the Congress have their proper functions. The President alone has the right to carry on our
dealings and negotiations with foreign countries, and the primary responsibility for initiating the policies
governing those affairs. The President alone speaks for the entire nation in our relations with others. He alone
leads us in foreign policy. The President may lead well or he may lead badly, but for good, or bad, no American
can escape the consequences of this leadership.
The Legislative Branch, however, is not without Constitutional responsibilities and powers in this connection. It
is to the Senate that the President must turn for advice and consent on fundamental foreign questions. Our
advice and consent are formally required in the cases of treaties and ambassadorial appointments; and they are
informally required with respect to any major new policies where public support is desired – such as in the
current proposals for the Middle East. It is Congress which appropriates the vast public funds necessary to
support our defense establishments. It is Congress which, if circumstances were so to require, would declare war
and, if circumstances were ever to permit, would make peace.
Thus however important and primary the President’s power may be in the field of foreign relations, formulating
and carrying out a coherent, effective policy requires a partnership with the Congress. This partnership faces a
serious challenge when political control is divided between the Presidency and the Congress, as in the present
case. With the Republicans in control of the Executive Branch and the Democrats in control of the Congress, it
will require all our political maturity to guide our nation safely through these days of our years.
A famous United States Senator once said … “The duty of the opposition party is to oppose” … But in a world
such as ours, when the United States is face to face with the most serious challenge to its survival in all our
history, I conceive it to be the duty of the opposition not to oppose but to propose. It is our obligation, it seems to
me, to support the foreign policy recommendations urged by the President in his capacity as foreign affairs
leader and on the basis of all the information available to him, unless, on the basis of our own thorough
deliberations, we feel that events demand an alternative. In that case, it is our responsibility to work with the
President, each within our own Constitutional sphere, to bring forth a reasonable synthesis from our combined
effort.
Much is heard these days about a bi-partisan foreign policy. It is usually assumed that the responsibility for
carrying out the theme of bi-partisanship is largely a matter for the Congress in general and the Democrats in
particular. But successful bi-partisanship, in my opinion, requires a different approach than that followed by the
Executive Branch in announcing its latest proposal for the Middle East. Once it had been announced, even if the
Congress should have considered such an announcement ill-timed or unwise, even if we should feel that these
proposals only aggravated the problems in the Middle East rather than reducing them, we should be hard
pressed to reject proposals urged before the world by the President of the United States. For to so reject them
would deflate not only his prestige but also that of our government and nation. It seems to me that true bi-
partisanship would call for consultation between the leaders of Congress and the Executive Branch before such a
plan is announced, in order that the Congress, in the words of the late Senator Vandenberg, may have an equal
voice in the take-offs as well as the crash landings.
Another question underlying our Committee’s consideration of this Resolution is the question of precedents. The
President’s program for the Middle East has been compared to the Eisenhower doctrine for Formosa and to the
original NATO proposal in Europe. The facts of the matter, I believe, are to the contrary. The Eisenhower
doctrine for Formosa provided for a specific military guarantee of a stated area – Formosa – against an obvious
enemy – the Red Chinese. The Eisenhower doctrine for the Middle East, on the other hand, guarantees any
country in the general area of the Middle east which seeks our protection in case of attack by any other country
“controlled by international Communism”. The NATO Alliance was a joint effort by a group of countries to arm
and defend themselves collectively against an obvious enemy threatening the European continent. The
Eisenhower doctrine for the Middle East, on the other hand, does not permit other countries to join us, and, as
mentioned, is directed against only an attack of a “Communist controlled country,” a definition which Mr. Dulles
has stated would be met by none of the countries in the Middle East today.
In trying to define what the Eisenhower program is for the Middle East, it is well to realize what it is not.
I think it could be generally agreed that this resolution does not constitute such a policy for the Middle East –
does not reduce Communistic political, economic or ideological penetration in that area, or its control of
governments by conversion, subversion, sale of arms, or other indirect methods. It does not offer any permanent
settlement for the major issues at the bottom of the Middle East instability; such as the Arab-Israeli dispute, the
control of the Suez Canal, and the resettlement of Arab refugees; and it does not carry out other major objectives
of American Foreign Policy, such as a reduction of tensions and armaments, a rebuilding of our seriously
weakened western alliance, or a strengthening of the United Nations.
All of this does not mean that the program will not be helpful. It will be of assistance in guaranteeing under
certain conditions the stability fo certain countries on which the West is dependent, including such varied
countries as Libya, Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Pakistan. I will give assurance to the governments of these countries
that if they take a strong pro-West stand they will not be left defenseless if they are attacked by a Communist
dominated neighbor. It does indicate that the U.S. feels its security is directly involved in the Middle East. It does
give us and them, in essence, a foundation of security in which to build. The point I wish to emphasize is that this
is only a first step. It is important, after all, to realize that the Middle East is a vast area emerging from centuries
of foreign domination and poverty, racked by religious struggles, possessing untold resources. Obviously no one
policy or even a group of policies can bring peace and calm to this bridge between continents which is now the
direct object of the Communist conspiracy.
On the contrary, I believe it vitally important in considering the Middle East to recognize the limitations of
American policy as well as it potentialities. The United States is one of the greatest, strongest countries in the
world, numbering 165 million people and possessing great productivity, that is true; but we nevertheless cannot
impose upon the people of any area – particularly the Middle East – solutions to their problems which are at
variance with their basic desires. Obviously, if we seek to do so, they will turn closer to the Communists. We can
assist and support, in other words, but we cannot direct.
But this does not mean, on the other hand, that we can do nothing. Recognition of the limits of our world
influence does not call for retreat and isolation. Rather it is a call to use that influence wisely, economically and
with great care and deliberation.
I do not believe we are using that care when we permit our basic alliances with western Europe to be disrupted.
We are not using our power wisely when we pursue a policy in the Middle East which Senator Mansfield has
called “isolated internationalism”. We are not using our power wisely when these aid programs tend to produce
dependency rather than independence in other countries, when they become the means for irresponsible
governments to prolong their irresponsibility to their people. We are not using our power wisely when old
policies are persisting after they have outlived their usefulness.
We are not using that policy wisely when we commit ourselves to fulfill heavy military obligations in the Middle
East at a time when we are permitting our military strength in relation to the Soviet Union’s to steadily
deteriorate. The report recently filed by Senator Symington – a report that does a great service to our nation,
while confirming his warning for [?] years – that report has stated that “Russia’s long-range Air Force has in
operational units more long-range jet bombers (B-52 class) with a nuclear bomb capacity than has the United
States;” and that Russia is currently producing more bombers of this nuclear type than the United States. This
report also warned that if present plans and programs are not changed by the period 1958-60, the Russian long-
range Air Force will be stronger than that of the United States; and this nation will have lost its superiority in
strategic air power. We cannot carry the burden of our own security and that of much of the free world if at the
same time we are not willing to pay the price of maintaining our own military superiority.
Secretary Dulles has said that this is the most severe post war crisis that the United States has ever faced. The
Hungarian experience has shown that when countries pass into the orbit of Soviet influence, they do not escape.
We cannot afford to lose the Middle East, or indeed any area of the world, and merely hope that one day their
disillusionment will bring them back to us. It was difficult enough to develop policies which would assist
countries of Western Europe to remain free, but in that case we were aided by the desire of the people themselves
to associate with us. In the Middle East and in Asia, the United States is looked upon in too many areas as an
enemy of freedom rather than its friend. Thus to help those who would not be helped, to aid those who feel that
every gift is a Trojan horse, will require perseverance, understanding, steadfastness, and imaginative initiative by
the President, by the Congress and, perhaps most importantly of all, by the American people!
John O’Reilly once wrote:
“The world is large when its weary leagues
But the world is small when your enemy is
Loose on the other side.”
The world is small tonight, and our enemy is loose in it. It is the task of your nation in the years that lie ahead to
meet this challenge with all the wisdom and all the understanding that have been bestowed upon us – as a nation.
ADD CONCLUSION
In the Capitol in Washington, in the Congressional Hall of Statues where each state is represented by the stone
figures of two of their most famous sons, there stands the statue of one of the most noted statesmen of Georgia
and the South, Alexander Stephens. Inscribed thereon are some of the most famous words he ever spoke, words
which we as a nation must recall today if we are to meet the challenge of which I have spoken. “I am afraid,” said
Alexander Stephens, “I am afraid of nothing on the earth, beneath the earth, above the earth – except to do
wrong.”
Alexander Stephens’ words are good words to guide this nation one hundred years after they were spoken.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the National

Screw Machine Products Association, Hotel Shoreham ,
Washington, D.C., April 10, 1957
This is a redaction of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. Three drafts of this speech
Library. They are exactly the same. The speech is incomplete. There are no full copies of this speech available. A
link to the page images of one of the three drafts is given at the bottom of this page.
Before turning to matters of foreign policy, I would like to mention briefly two current domestic issues before the
Congress which I know are of interest to you.
The first is this question of small business tax relief. I know your industry has a vital stake in such legislation, as
does every small or middle size businessman in Massachusetts with whom I have talked. Unfortunately, the
amendment sponsored by Senator Fulbright and myself which would have effected a graduated tax on current
income, instead of the present tax which applies equally to all corporations, regardless of size, was defeated in the
Senate last month by a vote of 52 to 33. I can assure you, however, that we intend to continue to press for the
enactment of this and similar measures - that we recognize the urgent need for small business tax relief - and that
it is equally proper to give priority in the distribution of polio vaccine or drought relief. You can help us in that
battle by making it clear that you regard assistance to small business and revision of the Federal tax structure as
something more than topics for political speeches around election day.
I have also co-sponsored with Senator Sparkman, Chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, a small
business tax relief package. This bill, in addition to the measure already mentioned, would permit small
businessmen to utilize the benefits of rapid tax amortization or liberalized depreciation allowances for used or
second-hand industrial equipment as well as new equipment; it would permit partners or sole proprietors to
benefit in the same way as incorporated businesses from tax-exempt pension, profit sharing and stock bonus
plans; it would ease the payment of estate taxes by those who inherit small family firms; and it would provide
other revisions which I think you would find of particular interest. Certainly in these days of rising mergers and
bankruptcies and declining credit, we in Congress should do everything possible to remove discriminatory
legislation penalizing businessmen such as yourselves - and I assure you that I shall continue to work toward that
end.
Secondly, I want to mention briefly this question of labor racketeering.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Universal

Notre Dame Night Celebration, Washington, DC, April
29, 1957
Library. The redaction is based on draft number two, which has hand written edits. Links to page images of the
two drafts are given at the bottom of this page.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy (Dem. - Mass.)

Universal Notre Dame Night Celebration, Washington, D.C.
Monday Evening, April 29, 1957
…I would like to discuss with you briefly tonight the Senate's investigation of labor racketeering through a
Special Committee of which Senator McClellan is the Chairman and of which I am a member. Many have asked
me: What is going to come of this investigation? What are your objectives? I would say this investigation has two
purposes. The first follows the advice of Woodrow Wilson, who said: "The best thing that you can do with
anything that is crooked is to lift it up to where all the people can see that it is crooked - and then it will either
straighten itself out or disappear." Our second objective is to determine what Federal legislation or
administrative action is necessary to remedy this evil. Permit me to discuss our progress with respect to each of
these objectives.
I.
The first objective of the McClellan Committee is to obtain an exact understanding of what constitutes labor
racketeering, and to separate these practices of a few dishonest, disreputable men, including hoodlums who
invaded the labor movement from the outside and purchased or falsified union charters like so much
merchandise, from the legitimate activities of the great mass of union leaders and members. As many of you who
are lawyers know, laymen - particularly those already biased - are likely to describe as racketeering legitimate
collective bargaining, legal boycotts, and union political activities. Whatever you may think of these activities,
they should not be labeled racketeering. Based upon my experience as a member of the Special Senate Committee
and 11 years on Congressional labor committees, I suggest that when you see headlines about labor racketeering
you keep the following five types of activities in mind:
First - Labor racketeers are those who are using labor organizations, founded originally to protect the worker's
welfare, as a front for criminal operations, as a means of organizing vice, gambling, prostitution and other
rackets; using union funds to finance and extend these illegal or questionable activities, and to influence or
corrupt public officials into permitting them. In Portland, Oregon, for example, vice king Jim Elkins and several
of his associates and employees in a variety of rackets were all made Teamsters Union members in good standing,
engaging in so-called union activities that would have made Samuel Gompers, founder of the American
Federation of Labor, turn in his grave.
Secondly - Labor racketeers are those who are using their positions with a union to practice extortion, shake-
downs and bribery; threatening strikes, physical violence or property damage to employers who fail to give them
under-the-table payments, personal gifts or other contributions which the union members never see; or securing,
to the detriment of their own membership, the waiver of certain labor and health standards set forth in the
union's collective bargaining agreement, in return for a large fee going into the racketeer's own pocket. Our
Committee's investigation of Mr. Nathan Shefferman, for example, intends to go into the matter of whether there
is any connection between his services as a management representative and consultant on labor relations on the
one hand, and, on the other hand, as a supplier of funds, services and discount purchases to Dave Beck whose
union was involved with his management clients. In a more blatant case in Southern Illinois a short time ago, a
contractor for the Atomic Energy Commission was asked for a private contribution of more than one million
dollars by a labor racketeer who sabotaged the project for 18 months, and who boasted at his trial: "When I left
Chicago I threw away my shovel for a blackjack, and I have been using it effectively ever since. I have carved out
an empire."
Third - Labor racketeers are those who are abusing and manipulating for personal gain union pension, welfare
and health funds; embezzling welfare funds, receiving kickbacks from employers or insurance brokers; or
channeling a monopoly of a union's welfare fund business to personal friends or business associates, without
regard to the cost, or to those willing to give them a commission on the side. Teamster leader Frank Brewster, for
example, channeled a multi-million dollar monopoly in his union's welfare plans to an insurance broker who also
turned out to be Brewster's partner in a stable of race horses, a supposedly equal partnership that was unusually
profitable for Mr. Brewster to the tune of $40,000, while his partner lost exactly that amount.
Fourth, and somewhat similarly, labor racketeers are those who are converting union treasuries for their own
personal use and profit; financing their investments, hobbies, private affairs and even their homes with dues
contributed by members to strengthen their union; and obtaining this money either through questionable loans,
so-called gifts, or outright larceny. One Chicago union official, for example, spent $3400 of his members' money
on what he called a "good-will" tour of Europe. "To whom were you spreading goodwill?" he was asked.
"Myself," came the reply.
Fifth and finally, labor racketeers are those who are conspiring with employers to use union power to wreck
other businessmen and other unions; to prevent, by methods which include strong-arm coercion and violence,
other employers from marketing their products or other unions from organizing even within their appropriate
jurisdiction. In New York City, the local crime committee found that a trucking union was formed to steer all
garbage business to one company headed by an old friend of Frank Costello's, intimidating all other companies
and truckers out of the market.
All of these are practices I call labor racketeering. What about management, some have asked. Why isn't your
committee investigating improper management practices? The fact is that our committee was primarily
established to investigate labor-management racketeering - improper management activities as such are subject
for other investigations [?] by other committees except to the extent that they show collusion with labor rackets.
Some of the small-time racketeers and others called in our Portland hearing were businessmen, not labor leaders.
Mr. Shefferman is a businessman [?] - an so, some of the time, are Dave Beck, Frank Brewster, Jimmy Hoffa,
Johnny Dio, Three Fingers Brown, Albert Anastasia, and others, all of whom own factories, trucking lines or
other enterprises.
And it is a shocking fact that many employers have collaborated in labor racketeering practices, forcing their
competitors out of business, obtaining monopolies for themselves, fighting legitimate union organizations and
paying off racketeers in the process. Other employers are honest but timid - fearful of the labor trouble that may
result if they refuse to yield to racketeers or if they testify before public authorities.
Thus, the problem of labor racketeering is not one for the Federal Government alone, or even primarily - the
responsibility for cleaning up this foul situation is divided also among union members, employers, local
government, and the general public.
Union members and honest union leaders should write their own regulations, and do their own policing.
Conspiracy, violence, fraud and similar crimes are state and local offenses, not Federal.
But the Federal Government does have a responsibility in many ways. Involved are violations of the anti-trust
laws, the Taft-Hartley Act, the Hobbs Anti-Racketeering Act, and the Internal Revenue Code.
II.
This leads me to the second objective sought by our Special Committee - the possible development of a need for
new legislation. Such legislation must not be undertaken prematurely or in a spirit of vengeance or prejudice.
Nevertheless it now appears that additional legislation in some areas may be necessary.
As Chairman of the Labor Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, I have a special
interest in and responsibility for this aspect of the current investigations. Some matters must and should await
the completion of the investigation - others, in my opinion, are presently ready for legislative hearings on the
basis of information already uncovered by our Special Committee and past investigations.
There are five subjects into which we may inquire in these hearings:
1. The full disclosure of the financial operations of employee health and welfare funds, whether operated by
unions, management or jointly.
2. The requirement of minimum standards or safeguards in union trust funds, including adequate reserves,
independent audits and bans on collusion and discrimination.
3. The full disclosure of, and possible limitations on, conflicts of interest (transactions in which a union official
has a personal or financial interest) in the handling of these trust funds and other union funds.
4. Safeguards to facilitate democratic control by union members of both types of funds (welfare and union
treasuries) and their management, including safeguards for those workers arbitrarily excluded from
membership, denied participation by the device of trusteeship or penalized for objecting to union policies.
5. Improvement in the apparently inadequate provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act for the reporting to the
Government and the membership of all kinds of union funds and financial transactions; and the policing of those
reports so that abuses of the type recently disclosed before our Select Committee might be more readily identified
and corrected.
Many people have written or spoke to me about this labor racketeering investigation. They consider it to be
exciting, and crusading adventure with crime. They are wrong. It is a discouraging, difficult task, taking the
Committee into a seamy side of American life and American labor that would be more pleasant to ignore, and
stirring hostilities and prejudices that are politically better left dormant. But this is our assignment, and we have
accepted it - and with the understanding and assistance of well-informed members of the public like yourself, we
shall continue our efforts to bring a little more light and a little more justice to this dark and troubled area on the
American scene.
Statement of Senator John F. Kennedy, Chairman,

Special Committee on the Senate Reception Room, to be
delivered on the Senate Floor May 1, 1957
This transcription of this speech is made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A press release of the
speech exists in the Senate Speech files of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F.
Kennedy Presidential Library. A link to page images of the draft is given at the bottom of this page.
This copy was released to the press.

Statement of Senator John F. Kennedy (Dem.-Mass.), Chairman, Special Committee on the Senate Reception
Room, to be delivered on the Senate Floor May 1, 1957 pursuant to filing with the Senate the final report of the
Special Committee recommending five Senators whose portraits are to be placed in the Senate Reception Room.
The report of the Special Committee is attached.
Mr. President:
As Chairman of the Special Senate Committee on the Senate Reception Room, established by S. Res. 145 of the
84th Congress as amended, I wish to report to the Senate that our Committee has completed its deliberations, and
its surveys of scholarly and Senatorial opinion as described in the Committee Report, and recommends that there
be placed in the five unfilled spaces in the Senate Reception Room paintings portraying the following five
outstanding Senators of the past:
Senator Henry Clay, of Kentucky, who served in the Senate 1806-7, 1810-11, 1831-42, 1849-52. Resourceful
expert in the art of the possible, his fertile mind, persuasive voice, skillful politics and tireless energies were
courageously devoted to the reconciliation of conflict between North and South, East and West, capitalism and
agrarianism. A political leader who put the national good above party, a spokesman for the West whose love for
the Union outweighed sectional pressures, he acquired more influence and more respect as responsible leader of
the loyal but ardent opposition than many who occupied the White House. His adroit statesmanship and political
finesse in times of national crisis demonstrated the values of intelligent compromise in a Federal democracy,
without impairing either his convictions or his courage to stand by them.
Senator Daniel Webster, of Massachusetts, who served in the Senate 1827-41, 1845-50. Eloquent and articulate
champion of “Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable,” he grasped in an age of divided
loyalties the full meaning of the American Constitution and of the supremacy and indissolubility of the national
government. Molding the symbols of the Union he cherished so strongly that neither secession nor war could
break them, his steadfast courage and powerful leadership in two of the Senate’s most historic and critical
debates were brilliantly portrayed in orations attentively heard and eagerly read. Influential spokesman for
industrial expansion, his dedication to Union above all personal and partisan considerations overshadowed the
petty moral insensitivities which never compromised his national principles; and his splendid dignity and
decorum elevated the status and prestige of the Senate.
Senator John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina, who served in the Senate 1832-43, 1845-50. Forceful logician of
state sovereignty, masterful defender of the rights of a political minority against the dangers of an unchecked
majority, his profoundly penetrating and original understanding of the social bases of government has
significantly influenced American political theory and practice. Sincerely devoted to the public good as he saw it,
the ultimate tragedy of his final cause neither detracts from the greatness of his leadership nor tarnishes his
efforts to avert bloodshed. Outspoken yet respected, intellectual yet beloved, his leadership on every major issue
in that critical era of transition significantly shaped the role of the Senate and the destiny of the nation.
Senator Robert M. LaFollette, Sr., of Wisconsin, who served in the Senate 1906-25. Ceaseless battler for the
underprivileged in an age of special privilege, courageous independent in an era of partisan conformity, he fought
memorably against tremendous odds and stifling inertia for social and economic reforms which ultimately
proved essential to American progress in the 20th century. Determined to make law serve the rights of persons as
well as property, to make government serve the interests of great social justice as well as great political parties,
his constructive pioneering efforts to promote the general welfare aroused the slumbering conscience of the
nation and made the Senate more responsive to it. The bitter antagonisms stirred by his unyielding opposition to
international commitments and conflict were ultimately submerged by widespread admiration for his dedicated
life-long fight against political corruption and corporate greed.
Senator Robert A. Taft, of Ohio, who served in the Senate 1939-53. The conscience of the conservative movement,
its ablest exponent and most constructive leader, his high integrity, analytical mind and sheer industry quickly
won him a select spot in the councils of his party and the hearts of all his colleagues. His Senate leadership
transcended partisanship; his political courage and candor put principles above ambition. Dedicated to the
Constitution and the American tradition of individual rights as his keen legal mind interpreted them, he
demonstrated the importance of a balanced and responsible opposition in an age of powerful governments.
These five names, it should be made clear, and I shall discuss some of the objections raised to each in a moment,
are not offered as “the five greatest” Senators of all time. The Senate resolution under which we were
deliberating instead called for simply –
five outstanding persons from among all persons, but not a living person, who have served as Members of the
Senate since the formation of the Government.
Nevertheless, the decisions of the special committee in agreeing to these five names were unanimous. And
although we recognize, with humility, the hazards of attempting to pass judgment on other Members of the
Senate, when we claim for ourselves neither the detachment nor the expertness of professional historians - and
although we recognize further that no other Senator or committee of Senators would have necessarily reached
the same conclusions – we can take pride nevertheless in the fact that Clay, Webster, Calhoun, and LaFollette
were among the top 5 receiving the most endorsements from our panel of 150 scholars; that the same 4 names
were also among the top 5 receiving the most endorsements from those Senators who responded to our inquiry;
and that the late Senator Taft, whose name completes the 5 recommended by our committee, was the first choice
of the Senators who responded and among the first 10 in the poll of scholars.
Our Committee does not, of course, attempt to say that many other Senators of the past are not deserving of
recognition, or are not considered in the minds of some, even “greater”, however that term may be measured. On
the contrary, the excellence of so many nominations made our assignment as nearly impossible task. Speaking
only for myself, I will say to the Senate that I had the most difficulty excluding from the list three other
outstanding Senators of the past:
- George Norris of Nebraska, one of the most courageous, dedicated men ever to sit in the Senate, and one whose
influence on the public power, agricultural, labor and political aspects of this nation will long endure.
- Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri, the great “Nestor of the Senate” from 1820-1850, who on more than one
occasion took on the Great Triumvirate individually and collectively and bested them in the Senate itself; and
- Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, the outstanding figure in the first Senate, who authored the Federal Judiciary
Act that will always remain a monument to his genius and shepherded the Bill of Rights through the Senate.
Many others deserve recognition, and were the subjects of scholarly, thoughtful letters from Members of the
Senate or distinguished historians, political scientists and public figures. Sports writers choosing entrants to
Baseball’s Hall of Fame in Cooperstown have it easy by comparison – for them, and for those who miss, there will
always be a next year. Our Committee was limited to five – for all time – without a “next year,” a “second team,”
or a list of those deserving “honorable mention.”
Nevertheless, in the Report filed today, the Committee lists in alphabetical order the following names (omitting
the three I have already mentioned), which were among those most prominently mentioned in letters received by
the committee from Members of the Senate, our panel of scholars, and the general public, which we list because
of our regret that a selection of only five names was permitted and because of the possibility that some future
committee of the Senate, meeting at some future date, will find occasion to honor additional names:
Alben W. Barkley, of Kentucky
William Borah, of Idaho
Stephen Douglas, of Illinois
Carter Glass, of Virginia
Justin Smith Morrill, of Vermont
John Sherman, of Ohio
Charles Sumner, of Massachusetts
Lyman Trumbull, of Illinois
Oscar Underwood, of Alabama
Arthur Vandenberg, of Michigan
Robert Wagner, of New York
Thomas Walsh, of Montana.
The members of the special committee recognized that they faced a particular problem with respect to Senators
of the 20th century. We realize that many of those nominated from this period were men with whom
contemporary Senators, including members of the committee, have served, and about whom both sentiment and
prejudice may still exist in sufficient quantity to influence the opinions of Senators, historians, and the general
public. Nevertheless, the mandate of the Senate as contained in Senate Resolution 145 called for the selection to
be made “from among all persons *** who have served as Members of the Senate since the formation of the
Government;” and this clearly implied that, to the extent possible, the entire history of the Senate should be
considered and represented in the selection process. It is important to note, moreover, that to eliminate
consideration of 20th century Senators and thus to impose a cutoff date of 1900 may well have meant imposing in
effect a cutoff date of approximately 1850, because of the predominance of outstanding Senators from the period
of 1830 to 1850 compared with those in the latter half of the century. To have recommended five Senators who all
served more than a century ago would not, we finally decided, fulfill either the mandate of the Senate Resolution
of our efforts to arouse public interest in the Senate, its greatness and its role.
With this in mind, the committee has selected Senators Robert M. LaFollette, Sr. of Wisconsin and Robert A.
Taft of Ohio as outstanding representatives of the progressive and conservative movements in the 20th century.
We realize, of course, that considerable controversy and sentiment still surround each of them; that it is
impossible to prove that they deserve the honor more than Norris or Vandenberg, for example, or Borah, Carter
Glass, Barkley, Wagner, Walsh, Underwood or any among a dozen others who were seriously considered; and
that whatever names are chosen from the 20th century will appear to suffer in comparison with the Great
Triumvirate.
Nevertheless the Committee believed LaFollette and Taft to be the most appropriate choices under the terms of
the resolution – particularly in view of the way in which they symbolized the progressive and conservative points
of view on the great domestic issue that confronted the Senate during this century: the proper role of
governmental activity in the economic and social life of this country.
But both were more than symbols. “Fighting Bob” LaFollette, a great Governor of Wisconsin whose influence is
still felt in that state, was the outstanding Progressive of his day; and his struggle strongly influenced the
economic reforms of the Wilson and Roosevelt eras. Professor Henry S. Commager thought him “An obvious
choice for the period around the turn of the century … A man who did more to bring about Progressivism than
anyone who was in the Senate in his generation.” An outstanding political scientist who also picked LaFollette
over the other great Progressives of this century, Dr. E.E. Schattschneider of Wesleyan, called LaFollette “The
most vigorous and important exponent of liberal Republicanism in the Senate in the first quarter of the 19th
century.” However isolated he may have been in the Senate, and however short-sighted his views on foreign
policy may seem to most of us, his impressive legislative accomplishments which are outlined in the Committee
Report, his tireless battles to make government serve all the people, and his deeply felt insight into social and
economic forces, all combined to shape a career we rightfully honor today.
Bob Taft was also more than a symbol. All of us here who served with him would agree, even though on many
occasions we may have disagreed with him, that he was a figure of many dimensions. His name offers logical
balance to the name of LaFollette in our group of five, just as he himself offered logical balance during the days
when the role of the opposition was more difficult. The distinguished historian Alpheus T. Mason of Princeton
ranked Taft with the Great Triumvirate of Clay, Calhoun and Webster because he “succeeded in being a strong
partyman without being blinded by partisan considerations.” Quincy Wright, along with other well-known
professors including Clinton Rossiter of Cornell, pointed out in his letter that Taft’s leadership of the
conservative movement was all the greater because his “conservatism was qualified by his capacity to perceive
necessary reforms.” The fact that he was the leading choice among members of the Senate today is not without
significance.
Nevertheless, because of the controversy still surrounding the names of Taft and LaFollette, it is important to
recall that Clay, Calhoun and Webster in their own times did not always enjoy the wide recognition of their
talents that posterity has given them. Listen, for example, to these words spoken about Henry Clay: “He prefers
the specious to the solid, and the plausible to the true … He is a bad man, an imposter, a creator of wicked
schemes.” Those words were spoken by John C. Calhoun, who ridiculed Clay’s lack of education, moral conduct
and short temper. Daniel Webster said Clay was “his inferior in many respects”; and Andrew Jackson once
characterized him as being as “reckless and as full of fury as a drunken man in a brothel.” On the other hand,
who was it that said that John C. Calhoun was a rigid, fanatic, ambitious, selfishly partisan and sectional
“turncoat”, with “too much genius and too little common sense,” who would either die a traitor or a madman?
Henry Clay, of course. When Calhoun boasted in debate that he had been Clay’s political master, Clay retorted:
“Sir, I would not own him as a slave.” Both Clay and Calhoun from time to time fought with Webster; and from
the other House, the articulate John Quincy Adams viewed with alarm “the gigantic intellect, the envious temper,
the ravenous ambition and the rotten heart of Daniel Webster.”
And yet our Committee has selected Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun – and felt it had no other
choice. For over 30 years they dominated the Congress and the country, providing leadership and articulation on
all the great issues of the growing nation – the tariff, fiscal policies, foreign relations, defense, internal
improvements, agriculture, industrial development, westward expansion, states rights and slavery. From time to
time they supported and opposed each other for the Presidency that each desired but never achieved. And despite
whatever bitter words passed between them, their mutual respect for each other remained high. “I don’t like
Henry Clay,” said John Calhoun, “I wouldn’t speak to him, but, by God, I love him.” Webster considered
Calhoun “much the ablest man in the Senate… He could have demolished Newton, Calvin or even John Locke as
a logician … Whatever his aspirations, they were high, honorable and noble … There was nothing groveling or
low or nearly selfish that came near the head or the heart of Mr. Calhoun.” Henry Clay predicted that Calhoun’s
principles would “descend to posterity under the sanction of a great name.” And whatever John Quincy Adams
may have thought of Webster’s “rotten heart”, he considered his celebrated reply to Hayne to be the “most
significant (act) since the founding of the Constitution.”
This is not to say that objections cannot be raised to each of the three. Criticisms of Henry Clay’s moral conduct,
scholarship and political schemes may well be justified; and there are those who feel he carried the principle of
compromise too far. It is true that Clay said “It is a rule with me, when acting either in a public or a private
character, to attempt nothing more than what there exists a prospect or accomplishment.” And yet his spirit of
compromise, in the words of Carl Schurz, “was illumined by a grand conception of the destinies of his country, a
glowing national spirit, a lofty patriotism.” His greatest anxiety was the preservation of the Union; and few did
more to contribute toward its salvation. Abraham Lincoln called the Great Pacificator “my beau ideal of a
statesman, the man for whom I fought all my humble life.” An extraordinarily gifted figure, his brilliant
oratorical talents, unusual vitality and a unique gift of winning the hearts as well as the minds of his countrymen
all enabled his three great compromise proposals in 1820, 1833 and 1850 to save the Union until it grew strong
enough to save itself. “No other American politician,” as Vernon Parrington has observed, “has been so loved by
a hero-worshiping electorate – and so lovable.”
Daniel Webster, it is true, portrayed, in the words of one of his intimate friends, an extraordinary “compound of
strength and weakness, dust and divinity.” It is true that he accepted a retainer from Nicholas Biddle of the Bank
of the United States; that he accepted favors from the New England manufacturers; and that his decisions both as
a Senator and as a Secretary of State appear to have been open to improper influence. Yet there is not serious
evidence that his views on the Bank, the tariff and foreign policy would have been any different without these
dubious connections – and on the contrary Professor Allan Nevins has written that he demonstrated more than
any other colleague real insight into the problems of public finance, moderate protectionism and international
affairs. Whatever may have been petty about his financial affairs, there was nothing petty about his moral
stature in times of national crisis or in his dedication to the Union.
No list of outstanding Senators would be regarded as complete without Webster. Professor Commager wrote the
Committee that “Webster is so obvious a choice that it would be superfluous to attempt a justification. Indeed if a
single name were to be selected, that name would be, almost by common consent, Webster.” And in 1900 when
balloting began for the American Hall of Fame at New York University, Webster was tied with Abraham Lincoln
for second place immediately behind George Washington. Many members of our panel of scholars stated that
they selected Webster for the permanent impression left by his Constitutional ideas despite his faults of
character. My old Government professor at Harvard, Arthur N. Holcombe, wrote me: “Though a blot on his
record, these dealings were not so far out of line with the political morals of his time as they would be today.
Allowance should be made for the lower standard of political ethics at the Senatorial level then.”
The same answer, I believe, can be given to those objecting to the views entertained and defended by John C.
Calhoun. “He was wrong,” Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., wrote us, “but he was a
greater man and Senator than many people who have been right.” In defending the views of his state and section
on the practice of slavery, abhorrent to all of us today but a Constitutionally recognized practice in his time,
Calhoun was yielding neither to the pressures of expediency or immorality – nor did his opponents at the time so
regard it. Calhoun was not a proponent of disunion – though he warned at the end of his career that secession
might be the South’s only means of achieving justice, he fought long and hard to keep the South in the Union.
Generally judged to be the most notable political thinker ever to sit in the Senate, whose doctrine of concurrent
majorities has permanently influenced our political theory and practice, John Calhoun did more than any other
Senator in the 19th century, in the words of Professor Nevins, “to make men think clearly and carefully on
fundamental political questions…He was a model member in the purity of his public and private life, in his
incessant industry and in his efforts to master completely the main issues of his day.”
And thus I am among those who would regard it as inconceivable not to name Clay, Webster and Calhoun on the
list of five outstanding Senators. No other Senators have ever rivaled the unparalleled leadership and
statesmanship which they gave to a growing and anxious nation during a critical era when the Senate was the
nation’s most important body. Whatever objections may be raised to their views and morals, in my opinion, must
be balanced against their achievements – and against the high-mindedness and dignity which moved them at
their finest moments.
As I have pointed out in the Committee report, which outlines their careers and achievements in more detail, the
objections which can be raised to each of the five names selected – just as they can be raised against any name
suggested – are outweighed in the case of these five Senators by their over-all statesmanship, their service to the
Nation, and their impact on the Senate, the country, and our history. They are not necessarily, as already pointed
out, the five greatest Senators; nor are they necessarily the most blameless or irreproachable ones, nor models of
contemporary behavior. Allowance must be made of the times, the morals, and the practices of the period in
which each served; and political and policy differences should not diminish their claim to the label “outstanding.”
Obviously everyone will not agree. The distinguished Yale Professor, Samuel Flagg Bemis, who nominated
Webster even though one of his books has been cited as an authority for Webster’s laxity in financial matters,
told me of an interesting precedent in this matter of portraits (a precedent which went the other way) -- namely,
that when the Bemis book appeared, the large portrait of Webster which balanced that of John Hay suddenly
and mysteriously disappeared from the anteroom of the Secretary of State in Washington, apparently relegated
to a more obscure hanging in some other room. Senators, too, will disagree; and in filing this report with the
Senate, I want to make clear my hope that Senators who do disagree with our conclusions will voice their
objections or preferences to the Senate. Should a majority be opposed to the recommendations contained in our
report, I assume under the parliamentary situation it would be possible for the Senate to reject it. Although
individual Senators were asked to submit nominations, no attempt was made to clear our findings with Senators
from the same home states as those proposed -- and the Committee will be glad to defend its choices against
whatever objections may be raised.
There is always much for which a chairman is grateful in filing a report. I am grateful for the kindness and
cooperation of my four colleagues on the Committee -- Senators Bridges, Russell, Bricker and Mansfield -- who
brought to this task the wisdom and sense of responsibility it deserved. I am grateful to the distinguished
historian Allan Nevins, who graciously consented to serve as chairman of our Historical Advisory Committee,
and whose counsel was of particular value to me; and to all members of our panel of scholars who responded to
our inquiry with thoughtful, helpful letters. I am particularly delighted to be able to report that the Committee
spent less than 6% of its budget! Of $10,000 allotted to the Committee under the resolution, $9,466.68 has been
returned.
May I conclude by stressing once again that I believe this project to have had for this body considerable value
beyond the basisc necessity for its creation. The Senate emphasized in the discussion preceeding passage of the
resolution, and the committee has attempted to emphasize during the past year, that there is considerable merit
in stimulating interest among the general public and the Senate itself in the high traditions of the Senate, in the
political problems faced by even our most distinguished statesmen, and in the high standards of the past which
might be inspiring or emulated today. It is the committee's hope that the considerable interest evoked by this
project will be of value at a time when the democratic way of life is under pressure from without and the
problems and conflicting pressures involved in the political profession are frequently misunderstood within our
own country. The committee has attempted in a small way to focus the Nation's attention upon the Senate and its
distinguished traditions, upon the high quality of men who have served in the Senate, and upon the significant
role that the Senate has played in the history of our nation. The members of the special committee thus hope that
an increasing awareness of national and Senatorial history which should not be forgotten will be of benefit to the
general public and to the Senate itself.
I wish at this time, Mr. President, to file our report with the Senate.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Symposium of

Associated Harvard Clubs, Washington, D.C., May 3,
1957
I feel very much at home here tonight -- not because of the number of Democrats in the audience, and not
because I find myself surrounded up here by Republicans as I always do in Washington, but because all of us
who are sons of Harvard share a common bond even greater than political or sectional loyalties. All of us are
immensely proud of our Alma Mater -- so proud that it has recently been said that the world's most excruciating
bore is a Harvard man from Texas who just got out of the Marines.
We are asked tonight to answer the question: "What role does the university play in the Government?" I can
best answer that question with the answer I have learned since coming to Washington -- It depends.
It depends, first of all, on what kind of university we are talking about, and what kind of education it offers. Dean
Smith, as I mentioned at the last commencement, said Oxford was truly a seat of great learning; for all freshmen
who entered were required to bring some learning with them in order to meet the standards of admission -- but
no senior, when he left the university, ever took any learning away; and thus it steadily accumulated. That, I am
afraid, is not the kind of education upon which we can expect the Government to depend.
Nor can we depend upon the kind of education produced by those schools bearing a strong resemblance to the
Laputan academy visited by Gulliver in the midst of his many travels. At this academy, as you may recall, one
scholar had been working for eight years upon a project for extracting sunbeams out of cucumbers, which were
to be put into sealed vials and let out to warm the air in raw inclement summers. An ingenious architect had
contrived a new method for building houses by beginning at the roof and working downwards to the foundation.
In the school of languages, the professors were developing a scheme for entirely abolishing all words whatsoever;
and this was urged as a great advantage in point of health as well as brevity. In the school of political projectors,
Gulliver was dismayed at the impracticality of the ideas taught there -- for example, teaching ministers of state to
consult the public good, to reward merit and abilities, and to choose for employments persons qualified to
exercise them. Others were concerned with ways and means of raising money without grieving the subjects,
suggesting among others that there be taxed those qualities of body and mind for which men chiefly valued
themselves, the rate to be more or less according to the degrees of excelling, and the assessment left entirely to
their own breast. The highest tax was upon men who are the greatest favorites of the other sex, according to the
number and natures of favors they have received, for which they are allowed to be their own vouchers. Women
were proposed to be taxed according to their beauty and skill in dressing, to be determined by their own
judgment. Perhaps the government needs this kind of university assistance -- but I do not think so.
Thus I say the role of the university in government depends in part upon the kind of university we are talking
about. Secondly, however, it depends upon the kind of government we are talking about. Some Administrations
emphasize the practical over the intellectual. Men who have only met 8 o'clock classes are not regarded as highly
as men who have met 8 million dollar payrolls. The universities and the scholars are publicly ignored, although
even these empirical governments find it necessary to tap their resources at a distance. Edmund Wilson has thus
described the intellectual's fate as being like that of Philoctetes, the Greek warrior, who was forced to live in
isolation because of the stench of his wound, but whose comrades kept coming back to him because they needed
his magic bow.
What is needed then is a new understanding between universities and the government. Recently, for example, the
Foreign Service found that more than two out of three university graduates failed the language test in the Foreign
Service exam, and still others were frightened away from applying. The result was to diminish the ranks of men
and women of all-around ability available for the Foreign Service -- despite the fact that all Foreign Service
inductees required special language training in the Foreign Service Institute anyway! Closer rapport between the
universities and the government might have eliminated this problem years ago.
It is in this area of foreign affairs, it seams to me, where the universities can make their greatest contribution and
where the need for their assistance has continued to grow. When Thomas Jefferson named James Madison
Secretary of State, the entire State Department in Washington consisted of Madison, a chief clerk, seven other
clerks and a messenger boy. The Federal Government's total receipts were 13 million dollars and its total
expenditures 9 million dollars; and the Executive Branch employed 6,000 Civil Servants. The conduct of foreign
policy was largely a matter of personal advice and sometimes political maneuver. Personality disputes, conflicts
between the Legislative and Executive Branches, and extraneous issues characterized foreign policy debates in
that less complicated age even more than they do today. One hundred one years ago, for example, President John
Quincy Adams and his Secretary of State, Henry Clay, nominated envoys to a Congress of the American Nations
at Panama. The Senate debate on the issues of the Panama Conference gave way to personal abuse. And the most
personally abusive was the half-mad, half-genius Senator John Randolph whom President Adams privately called
with old fashioned courtesy "that physical, moral and intellectual fragment of a man, with his mind overspread
with stinking weeds." Randolph, on his part, in what is perhaps the most memorable and malignant sentence in
the history of personal abuse, denounced the aged mother of the Secretary of State for bringing into the world
"this being, so brilliant yet so corrupt, which, like a rotten mackerel by moonlight, shines and stinks." These are
words which I think might cheer the heart of John Foster Dulles.
But Secretary of State Henry Clay promptly challenged Randolph to a duel. Randolph hesitated at first believing
as all of us believe that Senators should never be called to account for anything ever said on the Senate floor.
Ultimately he accepted and thereafter occurred one of the strangest episodes in the relations between the State
Department and the Senate. The first shots missed. Clay's second shot succeeded only in piercing the Senator's
peculiar white wrapper while Randolph fired in the air. They met halfway and shook hands, Randolph saying
jocularly, "You owe me a coat, Mr. Clay;" and Clay replying gravely "I am glad the debt is no greater." I am
happy to say that most duels between Secretaries and Senators end equally bloodlessly.
Today, however, the conduct of our foreign policy has become too complex and too sensitive to be left to the
vicissitudes of personal jealousies and political struggles. And thus it is appropriate today that we call
increasingly upon our universities to assist us in the reexamination and reformulation of these policies. This year,
the major foreign policy issue before the Congress is the matter of our foreign aid program -- and I think it
highly significant that three of the major studies of this program conducted at the request of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee were conducted by three of the nation's leading universities -- Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Columbia and the University of Chicago.
Perhaps the most valuable contribution these studies made -- and it is the type of contribution a university can
frequently make better than any political group -- was to give us in Congress a better understanding of what we
are talking about when we refer loosely to foreign aid; and to help us realize that effective, long range economy in
foreign aid is a difficult and selective process.

Awards Dinner of the Overseas Press Club, New York
City, May 6, 1957
This is a transcript of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. Four drafts of the speech
exist in the Senate Speech files of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy
Library. In addition, the file contains a tearsheet from the Congressional Record, into which Senator John F.
Kennedy's speech was read shortly after he delivered it. The text below is based on that text. Links to page images
of the four drafts can be found at the bottom of this page.
It is a great pleasure to be with you tonight to join in the tributes justly paid to these outstanding award winners.
I gained a new appreciation for the lot of the foreign correspondent when the April issue of American Heritage
revealed that, in 1851, the New York Tribune under Horace Greeley employed as its London correspondent an
obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx. (Some of the copy he filed, it seems, was ghost-written by his friend
and patron, Friedrich Engels – but that practice no doubt is as thoroughly discredited today among overseas
correspondents as it is among practicing politicians.) In any event, we are told that foreign correspondent Marx,
stone-broke and with a family ill and under-nourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor
Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment – a salary which he and Engels
ungratefully labeled as “the lousiest petty-bourgeois cheating.” But when all his financial appeals were refused,
Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the
Tribune and devoting his talents full-time to the cause that would bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism,
Stalinism, revolution and cold war. If only this capitalist New York newspaper had treated him more kindly, if
only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have all been different, our taxes today might be
lower - and I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they received a poverty-stricken
appeal from abroad for a small increase in the expense account.
Perhaps it was the Tribune that made Marx an expert on capitalist exploitation – for he used to scream to Engels,
in language exceedingly inappropriate to the gentlemanly traditions of foreign correspondents, that this “lousy
rag”, as he called the Tribune, run by two “lousy bums” Greeley and Dana, was exploiting Engels and himself
like “paupers in a workhouse.” Only a communist would say that was privilege. But what would Karl Marx say
tonight about Communist Russia’s systematic exploitation of the satellite economies and workers like “paupers in
a workhouse”?
I want to refer particularly tonight to a classic example of Communist mismanagement, inefficiency and
exploitation – Poland. For there absentee Soviet centralization and nationalization resulted only in decreased
productivity, extensive raw materials shortages, both labor shortages and unemployment, and increasing waste
and obsolescence of machinery. The attempt to force a heavy industrialization and rearmament program too
rapidly upon an economy milked dry by Soviet demands resulted in drastic shortages of consumer goods and
housing, spiraling inflation and a raging black market. Without decent living standards, adequate housing or
fuel, and ravaged by tuberculosis and other diseases, the Polish people turned rumbling discontent into a violent
roar at Poznan, and finally last October insisted upon the new anti-Stalinist regime of Premier Gomulka.
It is, of course, still a Communist regime, still within the Soviet orbit, still patrolled by Red armies. The average
uninformed observer at a distance would conclude there had been little change – unless the shroud of secrecy was
lifted from official intelligence reports or the veneer of propaganda could be torn from the Communist
propaganda reports. But fortunately, in Poland and the other satellite countries, we do not need to rely on
uninformed observers at a distance, on unavailable government intelligence, or upon Communist propaganda.
We have in those countries trained, objective observers, working not for our government but for our newspapers,
filing not what the Communists tell them but what they see and hear on their own. Their reports are invaluable
to the informed public opinion our democracy needs – and it is unthinkable that we should not be able to get such
reports from inside Communist China.
But the dispatches filed from the Polish nation show significant changes beneath the Communist label. Terrorism
and thought control have diminished; public opinion, basically anti-Communist and always anti-Soviet, is
awakening; and a working agreement has been reached with the Polish Church under Cardinal Wyszynski.
Industry and agriculture have been increasingly decentralized and denationalized. Little over one week ago the
Polish Parliament approved a new budget and economic plan to reduce industrial expansion and raise living
standards. And perhaps most significant of all, the Polish Government has for the first time turned toward the
West for increased trade, for friendship, and for American credit and economic assistance – specifically for $200
million worth of our surplus wheat, cotton, corn, fats and oils, to be repaid in Polish currency; and $100 million
worth of credit at the Export-Import Bank, to be repaid in dollars, to buy coal, farm machinery and fertilizer.
And what kind of response did they meet from our State Department, whose Secretary boasted here not so long
ago of his desire to “advance the aims and aspirations of freedom-loving peoples” by a policy of “liberation” ?
They met doubt; they met delay; they met timidity and indecision. The welcome-mat was haltingly extended only
after 5 months had passed from the time the President pledged our aid to the new government – and longer than
2 more months passed before we neared agreement last week on less than one-third of their original request.
In part, of course, this hesitancy has been the result of divisions within the President’s party. Senate Minority
Leader Knowland has denounced all proposals for a Polish loan. He quotes the irritating anti-Western and pro-
Communist statements made by Mr. Gomulka whose prestige we would be raising. He warns that our aid will
simply strengthen the Communist bloc, relieve pressure on the Soviets, and divert to armaments those resources
now devoted to staving off Polish discontent. Others warn that extensive American aid to Red-occupied Poland
may serve only as a pretext for violent Soviet intervention, permanently crushing the Gomulka government and
completely wasting any American investment. Still others take a less valid and less sincere position – they favor
Polish aid, they say to voters who support it, but only if her government becomes truly independent, or joins an
anti-Russian alliance, or abandons national socialism; or they favor aid only if it is limited to surplus foods alone,
accompanied by teams of American observers to guarantee its delivery to needy Poles alone.
I do not say that there are no real risks in aiding the Gomulka government; but, speaking for myself, I do say
that risk for risk, dollar for dollar, we cannot fail to meet the Poles more than half-way. Apparently our latest
offer, though far below their needs and hopes, is acceptable to the Polish delegation. But should a Congressional
veto or further Administration haggling reduce this still further and turn them away nearly empty-handed, after
they have braved the Soviets’ wrath to come, then we will either be forcing a suffering nation into a fruitless
revolt – or forcing the Polish Government to again become hopelessly dependent on Moscow completely on
Moscow’s terms; encouraging the Polish Stalinists in their anti-Western propaganda; and very possibly causing
the collapse of the present, more independent government. Other satellites, we may be sure, are watching – and if
we fail to help the Poles, who else will dare stand up to the Russians and look westward?
If, on the other hand, we provide a dramatic, concrete demonstration of our sympathy and sincerity, we can
obtain an invaluable reservoir of goodwill among the Polish people, and strengthen their will to resist, and drive
still a further wedge between the Polish government and the Kremlin.
I know of no more critical issue facing our foreign policy-makers today. For success in Poland could have early
consequences in Czechoslovakia and East Germany, and then the whole Communist orbit – and the Soviets know
it. The so-called satellite nations constitute the Achilles heel of the Soviet empire, the tender spot within its coat of
iron armor, the potential source of an inflammation that could spread infectious independence throughout its
system, accomplishing from within what the West could never accomplish from without.
I call tonight therefore, and I shall devote my efforts on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for the
formulation of a new American policy toward the satellites. The basic laws governing our foreign economic
policies, such as the Battle Act and the Agricultural Surplus Disposal Act, recognize only two categories of
nations in the world: nations “under the domination or control” of the USSR or the world Communist movement
– and “friendly nations”. I suggest to you that there are more shades of gray than these black and white
definitions would indicate – that there are and will be nations such as Poland that may not yet be our allies or
even friendly, but which are at least beginning to move out from Soviet domination and control. I suggest that
these Acts be rewritten accordingly – that the policies based upon them be reformulated accordingly – and that
we match our brave words about “Liberation” with some bold and imaginative moves of our own.
We have had enough of anguish and despair and empty promises. It is time now to re-examine, to illuminate, and
then to act. In his book “One Man’s America,” Alistair Cooke tells the story which best illustrates my point. On
the 19th of May, 1780, as he describes it, in Hartford, Connecticut, the skies at noon turned from blue to gray and
by mid-afternoon had blackened over so densely that, in that religious age, men fell on their knees and begged a
final blessing before the end came. The Connecticut House of Representatives was in session. And as some men
fell down in the darkened chamber and others clamored for an immediate adjournment, the Speaker of the
House, one Colonel Davenport, came to his feet. And he silenced the din with these words: “The Day of Judgment
is either approaching or it is not. If it is not, there is no cause for adjournment. If it is, I choose to be found doing
my duty. I wish, therefore, that candles may be brought.”
Members of the Overseas Press Club, let those of us who are here tonight concerned with the dark and
despairing problems of the satellites ask once again that, to illuminate our way, candles may be brought.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Democratic

Club Meeting, May 11, 1957 ("Women on Wheels")
exists in the Senate file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. A
link to the page images is given at the bottom of this page.
. . . This is a most significant meeting in the history of the Democratic Party of Massachusetts - and I feel
privileged to take a part in it. For this meeting is providing us, in my opinion, with a glimpse into the future - into
what I hope is the important role women will play in the future affairs of the Democratic Party in this state and
all of the nation - and into the kind of organization and campaign and spirit and leadership which we in the
Democratic Party are going to require in the years to come. This organization recognizes that politics and
political campaigns are changing. The campaign plane has replaced the whistle-stop tour. The television spot has
replaced the street corner rally. The voters are better informed on the issues, less patient with long-winded
political speeches, and less likely to follow blindly party labels.
The need for, and the opportunity for, the participation of women such as yourselves in the political arena has
never been greater. We still need typists, stamp-lickers, envelope-stuffers, receptionists, drivers, baby sitters, and
poll watchers. We always shall - and many of you will always prefer that kind of task. But we need more than
that in the modern campaign. We need women who can explain the issues, who can detail the records of the
candidates, organize groups or meetings in their neighborhood or community, and, strange as it may sound, give
teas for candidates.
It is difficult, I know, to arouse the interest in politics of many potential women workers. Some think it is all a
dirty business; others are convinced that their own participation would be too limited to make any difference.
And yet let us remember that down through history the results which could be achieved by one woman have been
phenomenal - - whether that be Cleopatra, Joan of Arc, Anne Hutchinson, Dorothea Dix, Susan B. Anthony, Jane
Adams, or, not to forget the obvious example, Eve herself.
But fame is not what counts. In an election, it's votes that count. If in each precinct of Massachusetts in 1952, 10
women were too busy with their housework to go to the polls to support my candidacy, 10 others felt their votes
for me were not important enough, and 10 others who were for me forgot to register - then, because of those 30
women in each precinct, I would not have been elected to the Senate and perhaps would not be here before you
today.
Today, one woman, engaged in politics not for pay, not for a position, not for a price of any kind, but a woman
interested in politics because she is interested in the kind of country and world her children will grow up in - and
that one woman can accomplish more this day and age than ten professional politicians looking out primarily for
themselves.
And that is why I am, so delighted to be with you today. For you who are gathered at this meeting, like many
others whom I have met throughout this state and in the past year throughout the country, represent the new
breed of leadership and active membership which the Democratic Party desperately needs. Your vision, your
determination, you bring fresh vigor to our Party councils - you present a new face to our Party's friends - and
you have demonstrated here today a fresh spirit of enthusiasm to spread the Democratic gospel in every corner of
Massachusetts.
I am not opposed to those so-called professional politicians who are in reality men serving the machinery of their
party because they believe in the ideals of their party. Such a man is Pat Lynch, our able State Democratic
Chairman; and such are the men and women who serve with him as Vice-Chairman and members of the State
Democratic Committee. Pat Lynch, I know, would to the first to agree that even the best professional politician or
the most carefully oiled party machinery cannot do the job alone. The kind of program of continuing political
education of which this organization is capable, and of which you contemplate, can make the difference between
victory and defeat for the Democratic Party in the years to come.
I do not mean to say that I am pessimistic. I have every reason to believe that the Democrats will carry every
state office in the 1958 election. I have every reason to believe that the Democratic majority in the House and
Senate of the United States will be considerably increased by that election. And I have every reason to believe
that come 1960, with new faces, new issues, new ideas and a new approach, we will have victories from
courthouse to White House.
But such victories are not to be taken for granted. I am confident only because I see signs that the work which
will be necessary will be forthcoming. And this meeting today is one of the most hopeful signs yet. For in those
1958 and 1960 elections, women will once again hold the balance of power - and may well cast a majority of the
votes in the nation as a whole. And I am convinced that there are in Massachusetts, just as there are in every state
of the Union, thousands upon thousands of potential women voters whom you should reach - women who ere
fearful of their sons when the nation continually teeters on the brink of war - women who are angry at the
continued rise in the cost of living, in their bills for feeding a family and heating a house. The Republicans may
continually say that they are the party of peace and prosperity. But American women today know that they need
a safer, more sound, more secure peace than that which is based upon Republican dissension and vacillation at
the highest level. And they want a prosperity which brings wages to their husbands as well as profits to our
largest corporations, which brings increased work to our surplus labor areas and new opportunities for our small
businessmen. Women are not impressed with a prosperity that sends their children to overcrowded schools, that
sends their aged parents to overcrowded hospitals, and that forced millions of women to work in retail stores and
on other jobs not even guaranteed the national minimum wage of $1.00 an hour.
I would not want you to believe that active participation in politics is going to be something of a lark - that you
will be acclaimed on every street corner and meet success in every election, or that your days will be filled with
friendly sympathetic listeners and delightful teas and receptions. On the contrary, if you are to make any real
contribution at all, you will find yourself involved in hard, frequently unpleasant, perhaps even distasteful work.
You will meet rebuffs and resentment, cold shoulders and slammed doors. Your candidates and causes may lose
many times before they triumph.
But I would remind you of the courageous, determined spirit of the first crusading "clubwoman" Massachusetts
ever know. Today we honor her statue before the State House - but three centuries ago we cast her out into exile
and death. Today we pay tribute to her unflinching stand for religious liberty and toleration - but in 1638 she was
excommunicated from the Church, tried by the General Court and banished from her home. The fact that she
was a woman, leading and teaching other women, galled the elders of the Colony perhaps more than anything
else. Their opinion of women who meddled in such affairs was best revealed by Governor Winthrop's recording
in his diary of what happened to another woman, the wife of the Governor of Hartford, who lost her mind
according to Winthrop because "of giving herself wholly to reading and writing. For if she had attended to her
household affairs and such things as belong to women, and not gone out of her way and calling to meddle in such
things as are proper for men, whose minds are stronger, she would have kept her wits."
You who are here today, you who would "meddle in such things as are proper for men", are the heirs of Anne
Hutchinson - and it is her inspiration that can carry you forward. For you are engaged in noble work for a noble
cause - our party is in need of your highest talents and greatest efforts - and I am confident that with the spirit
you have displayed today success shall be ours in the years ahead.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Convocation of
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, May 18,
1957
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. One copy of the speech
Library. Links to page images of this speech are given at the bottom of this page.
I feel a great sense of privilege and responsibility in appearing in this State - for this is the home of a great United
States Senator of the past who has long been an inspiration to me and who consequently played a major role in
my book "Profiles in Courage". I refer, of course, to the late, great George W. Norris. It was in this city, and not
far from here, that Senator Norris made the determined speech described in my book, when he returned from
Washington to face an angry constituency which had heatedly attacked his filibuster against Woodrow Wilson's
armed ship bill just prior to World War I. As you may recall, he walked on the stage with what he later confessed
was fear and trembling, not disappointed by the lack of applause but heartened that there was no hissing and
booing. And in his homely, quiet and yet intense manner, he began with the simple phrase: "I have come home to
tell you the truth." That was a dramatic moment in the history of the Senate as well as in the history of
Nebraska; and I am honored to speak this morning in the same city and to spread a little truth of my own.
I am also delighted to be on this particular campus. I shall always be grateful to the University of Nebraska for
two of the graduates it produced --…White, Sorensen.
Many of you, I am afraid, have no interest in working in Washington or in any other political capacity. And I
would like to consider this question with you, particularly those of you who are now completing your last month
of college work. For you, the pleasures, the values and the friendships of college days are coming to an end - the
identical group sitting here this morning will probably never gather again - and the sands of time will gradually
erase most of the memories which seem so important today.
But what concerns us most on these occasions is not what you leave behind but what you take with you, what you
will do with it, what contribution you can make. I am assuming, of course, that you are taking something with
you, that you do not look upon this university as Dean Swift regarded Oxford. Oxford, he said, was truly a great
seat of learning; for all freshmen who entered were required to bring some learning with them in order to meet
the standards of admission - but no senior, when he left the university, ever took any learning away; and thus it
steadily accumulated.
The high regard with which your education at Nebraska is held is evidenced by the intensive competition which
rages between those hoping to benefit from it. Your campus is visited by prospective employers ranging from
corporation vice-presidents to professional football coaches. Great newspaper advertisements offer inducements
to chemists, engineers, and electronic specialists. High public officials plead for more college graduates to follow
scientific pursuits. And many of you will be particularly persuaded by the urgent summons to duty and travel
which comes from your local draft board.
But in the midst of all of these pleas, plans and pressures, few, I dare say, if any, will be urging upon you a career
in the field of politics. Some will point out the advantages of civil service positions. Others will talk in high terms
of public service and statesmanship. But few, if any, will urge you to become politicians.
Mothers may still want their favorite sons to grow up to be President, but, according to a famous Gallup poll of
some years ago, they do not want them to become politicians in the process. They may be statesmen, they may be
leaders of their community, they may be distinguished law-makers - but they must never be politicians.
Successful politicians, according to Walter Lippman, are "insecure and intimidated men," who "advance
politically only as they placate, appease, bribe, seduce, bamboozle, or otherwise manage to manipulate" the views
and votes of the people who elect them. It was considered a great joke years ago when the humorist Artemas
Ward declared: "I am not a politician, and my other habits are good also." And, in more recent times, even the
President of the United States, when asked at a news conference early in his first term how he liked "the game of
politics", replied with a frown that his questioner was using a derogatory phrase. Being President, he said, is a
"very fascinating experience…but the word 'politics'…I have no great liking for that."
Politics, in short, has become one of our most neglected, our most abused and our most ignored professions. It
ranks low on the occupational list of a large share of the population; and its chief practitioners are rarely well or
favorably known. No education, except finding your way around a smoke-filled room, is considered necessary for
political success. "Don't teach my boy poetry," a mother recently wrote the headmaster of Eton; "don't teach my
boy poetry, he's going to stand for Parliament." The worlds of politics and scholarship have indeed drifted apart.
Unfortunately, this disdain for the political profession is not only shared but intensified in our academic
institutions. To many universities and students we politicians represent nothing but censors, investigators and
perpetrators of what has been called the "swinish cult of anti-intellectualism". To others, we are corrupt, selfish,
unsavory individuals, manipulating votes and compromising principles for personal and partisan gain.
Teachers as well as students, moreover, find it difficult to accept the differences between the laboratory and the
legislature. In the former, the goal is truth, pure and simple, without regard to changing currents of public
opinion; in the latter, compromises and majorities and procedural customs and rights affect the ultimate decision
as to what is right or just or good. And even when they realize the difference, most intellectuals consider their
chief function to be that of the critic - and politicians are sensitive to critics (possible because we have so many of
them). "Many intellectuals," Sidney Hook has said, "would rather 'die' than agree with the majority, even on the
rare occasions when the majority is right". Of course, the intellectual's attitude is partly defensive - for he has
been regarded with so much suspicion and hostility by political figures and their constituents that a recent survey
of American intellectuals by a national magazine elicited from one of our foremost literary figures the guarded
response, "I ain't no intellectual."
But this mutual suspicion was not always the case - and I would ask those of you who look with disdain and
disfavor upon the possibilities of a political career to remember that our nation's first great politicians were
traditionally our ablest, most respected, most talented leaders, men who moved from one field to another with
amazing versatility and vitality. A contemporary described Thomas Jefferson as "A gentleman of 32, who could
calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice, try a cause, break a horse, dance a minuet,
and play the violin."
Daniel Webster could throw thunderbolts at Hayne on the Senate floor and then stroll a few steps down the
summarily dismissed from the Senate for a notable display of independence, could become Boylston Professor of
Rhetoric and Oratory at Harvard and then become a great Secretary of State. (Those were the happy days when
This versatility also existed on the frontier. Missouri's first Senator, Thomas Hart Benton, the man whose tavern
brawl with Jackson in Tennessee caused him to flee the state, was described with these words in his obituary:
"With a readiness that was often surprising, he could quote from a Roman Law or a Greek philosopher, from
Virgil's Georgics, The Arabian Nights, Herodotus or Sanchez Panza, from the Sacred Carpets, the German
reformers or Adam Smith; from Fenolon or Hudibras, from the financial reports of Necca or the doings of the
Council of Trent, from the debates on the adoption of the Constitution or intrigues of the kitchen cabinet or from
some forgotten speech of a deceased Member of Congress."
This link between American scholarship and the American politician remained for more than a century. A little
more than one hundred years ago, in the Presidential campaign of 1856, the Republicans sent three brilliant
orators around the campaign circuit: William Cullen Bryant, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and Ralph Waldo
Emerson. (Those were the carefree days when the "egg-heads" were all Republicans.)
I would urge therefore that each of you, regardless of your chosen occupation, consider entering the field of
politics at some stage in your career. It is not necessary that you be famous, that you effect radical changes in the
government or that you are acclaimed by the public for your efforts. It is not even necessary that you be
successful. I ask only that you offer to the political arena, and to the critical problems of our society which are
decided therein, the benefit of the talents which society has helped to develop in you. I ask only that you offer to
the political arena, and to the critical problems of our society which are decided therein, the benefit of the talents
which society has helped to develop in you. I ask you to decide, as Goethe put it, whether you will be an anvil - or
a hammer. The formal phases of the "anvil" stage are now complete for many of you, though hopefully you will
continue to absorb still more in the years ahead. The question now is whether you are to be a hammer - whether
you are to give to the world in which you were reared and educated the broadest possible benefits of that
education.
It is not enough to lend your talents to merely discussing the issues and deploring their solutions. Most scholars, I
know, would prefer to confine their attentions to the mysteries of pure scholarship or the delights or abstract
discourse. But "Would you have counted him a friend of Ancient Greece," as George William Curtis asked a
century ago during the Kansas-Nebraska Controversy, "who quietly discussed the theory of patriotism on that
Greek summer day through whose hopeless and immortal hours Leonidas and his three hundred stood at
Thermopylae for liberty? Was John Milton to conjugate Greek verbs in his library, or talk of the liberty of the
ancient Shunamites, when the liberty of Englishmen was imperiled?" No, the duty of the scholar - particularly in
a republic such as ours - is to contribute his objective views and his sense of liberty to the affairs of his state and
nation.
This is a great university, the University of Nebraska. Its establishment and continued functioning, like that of all
great universities, has required considerable effort and expenditure. I cannot believe that all of this was
undertaken merely to give the school's graduates an economic advantage in the life struggle. "A university," said
Professor Woodrow Wilson, "should be an organ of memory for the state for the transmission of its best
traditions. Every man sent out from a university should be a man of his nation, as well as a man of his time." And
Prince Bismarck was even more specific - one-third of the students of German universities, he once stated, broke
down from overwork; another third broke down from dissipation; and the other third ruled Germany. (I leave it
to each of you to decide which category you fall in.)
But if you are to be among the rulers of our land, from precinct captain to President, if you are willing to enter
the abused and neglected profession of politics, then let me tell you - as one who is familiar with the political
world - that we stand in serious need of the fruits of your education. We do not need political scholars whose
education has been so specialized as to exclude them from participation in current events - men like Lord John
Russell, of whom Queen Victoria once remarked that he would be a better man if he knew a third subject - but he
was interested in nothing but the Constitution of 1688 and himself. No, what we need are men who can ride easily
over broad fields of knowledge and recognize the mutual dependence of our two worlds.
I do not say that our political and public life should be turned over to college-trained experts who ignore public
opinion. Nor would I adopt from the Belgian Constitution of 1893 the provision giving three votes instead of one
to college graduates (at least not until more Democrats go to college). Nor would I give the University of
Nebraska a seat in the Congress as William and Mary was once represented in the Virginia House of Burgesses.
But I do urge the application of your talents to the public solution of the great problems of our time - increasing
farm foreclosures in the midst of national prosperity - record small business failures at a time of record profits -
pockets of chronic unemployment and sweatshop wages amidst the wonders of automation - monopoly, mental
illness, race relations, taxation, international trade, and, above all, the knotty complex problems of war and
peace, of untangling the strife-ridden, hate-ridden Middle East, of preventing man's destruction of man by
nuclear war or, even more awful to contemplate, by disabling through mutation generations yet unborn.
No, you do not lack problems or opportunities - you do not lack the ability or the energy; nor, I have tried to say,
do you lack the responsibility to act, no matter what you have heard about the profession of politics. Bear in
mind, as you leave this university and consider the road ahead, not the sneers of the cynics or the fears of the
purists, for whom politics will never be an attraction - but bear in mind instead these words which are inscribed
behind the Speaker's desk high on the Chamber Wall of the United States House of Representatives, inscribed for
all to see and all to ponder, these words of the most famous statesman my state ever sent to the Halls of Congress,
Daniel Webster:
remembered."
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Luncheon of

the New England Publishers Association, Boston,
Massachusetts, May 21, 1957
Library. This redaction is based on what we have designated as the second draft. Links to page images of the
drafts are included at the bottom of this page.
It is a genuine pleasure to be with you this noon to pay my respects to the publishers of New England, who I must
say have always treated me very generously in the so-called “one-party press”.
I gained a new appreciation of how important publishers are when I read in the April issue of American Heritage
that, in 1851, the New York Tribune and publisher Horace Greeley employed as their London correspondent an
obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx. Foreign correspondent Marx, it seems, stone-broke and with a
family ill and under-nourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an
increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment – a salary which he and his ghost-writing assistant and
patron, Friedrich Engels, ungratefully labeled as “the lousiest petty-bourgeois cheating.”
Indeed, it was apparently the Tribune that made Marx an expert on capitalist exploitation – for he used to
scream to Engels, in language exceedingly inappropriate to the gentlemanly traditions of the press, that this
“lousy rag”, as he called the Tribune, run by two “lousy bums” Greeley and Dana, was exploiting Engels and
himself like “paupers in a workhouse.” (Only a Communist would refer to publishers in those terms!) In any
event, when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame,
eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full-time to the cause that would
bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and cold war. If only this capitalist New York
newspaper had treated him more kindly, if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have
been different – our taxes today might be lower – and I hope all you publishers will bear this lesson in mind the
next time you receive a poverty-stricken appeal from Washington for a small increase in the expense account.
I can personally testify that your Washington correspondents and wire service representatives are hard working
men and women – and they have been caused some extra hard work and long hours by the subject which I want
to discuss with you briefly today, the Senate’s investigation of labor racketeering. Washington newsmen have, on
the whole, done an excellent job in covering those hearings; and your newspapers, along with those in other parts
of the country, have done an excellent job in presenting these revelations to the public in an understandable and
judicious fashion. Education of the public in these sometimes sordid and shocking matters is a joint undertaking
of our committee and the press – for we have uppermost in our minds the advice of Woodrow Wilson, when he
said: “The best thing that you can do with anything that is crooked is to lift it up to where all the people can see
that it is crooked – and then it will either straighten itself out or disappear.”
I shall return in a moment to the other responsibility or objective which the Congress has in this matter – that of
legislation. But before I do, I want to stress that the problem of labor racketeering is not one for the Federal
Government alone, or even primarily. The responsibility for cleaning up this deplorable situation is divided also
among union members, employers, local government and the general public.
Union members and honest union leaders have the most important responsibility of all. The internal operations of
their organizations are, and properly should be, a matter of concern primarily to them. They should write their
own regulations, they should do their own policing. But they cannot depend upon dishonest elements to police
themselves. It is not surprising that the Teamsters Union has thus far not seen fit to dispose of the President who
abused his position and misused union funds; it is not surprising that Mr. Beck, in turn, would not take action
against vice presidents Hoffa or Brewster, when they brought disrepute upon the union movement; nor is it
surprising that Mr. Brewster, in turn, failed to take action against those local officials in Portland and Seattle
who involved his union in criminal conspiracies.
Fortunately, the top leadership of the AFL-CIO has taken decisive action on this matter. An Ethical Practices
Code has been adopted which clearly prohibits unions and union officials from engaging in all the racketeering
practices uncovered by our Committee. The Executive Council, moreover, specifically requested all members and
leaders to cooperate with any properly constituted investigating body, and to answer all questions asked about
racketeering activities. The Executive Board recognizes, I believe, that many of these union officials under fire
are not legitimate union leaders who came up through the ranks but racketeers who moved in from the outside,
giving a bad name to millions of honest, loyal union members. I believe they recognize, therefore, that the current
investigation is not anti-labor, but pro-labor – isolating the hoodlum element which is preying upon the labor
movement and particular unions in it, and isolating that element in order to protect the good name and legitimate
activities of the overwhelming majority of union members.
Rank and file union members have a responsibility, too – to attend union meetings, to insist upon their rights, to
review carefully the use of union funds and to select carefully the leaders whom they will entrust with their
union’s good name and authority. Whenever those leaders, however powerful, fail to live up to that trust or fail to
cooperate with proper authorities, it is up to the labor movement itself to purge this undesirable element.
But let us realize that the rank and file are not wholly to blame – these mobsters do not gain control through
honest ballots. In the Teamsters Union, the management of one out of every eight locals has been taken out of the
control of the members under a so-called trusteeship system and placed in the hands of trustees appointed and
removed by Mr. Beck himself. Members of these locals have no opportunity to approve or disapprove of their
officers or of the way their money is spent. I know of no other union, I am glad to say, which has a significant
number of locals under trusteeship.
Employers, also, have a major responsibility if labor racketeering is to be cleaned up. For it is a shocking fact that
many employers, large and small, have collaborated in and benefited from labor racketeering practices, forcing
their competitors out of business, obtaining monopolies for themselves, fighting legitimate union organizations
and paying off racketeers in the process. Employer and business organizations ought to take prompt steps to
repudiate and clean out this element. Other employers are honest but timid – fearful of the labor trouble or
physical violence that may result if they refuse to yield to the threats of racketeers or agree to testify before
public authorities.
Perhaps most discouraging of all the testimony received by our committee in the past two weeks has been the
attitude toward Mr. Beck’s financial manipulations on the part of those from the management side of the table
who collaborated with him. Mr. Beck, president of the nation’s largest union, apparently lent one and one-half
million dollars in Teamsters dues to the president of the nation’s largest truck trailer manufacturer, to enable
him to win a proxy dispute. This manufacturer, in turn, collaborated with the nation’s largest truck operator to
give Mr. Beck a $200 thousand loan. Mr. Beck also used union funds to enable the nation’s largest merchandising
organization to win a proxy fight; and this organization in turn suddenly agreed to sign a union shop contract
with Mr. Beck. Mr. Nathan Shefferman, one of the largest management consultants in the country, was
repeatedly used as a cover by which union funds could be funneled for Mr. Beck’s personal use; and the largest
insurance handler of union welfare and pension funds, while making an exorbitant annual profit each year from
Mr. Beck’s union, was engaged in giving Mr. Beck personal loans of more than $300 thousand and other special
privileges. I do not say at this time that these businessmen, and others who appeared before our committee, were
guilty of illegal conduct; but I was deeply disturbed by their participation in and condonement of Mr. Beck’s
various manipulations. And when the nation’s largest business concerns and largest union are collaborating in
this way, it seems to me that the rights of the average businessman and the average union member are in
jeopardy.
Local government has an important responsibility, too. Labor racketeering thrives on weak, fearful, biased or,
worst of all, crooked local officials. It takes integrity to refuse a bribe; it takes intelligence to distinguish between
racketeering conspiracies and legitimate labor activities; and it takes courage to go after powerfully entrenched
racketeers – and there is no reason why these qualities should not abound in local offices. Conspiracy, violence,
fraud and similar crimes, moreover, are state and local offenses, not Federal. Yet it is true that no state can by
itself handle a problem that spills over many state boundaries; nor can a single state body expose that problem
for all the nation to see as well as a Congressional Committee equipped with the power of subpoena.
The Federal Government, therefore, does have a responsibility in many ways. Involved are violations of the anti-
trust laws; violations of the Taft-Hartley Act, which forbids several of these practices and prohibits union
officials from taking payments from employers; violations of the Hobbs Act, which makes it a felony for a union
leader to demand an extortionate payoff; and violations of the Internal Revenue Code on the part of labor
racketeers misusing union dues and welfare funds. These laws, I am confident, are presently being enforced; we
should not mistake the intentionally deliberate and quiet pace of the judicial process for an absence of effective
statutes.
The Congress, therefore, has no intention of being precipitated into unnecessary restrictive anti-union legislation,
which has no bearing on the specific type of racketeering practices which our committee has been uncovering.
Nevertheless, I am convinced that additional legislation in some areas may be necessary. Indeed, one of the most
surprising revelations to come out of the investigation of Mr. Beck’s financial misdeeds is the total lack of any
Federal legislation to cover situations of this sort, and to protect union members against such action in the future.
There is no Federal law to prohibit the embezzlement or misappropriation of union funds by union officials, to
prevent them from mixing union funds with their own money, or to require that union officials who handle great
sums be bonded.
There is no Federal law on unions, similar to the Act of 1940 applicable to investment companies, which prevents
officers from borrowing funds from the general treasury, selling their own property to the treasury of receiving a
cut in the profits (whether a kickback or a commission) from transactions they helped to arrange.
There is no Federal law for unions, similar to that governing stockholder corporations under the Securities Acts,
which permits the union or its members to recover into the treasury any personal profit which an officer made as
the result of abusing his official position.
There is no Federal law which would enable any agency of the Government to detect the mishandling of union
funds such as this committee has revealed. The financial reports filed under the Taft-Hartley Law should be
made public – but this alone would accomplish little or nothing, and would have prevented none of the misdeeds
discussed today. For those reports are completely inadequate and frequently inaccurate, containing no detail or
breakdown to reveal transactions such as these. They contain no listing (as the SEC asks of all registrant
corporations) of all transactions, past or proposed, in which the principal officer or his associates has any
interest. The accuracy of these reports is not subject to any check by the Labor Department or any independent
audit; they are not filed under oath; and no union is penalized for filing false information.
There is no Federal law to provide safeguards that might facilitate democratic control of unions by their
members, to give the members a voice in the direction of their welfare funds, to require the consent of the
members to any large or unusual expenditures of their dues, to prevent repeated abuses of the device of
trusteeship that eliminate local control altogether, or to protect workers arbitrarily excluded from membership
or penalized for objecting to questionable union policies.
Finally, there is no Federal law governing the operations of employee health and welfare funds, which provide
unlimited opportunities for graft, racketeering and abuses of every sort. These plans, whether operated by
unions, management or both, are not at the present time registered with any Federal agency or subject to any
kind of annual reports or audits. They are not required to meet any minimum standards or safeguards in terms
of the adequacy of their reserves, the existence of collusion or discrimination or their use by union officials for
personal gain. There is no requirement that commercial insurance carriers handling such plans be selected
through competitive bids solicited from a substantial number of reliable companies.
As Chairman of the Labor Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, I am at this
time announcing hearings to be held by our Subcommittee beginning this month on the matters which I have
mentioned. It is our intention to begin with a series of hearings on the complex questions relating to welfare and
pension plans, on which some legislation relating to their disclosure is presently pending before our
Subcommittee and on which I am planning to introduce additional regulatory legislation in the near future.
Thereafter, we shall hold hearings on the other aspects of union financial affairs which I have outlined.
But without intending in any way to slight the hard work and valuable results of the present Select Committee
investigation, I would say in all candor that it is much easier to investigate than to legislate. The registration and
regulation of welfare and pension plans, for example, raises a host of complex and sensitive problems. The total
reserves of pension funds in this country are somewhere in excess of 25 billion dollars. Their growth has been
phenomenal in the past 11 years – today employers are contributing nearly 5 billion dollars a year to such
programs and employees are contributing approximately half that amount. Their benefits to wage earners, the
sick, the aged and the disabled, and to the insurance and banking industries and to the securities and investments
markets, are unsurpassed. The SEC has reported that pension funds reserves alone are currently the largest
single source of equity capital.
Most of these plans are being administered responsibly and honestly – and our committee cannot lightly
undertake legislation which might damage this tremendous program. The abuses and irregularities of a few
union officials and a few insurance companies must not be used as a basis for harming the more than 75 million
people who are covered in some measure by employee welfare and pension programs.
Our task, therefore, promises to be a most difficult one; and we can well expect to be criticized by union,
management, insurance, banking and other representatives for our efforts. The public furor over the revelations
of our investigation may not be equaled by a demand for remedial legislation that is not pleasing to all. But that is
why, in the last analysis, that the general public has the greatest responsibility of all. For it is the public that pays
higher prices and higher taxes as the result of this racketeering but does little of nothing about it. It is the public
that tolerates corrupt, frightened or simply apathetic public officials; it is the public that shrugs off these sordid
tales as inevitable developments about which nothing can be done; and it is the American public, in the last
analysis, that is going to determine whether labor racketeering stays or falls.
It is up to the people in every state, in organizations such as your own, in positions of responsibility and
leadership such as you hold, to follow through to the end, until this scourge is eliminated from our society. I know
we can count on you to do your part – not for any glory or profit to yourselves, but for your state and your
country, for your families and your friends, for all we believe in and all we hold dear.

Dinner and Reception of the Democratic Party of Cook
County in Chicago, Illinois, May 23, 1957
Library. There are two drafts with identical typewritten words but different handwritten notations. One says
"Reading Copy" and therefore that text is presented here, but that choice is speculative and links to page images
of both drafts are given at the bottom of this page.
…This is a great occasion for Democrats nationally as well as locally, and I am proud to be with you. For Illinois
and Cook County represent one of the most important keys to a Democratic victory in the coming years. When
the pollsters said we could not win in 1948, Illinois and Cook County provided the margin of victory. When the
pessimists declared that we could not regain control of the Senate in 1954, Illinois and Cook County provided the
margin of victory. And thus I have no doubt that you will once again lead the victory march in 1957, 1958 and
1960.
This county is [?] with the [?] of political prophecies. But I am convinced, that no matter what the pollsters or the
pessimists or even the setbacks of last November may indicate, our party is strong, determined and our party is
going to win. We are going to win in Massachusetts and in Illinois - we are going to win in Boston and in Chicago
- we are going to win throughout the country.
I do not say it will be easy - we have to offer more than the old slogans and policies of the past, more than charges
against the Republicans we cannot prove, more than promises we cannot carry out. But the Democratic faith that
holds government to be the servant of the many and not the few still burns brightly.
The Republicans, of course, are confidently predicting victory for their party - and they say, with an eye on the
history books, that prosperity is on their side. But I ask you: prosperity for whom? Where is the prosperity for
our farmers, who have seen their prices and income go steadily down as their debts go steadily up? Where is the
prosperity for our small businessmen, who have seen their profits decline 52% while business failures jumped to
record highs? Where is the prosperity for our working men and women whose average earnings have increased
less than 1/6th as much as the increase in the profits of our largest corporations?
Every time President Eisenhower says this so-called prosperity is equally shared by all segments of our economy,
I am reminded of the rabbit stew served during the meatless days of World War II … etc….
In addition to problems of prosperity, the Republicans - in their recent series of conferences to determine coming
issues - found that their chief concern was with questions of disloyalty and subversion - not within the Federal
Government but within the Republican Party. Those Republicans in attendance at these meetings attacked the
Eisenhower budget; they criticized the Eisenhower foreign aid program; they condemned the Eisenhower school
bill; they expressed dissatisfaction with the Eisenhower farm program; and they attacked Modern
Republicanism in general. I even understand that following Mr. Eisenhower's address of two nights ago in
defense of his foreign aid budget, the Republicans demanded equal television time to reply.
At the close of one of those regional Republican conferences, National Chairman Alcorn declared: "It will come
as no surprise that there is a difference of opinion in the Republican Party." That statement ought to get a
Pulitzer Prize for fiction as the understatement of the year!
At all of these Republican meetings, the various speakers struggled manfully to define that unknown and
mysterious term "Modern Republicanism". There were already a good many definitions in existence. Republican
Representative Mason of your own state says "Essentially Ike's New Republicanism is a form of bribery, a
program to buy votes with the voters' own money." Senator Goldwater, Chairman of the Republican Senatorial
Campaign Committee, says Modern Republicanism stands for "persistent indulgences of proven extravagance"
and "a betrayal of the people's trust". Nebraska Republican A.L. Miller says a Modern Republican is a "free-
wheeling free-spender".
But the real clue was delivered by the new Republican National Chairman, Mr. Meade Alcorn. Modern
Republicanism, he said in a speech, could be described as "dynamic conservatism" - and that covered everyone
from William McKinley to Richard M. Nixon.
"I would like to see us (Republicans) develop," he went on to tell his Lincoln audience, "a greater pride in
partisanship - a feeling that anything Republican is good because it is Republican."
I only hope that the Democratic Party never becomes that "Modern." I trust that we shall always put our nation
first, that we shall defend the President not only against his enemies abroad but also against his friends at home,
and that we shall support the President whenever we think he is right - whether he is a Republican President in
1957 or a Democratic President in 1961.
Perhaps, to obtain a satisfactory definition of Modern Republicanism, we should ask ourselves: What is new and
different about the Republicans today? The first thing that comes to mind is Mr. Eisenhower's budget - the
highest peacetime budget in the history of our country, a budget with more Federal employees and more alphabet
agencies than Franklin Roosevelt ever dreamed of. Mr. Eisenhower's five budgets exceed the last five Democratic
budgets under Harry Truman by nearly 74 billion dollars, enough to run the whole Federal Government for an
entire year even under a Republican Administration.
New Republicanism is breaking some other records, too. The cost of living is at an all time high, so high that it
will cost the American people nearly 7 billion dollars more just to live through 1957 than it did in 1955. There are
more monopolistic business mergers than ever before, more small business failures and bankruptcies under
Modern Republicanism. There are more children going to school part-time, more farms being foreclosed, more
national resources being given away under this Modern Republican Administration - like man's wife asking for
money, money, etc….
The only real way to determine whether the Republican leopard has really changed his spots is to look at the
record - and on the whole, the Republican record hasn't changed much in twenty-five years. In fact, if you
measure the President's actual record against his speeches and philosophy, there's some doubt as to whether Mr.
Eisenhower himself is an Eisenhower Republican. Most members of his party are still just as negative as the 95
year old Republican … etc….
More will be accomplished, I can assure you, during the present Democratic Congress - new legislation to bring
prosperity and opportunity to businessmen, farmers, workers, teachers, and all the people. We will take action to
protect the rights of labor - including, let me emphasize, the protection of those rights and labor's good name
from the racketeering, profiteering practices of [?] and wrongdoers who are preying upon the labor movement as
a whole for their own personal gain. I can assure you that in this sense the investigation of the Special Senate
Committee on labor racketeering is pro-labor, not anti-labor; and to the extent that legislation is recommended
by the Senate Labor Subcommittee of which I am Chairman, it will be in the interest of the millions of honest
trade union members.
Up to this point I have not commented tonight on the Republican record in foreign affairs.
The great difficult I have in criticizing the Eisenhower foreign policy is that it has all been said before - by
Republicans. I do not agree with all of these attacks - I have often defended the President not only against his
enemies abroad but also against his friends at home. But it is difficult and dangerous for this nation, the leader of
the free world, to attempt to carry on a foreign policy when the party of the Administration is continually being
undermined from within.
This bitter dissension in high places may make it easier for us as Democrats - but it poses sobering dangers for us
as Americans. For these are times too perilous for factional confusion, too complex for easy solutions. The nation
and the world cry out for leadership in Washington - courageous, determined, imaginative leadership that will
not be easily deterred or misled.
Permit me to mention one critical issue where division and dissension within the Republican Party have
contributed to dangerous indecision and delay. I refer to the Administration's attitude with respect to assistance
for Poland. Here was an opportunity to dispose of 200 million dollars' worth of our agricultural surpluses
without cost to the taxpayers [?]. Here was an opportunity to drive a wedge between the Soviet Union and her
satellites without the use of troops. Here was an opportunity to demonstrate to all the enslaved peoples behind the
Iron Curtain that we have not forgotten their hopes, their needs, their historic aspirations.
And yet this unprecedented opportunity has been so badly missed by our foreign policy makers that it may now
be too late to obtain its maximum benefits. For it was last October when the new, more independent Polish
Government, emerging defiant from the riots at Poznan and elsewhere, turned for the first time to the West for
friendship, economic assistance and particularly credit. Mr. Eisenhower, in the middle of a political campaign
here at home, made bold declarations about America's willingness to give assistance. But five months passed
before the welcome-mat was haltingly extended to a Polish delegation - and nearly another three months passed
before our Government was reported to have agreed on less than one-third of their original request. Even now,
the negotiations continue to drag out; the impact of what might have been a dramatic offer of assistance has been
all but lost; and the goodwill we might have built among the Polish people and their neighbors has been all but
frittered away.
The chief reason for the doubt, the delay, the failure to match bold words about "liberation" with bold deeds, is
the sharp division within the President's own party. Several Republican meetings have opposed all assistance to
Poland. Senate Minority Leader Knowland has denounced all proposals for a Polish loan, restating his objections
and the risks involved here in Chicago less than a week ago.
I also realize that there are risks involved. I realize that Poland is still within the Soviet orbit, still patrolled by
Red Armies and still the source of irritating anti-Western statements. I realize that there is a danger that our aid
will simply strengthen the Communist bloc, relieve pressure on the Soviets, and divert to armaments those
resources now devoted to staving off Polish discontent.
But how, I ask you, after all our bold words and promises, can we turn the Polish delegation now in Washington
away nearly empty-handed, after they have braved the Soviets' wrath to come? We will either be forcing a
suffering nation into another fruitless revolt - as in Hungary, which we will not help - or we will be forcing the
Polish people to again become hopelessly dependent on Moscow. Very possibly we will be causing the collapse of
the present, more independent government - the new government which since last October's rioting has reduced
terrorism and thought control, decentralized and denationalized industry and agriculture, and turned for the
first time to the West for trade, friendship and credit.
If we fail to help the Poles, who else will dare stand up to the Russians and look westward? If, on the other hand,
we provide a dramatic, concrete demonstration of our sympathy and sincerity, we can obtain an invaluable
reservoir of goodwill among the Polish People, strengthen their will to resist, drive still a further wedge between
the Polish Government and the Kremlin, and encourage similar moves by the Czechs, the Lithuanians, the
Germans and others. For the satellite nations of Eastern Europe represent the one area in the world where the
Soviet Union is on the defensive today. The Communists have scored gains in the Far East, in the Middle East
and in Africa - but they are having trouble on their own border and they know it. The question is whether we
know it and whether we are going to do anything about it.
Unfortunately legislation now on the books divides the world into two categories - those under Soviet domination
and those friendly to the United States. But what these laws do not recognize is that countries like Poland can be
moving out from under Soviet control but do not dare to be pro-Western yet - that people like the citizens of
Lithuania and Czechoslovakia and East Germany can hate their masters in the Kremlin with a passion, but are
still not able to demonstrate to the Free World their basic friendship for us. I only hope that the Administration's
indecision will not cause us to fail this important opportunity in Poland today. And I hope that the Democratic
Party, unafraid of complex and controversial problems, will take an active lead on this issue.
For the Democratic Party, on this or any other issue, must not place popularity or convenience ahead of
principle. The Democratic Party, in its quest for votes, must not become a pale imitation of the Republicans,
blurring the issues or trimming our sails. Rather, the Democratic Party must move ahead with the same spirit of
foresight and progress and imagination that has moved us in the past.
I would rather see us abide by the spirit of a man who a century ago was a Senator from Illinois whom the
Republicans drove out of office, an Abraham Lincoln Republican who was ousted from his party by those who
traded on Lincoln's name - Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois. When the Senate was asked to convict President
Andrew Johnson after the Civil War of charges brought against him under impeachment, Trumbull was one of
those seven Republicans from whom the radical Republicans needed the one vote to oust the President. A
Republican Convention in Chicago said that any senator of their party who voted "not guilty" would be
dishonored; and a Republican leader warned Trumbull that if he voted against their wishes his constituents here
in Chicago might "hang him to the most convenient lamppost." But Lyman Trumbull, convinced that the issues
was one of Constitutional checks and balances, refused to be swayed by popular emotions and prejudices - and
these are the words he left for us to recall tonight:
"At the hazard of the ties even of friendship and affection, til calmer times shall do justice to my motives, no
alternative is left me by the inflexible discharge of duty."
Lyman Trumbull was never [?] and eventually he joined the Democratic Party and supported William Jennings
Bryant.
We need throughout the country today the courageous and determined spirit of Lyman Trumbull - and I believe
that the Democratic Party is best equipped to provide that kind of spirit and leadership. For we, too, have
learned that calmer times do justice to our motives - and that all those who heaped abuse and ridicule and
slander upon our programs and policies a generation ago now recognize their inherent value to the nation.
So long as there is one child without milk, so long as there is one family without a decent home, so long as there
are aged persons without pensions, working mothers without fair wages, struggling farmers without income, so
long as there are overcrowded schools, inadequate hospitals and families on relief, so long will the need for the
Democratic Party continue - and so long will we be called upon to assume the responsibilities of leadership.
I do not pretend to say that the future will always be easy, even under a Democratic administration. But only the
Democratic Party has the enthusiasm and the determination and the new ideas necessary to meet those problems.
We can build the schools and the hospitals and the homes that our nation needs. We can wage unrelentless war
against drought and poverty and illiteracy and illness and economic insecurity. We can build, through strength
and justice and realistic leadership, a lasting peace. And we can go forward to a new and better America, never
satisfied with things as they are, daring always to try the new, daring nobly and doing greatly. It is in this spirit
that we meet here tonight. It is in this spirit that we will sweep the nation in 1958 and 1960.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Syracuse

University in Syracuse, New York, June 3, 1957
This is a redaction of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. Three drafts of the speech
Library. There is no way of knowing which, if any, of the drafts best represents the speech as delivered. Two of the
drafts have been heavily edited by unknown hands. The third draft apparently represents the speech before these
edits. We have based our redaction on this draft to avoid interpretive ambiguities. Links to page images of the three
drafts are given at the bottom of this page.
Anyone who is interested in the history of the United States Senate always feels a great sense of privilege and
responsibility in coming to this state and to this part of the state. For New York has had a long parade of
unusually distinguished men who served their nation in the Chamber of the Senate - and one of these of whom I
am particularly reminded today was a very distinguished member of the opposite party - Elihu Root. His father
was the second principal in the history of the Syracuse Academy - and Root himself was always fond of upstate
New York. Perhaps one of the most dramatic moments of his life came in Utica in 1906 when as Secretary of
State he agreed to speak for his party in this state. The opposition had imported a gang of hecklers to make his
speech impossible. Having secured copies of his address in advance, they had instructions to start interruptions
on particular lines - shouting, for example, on the first reference to the late President McKinley, "Let McKinley
rest in peace," with the others roaring their approval. Unfortunately for the hecklers, the meeting was packed
with Root admirers and Hamilton College students; and the first one who started to interrupt was pushed in the
face, and the rest were bodily threatened. Finally, when a great roar arose from the crowd to throw out one
heckler, Root raised his right hand to quell the uproar, and in a powerful voice cried out: "No, let him stay - and
learn!
I trust that all of you will stay - I can only speculate as to how much you will learn - but I will welcome any
heckling at the close of these ceremonies. I hope the example of Elihu Root will be an inspiration to all of those
whom we honor on this solemn day of Commencement. For them, the pleasures, the values and the friendships of
college days are coming to an end - the identical group sitting here this morning will probably never gather again
- and the sands of time will gradually erase most of the memories which seem so important today.
But what concerns us most on these occasions is not what you graduates leave behind but what you take with you,
what you will do with it, what contribution you can make. I am assuming, of course, that you are taking
something with you, that you do not look upon this university as Dean Swift regarded Oxford. Oxford, he said,
was truly a great seat of learning; for all freshmen who entered were required to bring some learning with them
in order to meet the standards of admission - but no senior, when he left the university, ever took any learning
away; and thus it steadily accumulated.
The high regard with which your education at Syracuse is held is evidenced by the intensive competition which
rages between those hoping to benefit from it. Your campus is visited by prospective employers ranging from
corporation vice-presidents to professional football coaches. Great newspaper advertisements offer inducements
to chemists, engineers, and electronic specialists. High public officials plead for more college graduates to follow
scientific pursuits. And many of you will be particularly persuaded by the urgent summons to duty and travel
which comes from your local draft board.
But in the midst of all of these pleas, plans and pressures, few, I dare say, if any, will be urging upon you a career
in the field of politics. Some will point out the advantages of civil service positions. Others will talk in high terns
of public service, or statesmanship, or community leadership. But few, if any, will urge you to become politicians.
Mothers may still want their favorite sons to grow up to be President, but, according to a famous Gallup poll of
some years ago, they do not want them to become politicians in the process. They may be statesmen, they may be
leaders of their community, they may be distinguished lawyers - but they must never be politicians. Successful
politicians, according to Walter Lippmann, are "insecure and intimidated men," who "advance politically only
as they placate, appease, bribe, seduce, bamboozle, or otherwise manage to manipulate" the views and votes of
the people who elect them. It was considered a great joke years ago when the humorist
Artemus Ward declared: "I am not a politician, and my other habits are good also." And, in more recent times,
even the President of the United States, when asked at a news conference early in his first term how he liked "the
game of politics", replied with a frown that his questioner was using a derogatory phrase. Being president, he
said, is a "very fascinating experience . . . but the word 'politics' . . . I have no great liking for that."
Politics, in short, has become one of our most neglected, our most abused and our most ignored professions. It
ranks low on the occupational list of a large share of the population; and its chief practitioners are rarely well or
favorably known. No education, except finding your way around a smoke-filled room, is considered necessary for
political success."Don't teach my boy poetry," a mother recently wrote the headmaster of Eton; "don't teach my
boy poetry, he's going to stand for Parliament." The worlds of politics and scholarship have indeed drifted apart.
Unfortunately, this disdain for the political profession is not only shared but intensified in our academic
institutions. To many universities and students we politicians represent nothing but censors, investigators and
perpetrators of what has been called the "swinish cult of anti-intellectualism". To others, we are corrupt, selfish,
unsavory individuals, manipulating votes and compromising principles for personal and partisan gain.
Teachers as well as students, moreover, find it difficult to accept the differences between the laboratory and the
legislature. In the former, the goal is truth, pure and simple, without regard to changing currents of public
opinion; in the latter, compromises and majorities and procedural customs and rights affect the ultimate decision
as to what is right or just or good. And even when they realize the difference, most intellectuals consider their
chief function to be that of the critic - and politicians are sensitive to critics (possibly because we have so many of
them)."Many intellectuals," Sidney Hook has said, "would rather 'die' than agree with the majority, when on the
rare occasions when the majority is right." Of course, the intellectual's attitude is partly defensive - for he has
'been regarded with so much suspicion and hostility by political figures and their constituents that a recent
survey of American intellectuals by a national magazine elicited from one of our foremost literary figures the
guarded response, "I ain't no intellectual."
But this mutual suspicion was not always the case - and I would ask those of you who look with disdain and
disfavor upon the possibilities of a political career to remember that our nation's first great politicians were
traditionally our ablest, most respected, most talented leaders, men who moved from one field to another with
amazing versatility and vitality. A contemporary described Thomas Jefferson as "A gentleman of 32, who could
calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice, try a cause, break a horse, dance a minuet,
Daniel Webster could throw thunderbolts at Hayne on the Senate Floor and then stroll a few steps down the
summarily dismissed from the Senate for a notable display of independence, could become Boylston Professor of
Rhetoric and Oratory at Harvard and then become a great Secretary of State. (Those were the happy days when
This versatility also existed on the frontier. Missouri's first Senator, Thomas Hart Benton, the man whose tavern
brawl with Jackson in Tennessee caused him to flee the state, was described with these words in his obituary:
"With a readiness that was often surprising, he could quote from a Roman Law or a Greek philosopher, from
Virgil's Georgics, The Arabian Nights, Herodotus or Sanchez Panza, from the Sacred Carpets, the German
reformers or Adam Smith; from Fenolon or Hudibras, from the financial reports of Mecca or the doings of the
Council of Trent, from the debates on the adoption of the Constitution or intrigues of the kitchen cabinet or from
some forgotten speech of a deceased Member of Congress."
This link between American scholarship and the American politician remained for more than a century. A little
more than one hundred years ago, in the Presidential campaign of 1856, the Republicans sent three brilliant
orators around the campaign circuit: William Cullen Bryant, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and Ralph Waldo
Emerson. (Those were the carefree days when the "egg-heads" were all Republicans.)
I would urge therefore that each of you, regardless of your chosen occupation, consider entering the field of
politics at some stage in your career. It is not necessary that you be famous, that you effect radical changes in the
government or that you are acclaimed by the public for your efforts. It is not even necessary that you be
successful. I ask only that you offer to the political arena, and to the critical problems of our society which are
decided therein, the benefit of the talents which society has helped to develop in you. I ask you to decide, as
Goethe put it, whether you will be an anvil - or a hammer. The formal phases of the "anvil" stage are now
completed for many of you, though hopefully you will continue to absorb still more in the years ahead. The
question now is whether you are to be a hammer - whether you are to give to the world in which you were reared
and educated the broadest possible benefits of that education.
It is not enough to lead your talents to merely discussing the issues and deploring their solutions. Most scholars, I
know, would prefer to confine their attentions to the mysteries of pure scholarship or the delights of abstract
discourse. But "Would you have counted him a friend of Ancient Greece," as George William Curtis asked a
century ago during the Kansas-Nebraska Controversy, "who quietly discussed the theory ofpatriotism on that
ancient Shunamites, when the liberty of Englishmen was imperiled?" No, the duty of the scholar - particularly in
a republic such as ours - is to contribute his objective views and his sense of liberty to the affairs of his state and
nation.
This is a great university, the University of Syracuse. Its establishment and continued functioning, like that of all
great universities, has required considerable effort and expenditure. I cannot believe that all of this was
undertaken merely to give the school's graduates an economic advantage in the life struggle. "A university," said
Professor Woodrow Wilson, "should be an organ of memory for the state for the transmission of its best
traditions. Every man sent out from a university should be a man of his nation, as well as a man of his time." And
Prince Bismarck was even more specific - one-third of the students of German universities, he once stated, broke
down from overwork; another third broke down from dissipation; and the other third ruled Germany. (I leave it
to each of you to decide which category you fall in.)
But if you are to be among the rulers of our land, from precinct captain to President, if you are willing to enter
the abused and neglected profession of politics, then let me tell you - as one who is familiar with the political
world - that we stand in serious need of the fruits of your education. We do not need political scholars whose
education has been so specialized as to exclude them from participation in current events - men like Lord John
Russell, of whom Queen Victoria once remarked that he could be a better man if he knew a third subject - but he
was interested in nothing but the Constitution of 1688 and himself. No, what we need are men who can ride easily
over broad fields of knowledge and recognize the mutual dependence of our two worlds.
I do not say that our political and public life should be turned over to college-trained experts who ignore public
opinion. Nor would I adopt from the Belgian Constitution of 1893 the provision giving three votes instead of one
to college graduates (at least not until more Democrats go to college). Nor would I give the University of Syracuse
a seat in the Congress as William and Mary was once represented in the Virginia House of Burgesses.
But I do urge the application of your talents to the public solution of the great problems of our time - increasing
farm foreclosures in the midst of national prosperity - record small business failures at a time of record profits -
pockets of chronic unemployment and sweatshop wages amidst the wonders of automation - monopoly, mental
illness, race relations, taxation, international trade, and, above all, the knotty complex problems of war and
peace, of untangling the strife-ridden, hate-ridden Middle East, of preventing man's destruction of man by
nuclear war or even more awful to contemplate, by disabling through mutations generations yet unborn.
No, you do not lack problems or opportunities - you do not lack the ability or the energy; nor I have tried to say,
do you lack the responsibility to act, no matter what you have heard about the profession of politics. Bear in
mind, as you leave this university and consider the road ahead, not the sneers of the cynics or the fears of the
purists, for whom politics will never be an attraction -but bear in mind instead these words which are inscribed
behind the Speaker's desk high on the Chamber Wall of the United States House of Representatives, inscribed for
all to see and all to ponder, these words of the most famous statesman my state ever sent to the Halls of Congress,
Daniel Webster:
remembered."
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the
Southeastern Peanut Association in Atlanta, Georgia,
June 10, 1957
This is a redaction of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. One obviously incomplete
draft of the speech exists in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the
John F. Kennedy Library. A link to page images of the draft are given at the bottom of this page.
I am delighted to have this very brief opportunity to meet with the members of the Southeastern Peanut
Association, and to extend my best wishes for the success of your meetings. Some of you may wonder what a
"city-boy" from Massachusetts is doing at this meeting, and what he could possibly say that would be of interest
to you. So let me say that I did not come here to tell you or teach you anything - I came here to learn. I am in
Georgia to deliver the Commencement Address at the first state university in the country, and one of the greatest
- and my old colleague in the House Steve Pace was kind enough to ask me to drop down to your meeting. I have
enjoyed talking with him and with your officers about the problems you face - and I can assure you that I will
give sympathetic attention to those problems when I go back to Washington.
Georgia and Massachusetts are not as far apart on the problems of the farmer as some would have you believe -
and, if I may be permitted a slightly partisan note, this is particularly true of the Democrats of Massachusetts
and Georgia. In the votes on the Farm Bill last year, I voted with your distinguished Senior Senator, Richard
Russell, one of the greatest spokesmen the farmers of this nation ever had, in supporting an amendment to give
small farmers, with commodity loans of less then $5,000 a year, support at the 90% of parity level. I supported
Senator Russell's own amendment to limit the amount of price support going to any one farmer, to make certain
that this assistance went where it was really needed; and we both supported an amendment to increase the relief
given farmers hard-hit by drought or other natural disaster, an amendment to assure a fair price for all
supported commodities, and an amendment which set aside recent surpluses in fixing the support price on basic
commodities to bring it close to 90%.
I repeat all of this not in order to claim may special credit for myself but because I have found many people to be
surprised at how really united we are on farm policy. Our unity is not so much a matter of formula as it is a
matter of principle and approach. Nearly all of us agree that agriculture needs protection from violent
downswings in farm prices - and that that protection is not provided by the empty reassurances of the Secretary
of Agriculture. Nearly all of us agree that farmers should not be discriminated against in favor of other segments
of the economy - and that farm families ought to be regarded as the backbone of our economy and our way of
life, not simply as votes to be purchased around election time with soil banks and special programs.
I will be frank with you - I'm a city boy who has never plowed a furrow. I do not pretend to be an expert on all
the problems of agriculture and I suppose some of my constituents are opposed to letting their tax dollars aid
Southern peanut farmers. But I will say this: When a serious decline in farm income takes millions of dollars out
of the pockets of your farmers and your towns, not only here in Georgia but all over the country, that is not just a
local. problem - that is a national problem. It should not be of concern only to Georgia, it should be of concern to
Massachusetts. For we can sell you tools and watches only when you have the farm income to pay for them. We
can share in on expanding national economy only when it is not held back by declining income in your region.
And we can get an administration in Washington sympathetic to our hard-hit areas of labor surplus only when
you get one concerned about your problems of farm surplus.
Just as no town here in Georgia can go on indefinitely without the farmer being prosperous, neither can any state
in the United States go on indefinitely without our farm states being prosperous. Massachusetts and Georgia may
from time to time have different needs and different interests - but when a man's livelihood and way of life are at
stake, those differences must be set aside.
I have also learned in talking to farmers in various parts of the country that they are interested in more than the
issue of crop price supports. One farmer told me that he doesn't know what or how much to plant each year until
he's gone to the county library to read up on world conditions, the domestic economy, consumer trends, the U.S.
census and the latest predictions of Ezra Taft Benson. Farmers necessarily are concerned with research that will
help their crops, electric power that will lighten their burdens and highways, schools and hospitals that will make
their part of the country a better place in which to live and work. They are concerned about developing markets
abroad and reducing freight rates at home. But more than this, despite what some of the experts say, I have
found that farmers have the same feelings and the same concerns that all citizens do. They are interested in a
secure nation in a peaceful world, in the cost of the goods their families buy, in the cost of their government in
Washington and the kind of government they are getting. In the last analysis, the peanut farmer of Georgia and
the mill worker in Massachusetts are much more alike in their interests and in their needs, and much more
dependent upon each other, than either of them usually realizes. . . .
Robert Frost . . . [...]
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the American

Relief for Poland Dinner in Detroit, Michigan, June 13,
1957
Library. A link to page images is given at the bottom of this page.
It is a great pleasure for me to be with you on the occasion of this impressive salute to the American Relief for
Poland Drive. The effort to which you have dedicated yourselves is the highest and noblest cause in man's
relationship with man -- the cause of spreading human mercy and goodwill, of relieving human suffering and
misery, and, perhaps most important of all, of reminding those captive peoples abroad who fight the hard and
lonely battles against tyranny and starvation that there is still someone who cares.
Perhaps there are among you those who think it strange that an American of Irish descent is occupying this
platform tonight, and joining with you in leading the cause of Polish independence. But this is not the first time
that the sons of Ireland and the sons of Poland have joined hands in the eternal struggle for liberty. A generation
or more ago, Americans of Polish and Irish descent were instrumental in bringing assistance and eventual
deliverance to the homelands of both peoples. And long before that, both nations sent the bravest and ablest of
their sons to fight for the achievement of liberty in other lands when it could not be achieved at home.
Particularly famous in Ireland were the so-called "Wild Geese" -- the officers and soldiers forced to flee their
native Ireland after the Battle of the Boyne. Fighting for the French, they broke the ranks of the English at
Fontenoy. Fighting for the Spanish, they turned the tide of battle against the Germans at Melazzo. And fighting
for the American Union Army, they bore the brunt of the slaughter at Fredericksburg.
"War-battered dogs are we, (they said)
gnawing a naked bone;
Fighters in every land and clime -
(for) every cause but our own."
Equally noted were the sons of Poland who fought for the spirit of independence in all parts of the world, and
particularly in this country. Among their number were those who saved the first English-speaking settlement at
Jamestown, Virginia, he who saved George Washington from British capture at Brandywine, he who founded
both our American artillery units and our West Point Military Academy and he who was the first Union officer
to the in the Civil War.
No, Ireland and Poland, the Irish and the Poles, the Irish-American and the Polish-American, are not strangers
when it comes to joining hands in the eternal quest for freedom -- and I am honored that you have asked me to be
with you here tonight.
We have much for which to be grateful this evening, many developments we can view with satisfaction and hope.
Our Government has agreed to provide a $95 million loan to the present Polish Government; the Gomulka
Government in turn has agreed to permit resumption of relief activities by CARE and by your own organization,
the American Relief for Poland; and it has further agreed to reduce or eliminate the unjustly high customs duties
now being charged on gift parcels sent to Polish families from this country. Perhaps most important of all, the
Gomulka Government is still managing to walk the tightrope between a popular revolt on the one hand and a
return to total Soviet domination on the other; while in the meantime the progress within Poland away from
terrorism, thought control, nationalized industries and farms and Soviet control continues to inch ahead
cautiously.
For all of this -- though we would like much more -- we can be grateful and we can take hope. We can rejoice,
too, at the success of this tremendous fund drive you commemorate tonight. But, in the midst of this rejoicing, I
offer this warning: let us not rest on our oars. Let us not think the battle is won, that we can go home and forget
about it, that all is well and we can turn our attention to other things. For the battle has not been won -- it has
just begun.
Certainly the battle has just begun in Washington, despite last week's announcement of the new agreement. For
this agreement itself, it should be realized, has been both delayed and limited by the Eisenhower Administration's
failure to face squarely the crying need for a new American policy toward a nation in Poland's situation.
Let us consider, for example, the legal basis of the new agreement as I understand it. In order for American
surplus cotton and wheat to be sent to Poland as a part of this loan, it was necessary for Secretary of State Dulles
to make the highly arguable finding that Poland is not "dominated or controlled" by the U.S.S.R. and is a
"friendly nation" -- a finding which was vulnerable on its face to criticism and ridicule from the opponents of
Polish aid. In order for the rest of the loan to go through, the Administration resorted to still another legal
artifice to get around the Battle Act, by transferring to the Export-Import Bank for loan purposes money from
the presumably unrestricted President's Foreign Aid Emergency Fund -- an action which brought with it a $30
million limitation on the amount going to any one country.
How much better it would have been to have faced up to the issue squarely, to have placed the problem before the
Congress and to have requested new legislation and new funds with which to meet effectively one of the most
crucial challenges to our foreign policy since World War II. The Administration may, by resort to these artificial
though self-defeating devices, have avoided for a time the responsibility of thrashing this problem out with the
Congress and its own party.
But the issue cannot be long postponed. The existing agreement may need additional legislative implementation --
a new and more adequate Polish loan is a must for the near future -- and now even the existing agreement, for all
its inadequacies, is imperilled by the threat of Senator Knowland to block it through an appropriations bill rider.
These issues, in short, have not been rendered moot by the. agreement signed last week -- on the contrary, they
are just beginning to present themselves as among the most urgent foreign policy issues flow before the Congress.
It is up to those of us who recognize the need for a new, enlightened Congressional policy toward Poland -- and
any other nation that in the future is encouraged to occupy the same precarious position between East and West
-- those of us who want our nation to make the most of these opportunities to put the Russians on the defensive --
it is up to us to gird now for the battle that is to come.
For the opposition to such a policy, within the administration and its party, and in the nation generally, is strong
and vociferous.
-- There are the faint-hearted and the super-cautious, who oppose any bold new program seizing the initiative
away from the Soviet Union, who are fearful that our action may accomplish nothing or invite Soviet retaliation,
or who shy away from controversial issues for fear of criticism from their constituents. The administration itself
has been regrettably slow in pressing this matter, failing to exert any real leadership to secure the necessary
legislation or public approval, and the Vice-President of the United States, so often a spokesman on key foreign
policy issues, failed to say one word in favor of aid to Poland until after the agreement had already been signed. If
this timidity and vacillation clad characterized the workers who rioted at Poznan, just one year ago this month,
at the start of an international fair, there would have been no insurrection in October, no new, more independent
regime, no turning to the West for trade and aid, and no new trade fair opening at Poznan again this month, this
time with exhibits from the United States and a personal visit by my outstanding colleague in the House, Thad
Machrowicz. Surely we can risk our financial credit for those who risked their lives on behalf of independence.
-- There are, in addition, those who refuse to look beyond the Communist label, those who like Senator Knowland
point out quite accurately that Poland- is still a Communist regime, still within the Soviet orbit, still patrolled by
Red armies, and still a one-party nation, that one party being the Communist Party. They point to the anti-
Western and pro-Communist statements made by present Polish leaders, and their pro-Soviet votes in the U. N.
These opponents of Polish aid insist that no assistance of any kind be granted until the Poles are living in a free
democratic society, under an economic system of free competitive enterprise, and under a government allied with
the West in the struggle against the Soviet Union. It would be easier for all of us to favor aid with those kinds of
strings attached -- but that is in reality favoring no aid at all.
I would remind these critics that dispatches filed from the tense nation of Poland show significant changes
beneath the Communist label. Terrorism and thought control have diminished; public opinion, basically anti-
Communist and always anti-Soviet, is awakening; and a working agreement has been reached with the Polish
Catholic Church under Cardinal Wyszynski. Industry and agriculture have been increasingly decentralized and
denationalized. Little over one month ago the Polish Parliament approved a new budget and economic plan to
reduce industrial expansion and raise living standards. The Polish press has exercised at least a somewhat
greater degree of freedom than it had since the Iron Curtain rang down on the nation in what seems like ages
ago. And I would remind these critics further that the most significant development of all has been the Gomulka
Government's willingness to turn for the first time toward the West for increased trade, for friendship, and for
credit and economic assistance. Of course, Poland still is a Communist regime, still is within the Soviet orbit, still
is patrolled by Red armies. The brave people of Poland are still, in effect, in a prison, however more tolerable
their jail or jailers may have become. But are we to ignore their needs because they cannot escape? Have we
forgotten the words -- I was
"Naked, and you covered me:
Sick, and you visited me:
I was in prison, and you came to me."
I do not say that there are no real risks in aiding the Gomulka Government. There are real risks; risks that our
aid will simply strengthen the Communist bloc, relieve pressure on the Soviets, and divert to armaments those
resources now devoted to staving off Polish discontent -- but, speaking for myself, I do say that risk for risk,
dollar for dollar, we cannot fail to meet this opportunity and this challenge. Any other course will either be
forcing a suffering nation into a fruitless revolt -- or forcing the Polish Government to again become hopelessly
dependent on Moscow completely on Moscow's terms; encouraging the Polish Stalinists in their anti-Western
propaganda; and very possibly causing the collapse of the present, more independent government. Other
satellites, we may be sure, are watching -and if we fail to help the Poles, who else will dare stand up to the
Russians and look westward?
If, on the other hand, we provide a dramatic, concrete demonstration of our sympathy and sincerity, we can
obtain an invaluable reservoir of goodwill among the Polish people, strengthen their will to resist, and drive still a
further wedge between the Polish government and the Kremlin. For the satellite nations of Eastern Europe
represent the one area in the world where the Soviet Union is on the defensive today. The Communists have
scored gains in the Far East, in the Middle East and in Africa -- but they are having trouble in their own back
yard and they know it. The question is whether we know it and whether we are going to do anything about it.
But the battle is not confined to programs for loans and economic aid alone. We must continue every other effort
to give hope and encouragement, and to keep alive the spirit of liberty, within the borders of Communist Poland
and in the hearts of the anti-Communist Polish people. We dare not take for granted their continued
determination to keep that spirit alive, we dare not forget about their struggle to do so.
I realize that the people of Poland -- because of their religious convictions and strong patriotic spirit, because of
their historical hatred of the Russians -- are perhaps better equipped than any people on earth to withstand the
present period of persecution, just as their forefathers withstood successive invasions and partitions from the
Germans and the Austrians and the Russians for centuries before them, and just as theirs was the only country
occupied by Hitler that did not produce a quisling.
But time works against the brave people of Poland. It is upon the youth who have no recollection of a free Poland
that the Communists concentrate their attention. Given control over education, given control over all the means
of communication, given at least an indirect limitation on the traditional influence of the Church, given all the
weapons of a modern police state and given time to consolidate their gains, the Communists feel that they can
remake Poland and the Polish people.
If the Poles come to feel that we in the West have forgotten them, that we are willing to reach a permanent
agreement with the Russians that does not provide for a free Poland, that we with all of our advantages and
wealth care little about their problems, then their courageous struggle to preserve the spirit of independence may
cease.
And thus I hope that you who are gathered here tonight, and millions like you throughout this country and the
free world, will continue to keep the cause of a free Poland uppermost in your hearts and minds. We must press
on for improved loan agreements, new economic aid legislation and continued voluntary relief. We must reaffirm
our stand against genocide, and revamp our official attitude toward Polish emigrants and escapees. We must
demonstrate to the imprisoned people of Poland that we who live in freedom have not forgotten them. -- and that
we trust they will not forget what it means to be free.
Let us offer to them, not empty promises or reckless objectives or hopeless demands, but encouragement and
hope and friendship. If I may recall once again the Irish struggle for independence, let us speak to the people of
Poland with the words of Sir Roger Casement, the English battler for Irish independence who addressed the
British jury which had sentenced him to hang for high treason in 1914 with these words:
"When all your rights," said Sir Roger, "become only an accumulated wrong; when men must beg with bated
breath for leave to subsist in their own land, to think their own thoughts, to sing their own songs -- then surely it
is a braver, a saner and a truer thing to be a rebel in act and in deed. Gentlemen of the Jury: Ireland has outlived
the failure of all her hopes -- and yet she still hopes. And this faculty -- of preserving through centuries of misery
the remembrance of lost liberty -- this surely is the noblest cause men ever strove for, ever lived for, ever died for.
If this be the cause for which I stand indicted here today, then I stand in a goodly company and in a right noble
succession."
That is our message, ladies and gentlemen, that is our task. Let us not fail its fulfillment. Let us not fail those
whose hopes hang upon us. Let us instead remember the words of General Dabrowski`s Mazurka:
"Poland has not perished yet "Jeszcze Polska nie zginela
While we are still alive." kiedy my zyjemy."
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Milton

Seminary Benefactor's Day, September 1, 1957
I am deeply honored by the opportunity to be with you on this occasion of such importance to the Columban
Fathers, to join with you in paying tribute to their inspiring work and to share with you the pleasure of observing
the program just completed. Although the unusually long session of the Congress, and the necessity of a heavy
schedule of commitments later in the Fall, had earlier persuaded me to reserve this time for a brief period of
relaxation with my family. I felt upon receiving Father McGrath's very gracious invitation of less than a month
ago that I could not turn him down. I say this for many reasons. I knew that this annual Benefactor's Day and
festival were events of considerable importance to Milton, to Massachusetts and to New England, as well as to the
Fathers themselves; and I wanted to assist in anyway I could. I wanted also to demonstrate again my deeply felt
respect and admiration for those who have dedicated themselves to the work of the Saint Columban's Foreign
Mission Society. And finally, if I may inject a still more personal note, I wanted to repay a debt long owed to the
Christian Missionary movement.
As many of you know, in August, 1943, the PT boat I commanded was rammed and cut in two while attacking a
Japanese destroyer. A week later, all survivors - some badly hurt - were living on the thin edge of existence on a
narrow Pacific reef, drinking rain water, eating a few raw coconuts, freezing at night and wondering, how it all
would end.
On the seventh day we saw our first signs of human life - an islander offshore in a small canoe. Somewhat
fearfully he approached us. He spoke no English, gave little sign of understanding. Carving out a message of our
approximate position on a green coconut shell, we repeated over and over the name of our base - Rendova -
Rendova - and pointed east. Then he disappeared over the water and we wondered whether we could expect help
from one who seems so different from us.
One day later a large war canoe arrived - seemingly out of nowhere - loaded with islanders. They built us a
shelter; they made us our first fire; they gave us food. Then they took me to another island, occupied by a New
Zealander "coast watcher" in a small jungle camp. He told me that our friend had come by, informed him of our
troubles, arranged for assistance and left the same evening to row many miles to our home base at Rendova.
Next day a PT boat came to pick us up - and there in the stern stood our first benefactor. He rode silently back to
Rendova with us, smilingly shook hands with each of us as we got off the boat, then disappeared as silently as he
had come - back into the jungles and inlets of the Solomon's.
We came from the powerful United States, he from a jungle home in the islands - from a different race, a
different culture, a different stage of civilization, and speaking a different language. And yet, as the result (we
later learned) of the good work of the Christian Missionaries, that native and many of those who joined him in
our rescue were willing to save the lives of total strangers at a great risk to their own. They had learned well the
teachings which the Columbian Fathers have helped to spread around the world - teachings on the brotherhood
of all men under God, on the help to be given one's neighbor, on the love to be shown even to strangers. I think
you can understand why I felt impelled to be here today to pay tribute to that government.
The Columban Fathers, in far flung parts of the world - of the Far East, South East Asia, the Pacific, and Latin
America - are, with your help, carrying on this work at great sacrifice to themselves. They fight against
materialism, ignorance, selfishness, poverty, hunger, disease, despair and the twisted axioms of Marxism on
many a lonely battle front that is never mentioned in the headlines. They have withstood imprisonment and
hardship of every kind in order to devote their energies and lives to the great fundamental concepts in which we
all believe. The Seminary here in Milton serves as a wellspring from which Columban Fathers everywhere - and,
indeed, all of us - may gather direction and inspiration. In these difficult times, when great nations clash in the
battle for power and for the minds of men, the Milton Seminary of the Columban Fathers stands as a bulwark in
the battle for the preservation of Christian civilization.
I say this not because I believe Christianity is a weapon in the present world struggle, but because I believe
religion itself is at the root of the struggle - not in terms of the physical organizations of Christianity versus those
of Atheism, but in terms of good versus evil, right versus wrong, in terms of "the stern encounter" of which
Cardinal Newman so prophetically wrote:
"Then will come the stern encounter when two real and living principles, simple, entire, and consistent, one in the
church and the other out of it, at length rush upon one another contending not for names and words or half
views, but for elementary notions and distinctive moral characteristics."
conflict has been going on for 2,000 years. The issues, the slogans, the battle flags, the battlefields and the
personalities have been different. But basically it has been the same encounter of opposing principles, a struggle
more comprehensive, more deep-rooted and even more violent than the political and military battles which go on
today.
It is easy to envision the struggle as being wholly physical - of men and arms - of stockpiles, strategic materials
and nuclear weapons - of air bases and bombers, of industrial potential and military achievements. This is the
material struggle, and the central problem here is to be equal to the sacrifices necessary for ultimate survival and
victory. But of far deeper significance is "the stern encounter," the very nearly silent struggle, with no din to be
heard in the streets of the world, and with weapons far more subtle and far more damaging than cannons and
shells. The encounter of which I speak makes no more noise than the inner process of disintegration which over a
period of several hundred years may hollow from within some great tree of the forest, until it is left standing an
empty shell, the easy victim of a winter gale.
We can barely hear the stern encounter, and thus too often we forget it. Our minds, like the headlines of our
newspapers, are intent upon the present and future conflicts of armed might, and upon the brutal, physical side
of that ominous war upon which we have bestowed the strange epithet "cold". We tend to forget the moral and
spiritual issues which inhere in the fateful encounter of which the physical war is but one manifestation. We tend
to forget those ideals and faiths and philosophical needs which drive men far more intensely than military and
economic objectives.
This is not to say that we have overlooked religion. Too often we have utilized it as a weapon, broadcast it as
propaganda, shouted it as a battle cry. But in "the stern encounter", in the moral struggle, religion is not simply
a weapon - it is the essence of the struggle itself. The Communist rulers do not fear the phraseology of religion, or
the ceremonies and churches and denominational organizations. On the contrary, they leave no stone unturned in
seeking to turn these aspects of religion to their own advantage, and to use the trappings of religion in order to
cement the obedience of their own people. What they fear is the profound consequences of a religion that is lived,
not merely acknowledged. They fear especially man's response to stimuli which are spiritual and ethical, not
merely material. A society which seeks to make the worship of the State the ultimate objective of life cannot
permit a higher loyalty, a faith in God, a belief in a religion that elevates the individual, acknowledges his true
value and teaches him devotion and responsibility to something beyond the here and the now. The Communists
fear Christianity more as a way of life than as a weapon. In short, there is room in a totalitarian system for
churches - but there is no room for God. The claim of the State must be total, and no other loyalty, no other
philosophy of life, can be tolerated.
Is this not simply an indication of the weakness of the Communist position? If the ultimate struggle is indeed a
moral encounter, then are we not certain of eventual victory?
At first glance it might seem inevitable that in a struggle where the issue is the supremacy of the moral order, we
must be victorious. That it is not inevitable is due to the steady attrition in our faith and belief, a disease from
which we in the West are suffering heavily. The Communists have substituted dialectical materialism for faith in
God; we on our part have too often substituted cynicism, indifference and secularism. We have too often
permitted the Communists to choose the ground for the struggle. We point with pride to the great outpourings of
our factories and assume
we have therefore proved the superiority of our system. We forget that the essence of the struggle is not material,
but spiritual and ethical. We forget that the purpose of life is the future and not the present.
This emphasis on the material shows itself in many elements of our political life. Too often, in our foreign policy,
in order to compete with the power doctrines of the Communists, we ourselves practice what Jacques Maritain
has called "moderate machiavellianism". But as Maritain pointed out, in the final showdown this pale and
attenuated version "is inevitably destined to be vanquished by absolute and virulent machiavellianism" as
practiced by the Communists.
We cannot separate our lives into compartments, either as individuals or as a nation. We cannot, on the one
hand, run with the tide, and on the other, hold fast to our principles and ideals.
Here at Milton we can understand better that Christianity is a way of life, not a means to an end; that eternal
truths and the problems of this world cannot be kept separate. Those who study here know this to be true; and it
is the responsibility of us all, as well as our opportunity - by our works and by our example - to stimulate a
revival of our religious faith, to renew the battle against weary indifference and inertia, against the washing away
of our religious, ethical and cultural foundations.
If our nation will recognize the spiritual and moral element of "the stern encounter" - if it will direct our policies
to emphasize this phase of the struggle - if we will refuse those compromises which have cost us so heavily - which
have blurred the nature of the encounter between our enemies and ourselves - then we shall find out way easier,
and our success more certain.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Teachers'

Association Convention in Swampscott, Massachusetts,
October 9, 1957
I am deeply honored to be with you today on this occasion of such importance to the future of your profession,
your state and your nation. I come to you today as a refugee from a public school known as the United States
Senate. There the course of instruction is often difficult, the recesses all too rare and the recitation so lengthy that
the entire class is frequently kept after school. There are, moreover, two major difficulties to this school on
Capitol Hill: first, it is not always possible to tell the teachers from the students; and, secondly, while many
mothers are clamoring to have their children admitted to the school, no student ever wants to graduate.
But however important a role the Senate may play in our national life, I think I can say without resorting to
exaggeration that I feel privileged to be here today before one of the most influential gatherings in the country.
Your influence is not in bombs or national fame; nor is it dependent upon political parties, pressure groups or
sheer force of numbers. But the fact remains that you and your associates in the teaching profession will in the
long run have more to say about the future of this country and the world than any of these - not on the battlefield,
not in the council room, but in the classroom. The people of America have entrusted into your hands the future
leaders of this nation, the most powerful nation on earth - and the way in which you fulfill this trust, in the
guidance and direction which you give to America's youth, will have a more profound effect, on our national
future than perhaps any decision we may make in the Senate.
All of you are familiar with the motto credited to Francis Bacon, but actually traceable back to ancient
scriptures, that reads: "Knowledge is power - Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est." No doubt that slogan has
appeared on many a school or teachers' college bulletin board. But now this truism is truer than ever before, a
statement that sums up volumes of prose about the cold war. Which nation has the scientific personnel and know-
how to develop the first so-called "clean" atomic bomb for tactical use - the first earth satellite - the first
intercontinental ballistic missile? How long will the West retain its lead in productivity and living standards - to
what extent can it export to its less wealthy friends the capital, the technical assistance, the skills and other
knowledge they need? The answers to these questions over the long run are in your hands. We no longer
complacently believe that the educational and scientific capabilities of this country cannot be duplicated
elsewhere. We recognize that the race for advantage in the Cold War is not only a competition of armaments,
production, ideology, propaganda and diplomacy but a race of education and research as well.
The advantages which will enable the United States to win this race, however, whether they take the form of
better proximity fuses or the new hybrid seed corns which recently won us friends behind the Iron Curtain will
not instantly spring up in the hour they are required. There is a lag of from five to ten years between the results
of fundamental research and the practical application of those results; before that research takes place, several
years of training and experience are required; and even before that, the mind of the future scientist must be
properly molded and stimulated by his elementary and secondary school teachers.
In short, our position in the world and our hopes for survival ten, twenty or thirty years from now depend in
large measure upon the kind of education which you in the teaching profession are able to offer your pupils
today.
But we need something more than a nation of scientists and technicians - something more than an arsenal of
super-weapons and ingenious inventions. We must have men and women capable of leading the "free world", of
taking the hard and unpopular decisions necessary to preserve world peace and national security. In our concern
over the education of more scientists and engineers for the future America, we dare not neglect its politicians.
I realize that most Americans, including educators, are not accustomed to thinking of politicians as educated
men. We may be experienced, or cynical, or skillful, or shrewd or even fluent - but no more education is required
for this kind of success than learning how to find one's way around a smoke-filled room. Successful politicians,
according to Walter Lippmans are "insecure and intimidated men," who "advance politically only as they
placate, appease, bribe, seduce, bamboozle, or otherwise manage to manipulate" the views and votes of the
people who elect them. It was considered a great joke years ago when the humorist Artemas Ward declared: "I
am not a politician, and my other habits are also good." And, in more recent times, even the President of the
United States, when asked at a news conference early in his first term how he liked "the game of politics," replied
with a frown that his questioner was using a "derogatory" phrase. Being President, he said, is "a very fascinating
experience . . . but the word 'politics' . . . I have no great liking for that."
But under our form of government , rule by the majority, we must put our ultimate faith in ordinary men, not
machines or experts. In the words of Thomas Jefferson: "If we think them not enlightened enough to exercise
their control with a wholesome discretion, (then) the remedy is not to take it from them - but to inform their
discretion by education."
"To inform their discretion by education" - that is your task, and the task of every teacher in every city and
village in America. The students of today who may discourage you, harass you, and hopefully sometimes cheer
you include the leaders and diplomats of tomorrow. Prince Bismarck once said that one-third of the students in
Germany broke down from dissipation; one-third broke down from overwork; but the other third ruled
Germany.. (I leave it to each of you to decide which third becomes teachers.)
But in this country there can be no doubt that our educated and thinking citizens must of necessity be among the
rulers of our land. The only question is what kind of education they need and will receive. Permit me to offer a
few suggestions from my vantage point in the political arena.
First, I would emphasize that we need not an over-concentration upon civic and political affairs, but the
development of a broad range of talents. We do not need men like Lord John Russell, of whom Queen Victoria
once said that he would be a better man If he knew a third subject - but
he was interested in nothing but the Constitution of 1688 and himself. We do not need the kind of political
education once described by Lord Bryce as "sufficient to enable them to think they know something about the
great problems of politics, but insufficient to show them how little they know." We need instead men ideally with
the education of Thomas Jefferson, described by a contemporary as "A gentleman of 32, who could calculate an
eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice, try a cause, break a horse, dance a minuet, and play the
violin." We need men like Daniel Webster, who could throw thunderbolts at Hayne on the Senate floor and then
stroll a few steps down the corridor and dominate the Supreme Court as the foremost lawyer of his time; like
John Quincy Adams, who, after being summarily dismissed from the Senate for a notable display of
independence, could become Boylston Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory at Harvard and then become a great
Secretary of State. (Those were the happy days when Harvard professors had no difficulty getting Senate
confirmation.) We need men like Missouri's first Senator, Thomas Hart Benton, the man whose tavern brawl
with Jackson in Tennessee caused him to flee the state, and yet whose education was described with these words
in his obituary: "With a readiness that was often surprising he could quote from a Roman Law or a Greek
philosopher, from Virgil's Georgics, The Arabian Nights, Herodotus or Sancho Panza, from the Sacred Carpets,
the German reformers or Adam Smith; from Fenolon or Hudibras, from the financial reports of Mecca or the
doings of the Council of Trent, from the debates on the adoption of the Constitution or intrigues of the kitchen
cabinet or from some forgotten speech of a deceased Member of Congress."
Secondly, I would emphasize that we need scholarship fitted for practical action, for something more than merely
discussing political issues and deploring their solutions with learned phrases. For, as George William Curtis
asked a similar body of educators a century ago, in urging
their interest in the Kansas-Nebraska controversy: "Would you have counted him a friend of ancient Greece who
quietly discussed the theory of patriotism on that Greek summer day through whose hopeless and immortal
hours Leonidas and his three hundred stood at Thermopylae for liberty? Was John Milton to conjugate Greek
verbs in his library, or talk of the liberty of the ancient Shunamites, when the liberty of Englishmen was
imperiled?"
It is not enough, therefore, that our schools merely be great centers of learning, without concerning themselves
with the uses to which that learning is put in the years that follow graduation. Indeed, care must be taken to see
that it is not all left behind upon graduation! Dean Swift, you know, always said that Oxford was truly a seat of
great learning; for all freshmen who entered were required to bring some learning with them in order to meet the
standards of admission - but no senior, when he left the University, ever took any learning away, and thus it
Third, I would emphasize the importance, in teaching students about public affairs, of avoiding the confusion of
political idealism with political fantasy or rigidity. We need idealism in our public life - we need young men and
women who will stand for the right regardless of their personal ambitions or welfare. But let us not permit them
to carry that idealism to the point of fantasy - to the point where any compromise or concession is regarded as
immoral. For politics and legislation are not matters for inflexible principles or unattainable ideals. Politics, as
John Moreley has acutely observed, "is a field where action is one long second best, and where the choice
constantly lies between two blunders;" and legislation, under the democratic way of life and the Federal system
of Government, requires compromise between the desires of each individual and group and those around them.
Henry Clay, who should have know, said compromise was the cement that held the Union together:
"All legislation...is founded upon the principle of mutual concession…. Let him who elevates himself above
humanity, above its weaknesses, its infirmities, its wants, its necessities, say, if he pleases, 'I never will
compromise;' but let no one who is not above the frailties of our common nature disdain compromise."
Some of my colleagues who are criticized today for lack of forthright principles - or who are locked upon with
scornful eyes as compromising "politicians" - are simply engaged in the fine art of conciliating, balancing and
interpreting the forces and factions of public opinion, an art essential to keeping our nation united and enabling
our Government to function. Their consciences may in one sense direct them from time to time to take a more
rigid stand for principle - but their intellects tell them that a fair or poor bill is better than no bill at all, and that
only through the give-and-take of compromise will any bill receive the successive approval of the Senate, the
House, the President and the nation.
I have posed to you today the challenge that confronts the educational system of America - the challenge of world
leadership or world weakness, of success or failure in the Cold War years to come, the challenge of survival or
extinction. The question remains as to whether our educational system today is capable of meeting this challenge
- or whether a shortage of teachers, a shortage of classrooms, a shortage of money and a consequent lack of high
quality education will not in the 1ong run prove to be the undoing of our nation.
That public education is in a state of crisis today is well known. There is less agreement on the cause and on the
cure. I can only hope that those who recognize the urgent need of improving public education in this country will
not exhaust their efforts in looking for a scapegoat, but will join in attacking the problem at its very roots.The
responsibility for ending this crisis, in my opinion, must be shared at three levels - Federal, State and local.
First, the Federal government, which has far greater as well as more effective means for raising public revenues,
has an unavoidable responsibility to enact promptly a bold and imaginative program of Federal assistance to the
States and local school districts for the construction of public schools, leaving all direction of academic content
and standards, of course, in local hands. Our teachers cannot be expected to fulfill their critical responsibilities
when nearly a million boys and girls are deprived by the classroom shortage of full-time schooling, when millions
more are held back in unwieldy classes of forty or more. We need this year additional classrooms to meet the
requirements of about nine million more pupils than we presently have adequate room for in our elementary and
secondary schools. The valiant efforts of State and local authorities, which spent over two and one-half billion
dollars in school construction during the last school year, must be supplemented by Federal action to meet this
nation-wide problem.
But more and better classrooms are not enough. More and better teachers are also needed, better trained, better
paid, better utilized. Here the State and local authorities share responsibility. Our State governments must
provide better teachers' colleges, attracting the best students and
providing the best education. All of you are familiar with States with too many teachers' colleges which are, as a
result, too small, too poorly financed and staffed, and too ill-equipped in terms of physical plant, libraries,
laboratories and other facilities.
Authorities on the State level could also take steps to improve teacher certification, re-examining outmoded
statutory requirements, maintaining and gradually elevating minimum standards, and providing for those who
pass a sense of accomplishment and prestige comparable to those who pass the examinations necessary for
admission to the legal and medical professions.
Finally, a large measure of responsibility for improving the quality of teaching in our schools rests with our local
school board and school administrators. Not as a United States Senator, but as an interested citizen, I would
respectfully suggest that present methods for recruiting teachers might be re-examined - to attract the best
students, to select the best graduates, to compete in the labor market with the expertly developed recruitment
methods of American business. Although the figure is too staggering to comprehend fully, the fact is that our
schools must recruit during the next three years alone almost three-quarters of a million new teachers, more than
our entire school system contained only a short time ago.
Once teachers are recruited and hired, more can be done to improve the methods of teacher promotion. We must
find better means for providing better rewards for our better teachers; we must make actual use of probationary
periods to retain only those with satisfactory performance records; and we must demonstrate concretely to young
beginners in the field that real opportunities for advancement await those whose contribution is of the highest
caliber.
More can be done, also, in terms of better teacher utilization - removing dull and burdensome administrative
details and paperwork that might better be done by electronic computers or parent volunteers.
And finally, and perhaps most important, school boards, school patrons and all of our citizens must cooperate in
the effort to achieve better teachers' salaries. No profession of such importance in the United States today is so
poorly paid. No other occupational group in the country is asked to do so much for so little. No amount of new
classrooms, television, training and recruitment techniques can attract and retain good teachers as long as their
salaries are beneath the responsibility and dignity of their position. We pay the average railway conductor far
more than we pay the teacher who conducts our elementary classes. Plumbers, plasterers and steamfitters are
paid more for improving our homes than we pay teachers for improving the minds of our children.
Help from the Federal level for more and better classrooms - help from the State level for better teachers'
colleges and better teacher certification, help from the local level for better teacher recruitment, better teacher
promotions better teacher utilization and better teacher salaries - those are the goals toward which must move all
those who recognize that in your hands lies the fate of the nation.
"Knowledge is power," said Francis Bacon; it is also light. In the dark and despairing days ahead, our youth
shall need all the light the teaching profession can bring to bear upon the future.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Teachers'

Association Convention, Baltimore, Maryland, October
10, 1957
exists in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential papers here at the John F. Kennedy
Library. A link to page images of the speech is given at the bottom of this page. (Please note, this is one of two
speeches that John F. Kennedy gave this day).
I am deeply honored that you have asked me to meet with you today on this occasion of such importance to the
future of your profession, your State and your nation. I come to you today as a refugee from a very exclusive
public school known as the United States Senate. There the course of instruction is often difficult, the recesses all
too rare and the recitation so lengthy that the entire class is frequently kept after school. There are, moreover,
two major difficulties to this school on Capitol Hill: first, it is not always possible to tell the teachers from the
students; and, secondly, while many mothers are clamoring to have their children admitted to the school, no
student ever wants to graduate.
The State of Maryland has sent many distinguished sons to the United States Senate, many who deserve the title
of "Profiles in Courage". I am reminded today of one in particular - one, I might add, who traced his ancestry
back to Kings County, Ireland - whose long years of public stewardship included service in the Maryland
Convention of 1776 that called for independence; in the Continental Congress where he signed the Declaration of
Independence; in the Maryland Assembly and Senate; and as Maryland's first United States Senator. His name
I'm sure you know - Charles Carroll of Carrollton. His example is one I hope you can inspire into your pupils -
for though he entered public service at a time when his religion was a handicap and his great fortune an excuse
for avoiding such tasks, his career was always marked by the greatest courage, the finest scholarship and the
highest integrity. Legend has it that he signed his name to the Declaration of Independence as Charles Carroll of
Carrollton when it was suggested that King George might hang the wrong Charles Carroll by mistake. When the
new nation, eager in its independence and bitter in its efforts to throw back the British troops, sought to
confiscate British property during the war, Charles Carroll boldly opposed those measures which seemed to him
as tyrannical as those from which the country was trying to escape. He had been elected to the Continental
Congress on Independence Day itself - and when he died in 1832, he was revered throughout the nation as the last
surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence and as a man of unusual ability and vision. Certainly he is
one of the most distinguished alumni of our Senate school.
exaggeration that I feel privileged to be here today before one of the most influential gatherings in the country.
Your influence is not in bombs or wealth or national fame; nor is it dependent upon political parties, pressure
groups or sheer force of numbers. But the fact remains that you and your associates in the teaching profession
will in the long run have more to say about the future of this country and the world than any of these - not on the
battlefield, not in the council room, but in the classroom. We the people of America have entrusted into your
hands the future leaders of this nation, the most powerful nation on earth - and the way in which you fulfill this
trust, in the guidance and direction which you give to America's youth, will have a more profound effect on our
national future than perhaps any decision we may make in the Senate.
All of you are familiar with the motto credited to Francis Bacon, but actually traceable back to ancient
scriptures, that reads: "Knowledge is power - Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est." No doubt that slogan has
appeared on many a school or teachers' college bulletin board. But now this truism is truer than ever before, a
statement that sums up volumes of prose about the cold war. Which nation has the scientific personnel and know-
how to develop the first so-called "clean" atomic bomb for tactical use - the first earth satellite - the first
intercontinental ballistic missile? How long will the West retain its lead in productivity and living standards - to
what extent can it export to its less wealthy friends the capital, the technical assistance, the skills and other
knowledge they need? The answers to these questions over the long run are in your hands. We no longer
complacently believe that the educational and scientific capabilities of this country cannot be duplicated
elsewhere. We recognize that the race for advantage in the Cold War is not only a competition of armaments,
production, ideology, propaganda and diplomacy but a race of education and research as well.
The advantages which will enable the United States to win this race, however, whether they take the form of
better proximity fuses or the new hybrid seed corns which recently won us friends behind the Iron Curtain will
not instantly spring up in the hour they are required. There is a lag of from five to ten years between the results
of fundamental research and the practical application of those results; before that research takes place, several
years of training and experience are required: and even before that, the mind of the future scientist must be
properly melded and stimulated by his elementary and secondary school teachers.
Recent Soviet advancements - including the first earth satellite, an intercontinental ballistic missile, a new
hydrogen explosion and others - all point up how critical this race has become. The Soviet Union already has
available for this work more engineers and scientists than we presently have in any capacity in this country, and
very nearly as many as this country and Western Europe combined. In recent years, the output of new engineers
and scientists in the U.S.S.R. has surpassed that of the total United States and Western Europe graduating classes
in these fields - their current enrollment of such students in institutions of higher education exceeds our own -
and we are already falling far short of even our current needs. Their lead may become even more serious, and in
the most critical areas of technical knowledge within the next decade, according to Allen Dulles of the CIA,
"unless we quickly take new measures to increase our facilities for scientific education."
It is apparent, too, that this lead is not merely one of numbers, but of quality as well. A special study concluded
by the Joint Atomic Energy Committee of the Congress concluded that "the training given Soviet engineers and
scientists is of a high order and compares favorably with the best in the United States and Europe."
The same study pointed up the responsibility of our public school systems in this area. The teaching of the
physical sciences and mathematics in our secondary schools has declined; about half of those with talent in these
fields who graduate from high school are either unable or uninterested in going to college; and of the half who
enter college, scarcely 40% graduate The task of reversing these disturbing trends is in large measure up to our
public schools and their teachers.
In short, our position in the world and our hopes for survival ten, twenty or thirty years from now depend in
large measure upon the kind of education which you in the teaching profession are able to offer your pupils
today.
But we need something more than a nation of scientists and technicians - something more than an arsenal of
super-weapons and ingenious inventions. We must have men and women capable of leading the "free world", of
taking the hard and unpopular decisions necessary to preserve world peace and national security. In our concern
over the education of more scientists and engineers for the future America, we dare not neglect its politicians.
I realize that most Americans, including educators, are not accustomed to thinking of us politicians as educated
men. We may be experienced, or cynical, or skillful, or shrewd or even fluent - but no more education is required
for this kind of success than finding one's way around a smoke-filled room. Successful politicians, according to
Walter Lippman, are "insecure and intimidated men," who "advance politically only as they placate, appease,
bribe, seduce, bamboozle, or otherwise manage to manipulate" the views and votes of the people who elect them.
It was considered a great joke years ego when the humorist Artemus Ward declared: "I am not a politician, and
my other habits are also good." And, in more recent times, even the President of the United States, when asked at
a news conference early in his first term how he liked "the game of politics," replied with a frown that his
questioner was using a "derogatory" phrase. Being President, he said, is "a very fascinating experience . . . but
the word 'politics' . . . I have no great liking for that."
But under our form of government, we must put our ultimate faith in ordinary men, not machines or experts. In
the words of Thomas Jefferson: "If we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a
wholesome discretion, (then) the remedy is not to take it from them - but to inform their discretion by education.
"To inform their discretion by education" - that is your task, and the task of every teacher in every city and
village in America. The students of today who may discourage you, harass you, and hopefully sometimes cheer
you include the leaders and diplomats of tomorrow. Prince Bismarck once said that one-third of the students in
Germany broke down from dissipation; one-third broke down from overwork; but the other third ruled
Germany. (I leave it to each of you to decide which third becomes teachers.)
But in this country there can be no doubt that our educated and thinking citizens must of necessity be among the
rulers of our land. The only question is what kind of education they need and will receive. Permit me to offer a
few suggestions from my vantage point in the political arena.
First, I would emphasize that we need not an over-concentration upon civic and political affairs, but the
development of a broad range of talents. We do not need men like Lord John Russell, of whom Queen Victoria
once said that he would be a better man if he knew a third subject - but he was interested in nothing but the
Constitution of 1688 and himself. We do not need the kind of political education once described by Lord Bryce as
"sufficient to enable them to think they know something about the great problems of politics, but insufficient to
show them how little they know." We need instead men with the education of Thomas Jefferson, described by a
contemporary as "A gentleman of 32, who could calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an
edifice, try a cause, break a horse, dance a minuet, and play the violin." We need man like Daniel Webster, who
could throw thunderbolts at Hayne on the Senate floor and then stroll a few steps down the corridor and
dominate the Supreme Court as the foremost lawyer of his time; like John Quincy Adams, who, after being
summarily dismissed from the Senate for a notable display of independence, could became Boylston Professor of
Rhetoric and Oratory
at Harvard and then become a great Secretary of State. (Those were the happy days when Harvard professors
had no difficulty getting Senate confirmation.) We need men like Missouri's first Senator, Thomas Hart Benton,
the man whose tavern brawl with Jackson in Tennessee caused him to flee the state, and yet whose education was
described with these words in his obituary: "With a readiness that was often surprising he could quote from a
Roman Law or a Greek philosopher, from Virgil's Georgics, The Arabian Nights, Herodotus or Sanchez Panza,
from the Sacred Carpets, the German reformers or Adam Smith; from Fenolon or Hudibras, from the financial
reports of Mecca or the doings of the Council of Trent, from the debates on the adoption of the Constitution or
intrigues of the kitchen cabinet or from some forgotten speech of a deceased Member of Congress."
discussing political issues and deploring their solutions with learned phrases. For, as George William Curtis
asked a similar body of educators a century ago, in urging their interest in the Kansas-Nebraska controversy:
"Would you have counted him a friend of ancient Greece who quietly discussed the theory of patriotism on that
ancient Shunamites, when the liberty of Englishmen was imperilled?"
It is not enough, therefore, that our schools merely be great centers of learning, without concerning themselves
with the uses to which that learning is put in the years that follow graduation. Indeed, care must be taken to see
that it is not all left behind upon graduation! Dean Swift, you know, always said that Oxford was truly a seat of
great learning; for all freshmen who entered were required to bring some learning with them in order to meet the
standards of admission - but no senior, when he left the University, ever took any learning away, and thus it
Third, I would emphasize the importance, in teaching students about public affairs, of avoiding the confusion of
political idealism with political fantasy or rigidity. We need idealism in our public life - we need young men and
women who will stand for the right regardless of their personal ambitions or welfare. But let us not permit them
to carry that idealism to the point of fantasy - to the point where any compromise or concession is regarded as
immoral. For politics and legislation are not matters for inflexible principles or unattainable ideals. Politics, as
John Morley has acutely observed, "is a field where action is one long second best, and where the choice
constantly lies between two blunders;" and legislation, under the democratic way of life and the Federal system
of Government, requires compromise between the desires of each individual and group and those around then.
Henry Clay, who should have known, said compromise was the cement that held the Union together:
"All legislation. . .is founded upon the principle of mutual concession. . . Let him who elevates himself above
humanity, above its weaknesses, its infirmities, its wants, its necessities, say, if he pleases, 'I never will
compromise;' but let no one who is not above the frailties of our common nature disdain compromise."
Some of my colleagues who are criticized today for lack of forthright principles - or who are looked upon with
scornful eyes as compromising "politicians" - are simply engaged in the fine art of conciliating, balancing and
interpreting the forces and factions of public opinion, an art essential to keeping our nation united and enabling
our Government to function. Their consciences may in one sense direct them from time to time to take a more
rigid stand for principle - but their intellects tell them that a fair or poor bill is better than no bill at all, and that
only through the give-and-take of compromise will any bill receive the successive approval of the Senate, the
House, the President and the nation. A Federal aid to education bill, for example, will come from the Congress
only when partisan, personal and regional considerations are made secondary to the good of our children and
nation.
extinction. The question remains as to whether our educational system today is capable of meeting this challenge
- or whether a shortage of teachers, a shortage of classrooms, a shortage of money and a consequent lack of high
quality education will not in the long run prove to be the undoing of our nation.
That public education is in a state of crisis today is well known. There is less agreement on the cause and on the
cure. I can only hope that those who recognize the urgent need of improving public education in this country will
not exhaust their efforts in looking for a scapegoat, but will join in attacking the problem at its very roots.
The responsibility for ending this crisis, in my opinion, must be shared at three levels - Federal, State and local.
First, the Federal government, which has far greater as well as more effective means for raising public revenues,
has an unavoidable responsibility to enact promptly a bold and imaginative program of Federal assistance to the
States and local school districts for the construction of public schools, leaving all direction of academic content
and standards, of course, in local hands. Our teachers cannot be expected to fulfill their critical responsibilities
when nearly a million boys and girls are deprived by the classroom shortage of full-time schooling, when millions
more are held back in unwieldy classes of forty or more. We need this year additional classrooms to meet the
requirements of about nine million more pupils than we presently have adequate room for in our elementary and
secondary schools. The valiant efforts of State and local authorities, which spent over two and one-half billion
dollars in school construction during the last school year, must be supplemented by Federal action to meet this
nation-wide problem.
But more and better classrooms are not enough. More and better teachers are also needed, better trained, better
paid, better utilized. Here the State and local authorities share responsibility. Our State governments must
provide better teachers' colleges, attracting the best students and providing the best education. All of you are
familiar with States with too many teachers' colleges which are, as a result, too small, too poorly financed and
staffed, and too ill-equipped in terms of physical plant, libraries, laboratories and other facilities.
Authorities on the State level could also take steps to improve teacher certification, re-examining outmoded
statutory requirements, maintaining and gradually elevating minimum standards, and providing for those who
pass a sense of accomplishment and prestige comparable to those who pass the examinations necessary for
admission to the legal and medical professions.
Finally, a large measure of responsibility for improving the quality of teaching in our schools rests with our local
school board and school administrators. Not as a United States Senator, but as an interested citizen, I would
respectfully suggest that present methods for recruiting teachers might be re-examined - to attract the best
students, to select the best graduates, to compete in the labor market with the expertly developed recruitment
methods of American business. Although the figure is too staggering to comprehend fully, the fact is that our
schools must recruit during the next three years alone almost three-quarters of a million new teachers, more than
our entire school system contained only a short time ago.
Once teachers are recruited and hired, more can be done to improve the methods of teacher promotion. We must
find better rewards for our better teachers; we must make actual use of probationary periods to retain only those
with satisfactory performance records; and we must demonstrate concretely to young beginners in the field that
real opportunities for advancement await those whose contribution is of the highest caliber.
More can be done, also, in terms of better teacher utilization - removing dull and burdensome administrative
details and paperwork that might better be done by electronic computers or parent volunteers.
And finally, and perhaps most important, school boards, school patrons and all of our citizens must cooperate in
the effort to achieve better teachers' salaries. No profession of such importance in the United States today is so
poorly paid. No other occupational group in the country is asked to do so much for so little. No amount of new
classrooms, television, training and recruitment techniques can attract and retain good teachers as long as their
salaries are beneath the responsibility and dignity of their position. We pay the average railway conductor nearly
twice as such as we pay the teacher who conducts our elementary classes. Plumbers, plasterers and steamfitters
are paid more for improving our homes than we pay teachers for improving the minds of our children.
Help from the Federal level for more and better classrooms - help from the State level for better teachers'
colleges and better teacher certification, help from the local level for better teacher recruit sent, better teacher
promotion, better teacher utilization and better teacher salaries - those are the goals toward which must move all
those who recognize that in your hands lies the fate of the nation.
"Knowledge is power," said Francis Bacon; it is also light. In the dark and despairing days ahead, our youth
shall need all the light the teaching profession can bring to bear upon the future.
In his book "One Man's America," Alistair Cooke tells the story which illustrates my point. On the 19th of May,
1780, as he describes it, in Hartford, Connecticut, the skies at noon turned from blue to gray and by mid-
afternoon had blackened over so densely that, in that religious age, men fell on their knees and begged a final
blessing before the end came. The Connecticut House of Representatives was in session. And as some men fell
down in the darkened chamber and others clamored for an immediate adjournment, the Speaker of the House,
one Colonel Davenport, came to his feet. And he silenced the din with these words: "The Day of Judgment is
either approaching or it is not. If it is not, there is no cause for adjournment. If it is, I choose to be found doing
my duty. I wish, therefore, that candles may be brought."
Teachers of America, we who hope for the future peace and security of our nation, and for the wisdom and
courage of our leaders, ask once again that you bring us candles to illuminate our way.

Meeting of the National Association of County
Agricultural Agents in Boston, Massachusetts, October
14, 1957
It is a genuine privilege to participate with you today in this 42nd annual meeting of the National Association of
County Agricultural Agents. Your organization, your members and the work which they are doing are of such
importance to our farm economy and to our nation that I am deeply honored to have received this invitation
from my friend and fellow Bay Stater, Charles Turner. These annual conventions, and the organization you have
established to promote your joint interests between sessions, have played an important role, I know, in the
professional improvement of your members and in the development of agriculture in this country - and we in
Massachusetts are delighted to have you here.
Boston may not be generally regarded as an agricultural center - but it has always played an important role in
our nation's farm economy, as a market for foods, as a processor of fibers and as an overseas exporter of grains
and other commodities. Much of this vast city was once farm land - and you will note that many of our streets
apparently follow the farm trails first fixed by a wandering calf too weak to walk straight. Massachusetts, too, is
popularly regarded as largely urban and industrial in nature - but we in this state take pride in the number of
our farm crops that compare favorably with the nation's best. Our dairy, poultry, tobacco, cranberry, carnation,
vegetable, fruit and other farms are regularly ranked among the leaders in the country, and contribute a sizeable
annual sum in excess of $200 million to the income of our state. That is one reason, I might add, why we in
Massachusetts feel very strongly that we should have an equal voice with other sections of the country in the
determination of our national farm policies.
My pride in the agricultural achievements of my state, however, does not persuade me to pose as an expert on
farming and the nation's farm problems.
I am not here to sell you any theory, to promote any party or to contribute any new and startling doctrine. My
concern rather is with what I would ask of you, with what contribution you might make - for I am convinced that
in the long run the work of our county agents in every part of the nation will have a more far-reaching influence
on the course of our farm economy than any decision I might make as United States Senator.
For the role of the county agent, as I understand it, serves as a unique and invaluable bridge between the world
of agriculture, on the one hand, and the world of politics and government on the other. You have an
extraordinary responsibility and opportunity to serve as an interpreter between these two groups, as a mediator
and channel of communication--to explain the problems of the farmer to the politician and bureaucrat, and to
explain the problems of politics and government to the farmer. Where today there are fallacies, fictions and
falsehoods impeding relations between these two worlds, your function is to substitute facts and logic. Where
today there are misunderstandings, suspicions and tensions, you have an opportunity to enable each side to better
understand the other, and to work more closely toward their common goals.
"0, the farmer and the cow-man should be friends," according to the title of the show tune by Rodgers and
Hammerstein. But so should the farmer and the politician be friends - not in an arranged marriage of
convenience, because the farmer wants political favors and the politician wants farm votes; not in a "shotgun"
wedding of necessity, because both are required by the facts of economic and political life to accept each other
against their will; but in a mutually agreeable, mutually beneficial cooperative association of friendship and
respect.
Today, as all of us know, there are some politicians who regard farmers with a cynical, if not contemptuous, eye.
There are some who tend to under-estimate the farmer's political sagacity, who think he is easily taken in by a
folksy appearance, a hill-billy band, and a speech full of irredeemable promises. And perhaps the most serious
misappraisal of the farmer's political intelligence is the widespread assumption that the so-called "farm vote" is
either cast for the party or candidate who promises farmers the most financial assistance, or is cast in accordance
with the level of farm prices or income at the time of the election.
Running through last fall's campaign debates was the clear implication that the nation's farmers would vote
either for whichever candidate offered them the most economic security, or would vote against the party in power
if their prices or income fell. The effect of early soil bank payments, expanded drought relief and a stepped up
pork purchase program were considered in that light. Campaign promises for full parity were carefully worded,
and the effects of rain in Texas and drought in Kansas were debated by the newspaper pundits.
But the vote of no farmer, I am convinced, is for sale to the highest bidder; and I am sure that farmers
everywhere resent the implication that it is. And although farm voters, like everyone else, naturally take into
account their economic future, it is clear that they are influenced by a multitude of other considerations. Indeed,
a Roper Poll of 1952 showed that a majority of the nation's farmers outside the South believed they would
probably be better off financially under the Democrats- but that they were going to vote Republican.
During the past both parties have presented a maze of statistics to prove that the election was a mandate for or
against the Benson program or 90% supports. But candidates on both sides of this issue in both parties having
won and lost, with other issues and personalities obviously having entered in, I personally doubt that anyone can
find a mandate from a united farm vote in 1956 for any single farm policy.
Even the so-called "farm revolt" of 1948 does not prove that farmers vote their pocketbooks; for farmers were
deeply split in that election, with Truman - who was running, it might also be recalled, on a flexible parity
platform-- losing as many farm states as he won, and winning others only by virtue of his vote in the cities. I think
most objective observers would agree that those farmers - by no means all - who did express a preference for Mr.
Truman over Mr. Dewey, and for Mr. Eisenhower over Mr. Stevenson, were motivated by more than promises of
financial assistance.
Even when the emphasis is shifted from campaign promises to the level of farm income at election time, how
could it be believed that farmers could take such a short-range view - that they would decide on an
administration for the next four years because of what happened to their pocketbooks during a campaign of four
months? Undeniably farmers who are at the end of their rope financially, ruined by drought and falling prices,
are more ready to try a change - and yet even they, I am convinced, are not so narrow and short-sighted in their
political thinking as to permit a temporary rise or fall in prosperity, or a sudden burst of rainfall, to alter their
political beliefs. Too many other considerations are at stake; and too many other measurements of the farm
economy, such as assets, indebtedness and tenure of ownership, are ignored by such a single explanation.
Moreover, these generalized rules of the farmer's political behavior are always risky. Rising grain prices for some
farmers may mean rising feed prices for others. A heavy rainfall may be a blessing for some farmers and a
catastrophe for others. (Indeed, I have rarely met a farmer who didn't have some complaint about the weather!
And I wish you would tell me the answer to that old political argument - does a rainy election day bring the
farmers out because they can't work in the fields or does it keep them home because of poor travel conditions?)
These are but some of the mistaken attitudes about the farmer which are widely held in the political and
governmental professions - and which you, as the bridge between these two worlds, must help to clear up. But
you have an equal responsibility, and perhaps greater opportunity on the other hand, to eliminate many of the
suspicions and misconceptions about government and politics that are shared by many of the farmers with whom
you come in daily contact.
I am sure that each of you knows many farmers who are suspicious of politicians, bureaucrats and government in
general. They are resentful of office seekers who are in evidence only around election time to shake their hand,
promise them support and pose for the press in a rented pair of overalls and a straw hat. Many politicians who
list their occupation as "farmer", in the words of one observer, own one cow and ten banks. The farmers in this
country have a long and proud tradition of independence and individualism, dating back to colonial times. Even
in this modern era of government loans, regulated commodity markets and governmental activity in every phase
of the agricultural economy, there are still many left on our farms who believe that the best governmental action
would be no governmental action at all - and that farmers would be better off if left to their own ingenuity and
resourcefulness.
But however much I may sympathize with those who resent hypocritical politics and those who resist dependency
upon government intervention, I cannot believe that our nation's politics would be better off without our farmers
- or that our nation's farmers would be better off without the aid of government, The influence of farmers upon
our political life has been a profound and progressive one. The small farmers of Virginia were the core around
which Jefferson organized the Democratic Party in 1791; and they and their brethren in other states were the
bulwark of the coalition that rejuvenated the party under Andrew Jackson a generation later. The Granger
Movement, the Greenback Party and the offspring of these two, the Populist Party, also had their foundations on
the farm - as, to a considerable extent, did the Bull-Moose and Progressive Parties of 1912 and 1924 respectively,
and the Non-Partisan League that is still active in North Dakota today. That the votes of farmers in various parts
of the nation have often been decisive in our national elections is, of course, well known.
Through this participation in our political life, either operating through one of the regular parties, a party of
their own creation, or national organizations such as those which are influential today, American farmers have
helped to shape not only our nation's policies toward agriculture but many of our most important legislative
measures of the past half century - the regulation of railroads, the development of public power, the extension of
our highways and the formulation of our foreign policy, to name but a few. The influence of farmers on our
political and governmental life has been a beneficial one - an enlightened influence, progressive, humanitarian,
close to the soil and to the people who make their living from it.
At the same time, it can hardly be denied that government has played a necessary role in our agricultural
economy. The individual farmer, unable on his own to bargain fairly with those who purchase, process or
transport his crops, and unable to govern his price and production efforts in accordance with those undertaken
by his millions of cohorts, requires government aid and intervention in the market, no matter how much he may
wish he could be on his own. Federal action is necessary to adjust production to demand, to improve agricultural
research and science, to enable farmers to move high quality foods and fibers at reasonable prices to consumers
at home and abroad, without wasting our soil resources. Federal action is necessary to prevent an agricultural
depression that could wreck the nation's economic health, and the earnings of farmer and city-dweller alike - to
provide protection from the distress that results from violent downswings in farm prices. We live, moreover, in a
time when the government has necessarily intervened on behalf of business, labor, and other segments of the
economy; and farmers must necessarily be concerned with the dangers of governmental discrimination in favor
of these other groups in a manner that treats the farmer inequitably.
In short, farmers are not going to get along without governments and politicians - the challenge I put before you
now is to improve their ways of getting along with politicians. It seems to me that the best relationship for which
you can strive is one of complete candor - of a frank, mutual recognition of, and exchange of, ideas on hard
problems and concrete solutions, the real and the attainable, not the elusive and the illusory.
Unfortunately, the most distressing characteristic of the interrelationship between politicians and farmers today
is the search for easy solutions, for quick, dramatic answers to the pressing problems of the farmer, for slogans
and catchwords that promise everything while promising nothing. The politicians are only deceiving the farmers,
and the farmers are only deluding themselves, when they insist upon candidates and platforms that offer those
painless superficial solutions to the basic problems of agriculture today. It is always easy to denounce someone
else's proposals to meet these difficult problems - whether that someone be Secretary Brannan, Secretary Benson,
or a particular farm organization or party - but it is not so easy to propose constructive alternatives.
Certainly the record of the recent past, when viewed in an objective and nonpartisan manner, demonstrates that
the problems we face are difficult problems indeed - difficult to solve, difficult sometimes even to explain, difficult
in the burdens they require of our farmers and our nation. We have witnessed the expenditure of hundreds of
millions of dollars in recent years intended to pay farmers for not producing - but farm production in the last two
years has broken all previous records. We have witnessed steady cuts in price supports intended to hold down the
farm program's cost to the taxpayers - and yet the government's losses on farm price support operations during
the last four years have been several times as great as the total of all the previous twenty years combined. We
have witnessed a four-year effort intended to reduce farm surpluses and restore farm prices - but prices today
are well below their 1952 average while our surpluses have increased considerably.
These failures have not resulted from half-hearted or half-way measures, as some have claimed. On the contrary,
we are now paying out nearly 1 1/2 billion dollars to farmers under the so-called Acreage Reserve Program as
inducements for them to plow under or not produce enough wheat to feed this country for nearly 10 months,
enough corn and cotton to meet our needs for 2 or 3 months, and additional acres of rice, tobacco and peanuts.
We sold in 1954 more than a half billion pounds of dried skim milk, of high grade, human food quality, for hog
feed at about 1/5th of its market value. We have subsidized the sale of surplus crops abroad at a cost of some $4
billion. We have imposed new controls on production, and reduced price supports so as to drive farm prices
down to a level of some 114 below the 1952 average.
And yet, despite all of these efforts, and a drought as well, we have an investment in surpluses of some $8 billion,
several times as great as the 1952 level; and production continues to spiral upward, breaking all records in 1956
and coming close to, if not surpassing, that mark this year
In short, we do not even seem to be nearing a solution to our problems today. In recent years, small farms have
simply disappeared at the astounding and disturbing rate of several hundred every day of the year, as mergers
and foreclosures rose, income fell, and the farmer's mortgage debt and the cost of operations increased. As food
prices increased for the consumer, the farmer's share of the food dollar declined.
I do not cite these facts and figures for reasons of partisan criticism, or to pretend that I possess the answer to
these problems. 0n the contrary, I cite these facts to indicate the immensity of the challenge and the futility of
frantic boasts, intemperate denunciations, and empty promises. Farmers who look to the government and the
politician to provide them with some swift, magic solution can only be cruelly disillusioned - farmers who blame
the two parties for failing to come up with such a solution have not considered either the complexities of the
problem or its equally disturbing existence in Canada, France and most of the other soil-rich nations of the world
- and politicians who speak of these problems in simple black and white terms, with false hopes of easy short cuts
and popular phrases, are only making the problem more difficult.
Nor is the situation improved by the fact that the one issue of rigid versus flexible parity price supports occupies
practically all of the time and attention devoted to farm problems by the Congress, the political parties, the press
and the public. We give comparatively little thought to most of the other major issues - such as the disappearance
of the family-size farm, the spread between farm and consumer prices and the rising costs of the farmer's
purchases.
It can hardly be said that either approach offers a perfect, permanent, comprehensive answer to all the ills of
agriculture; or that either program is free of the faults for which its own adherents condemn the other.
Both depend upon the storage of surpluses too big to handle, and expensive to store. Neither diminishes
appreciably the production of surplus commodities or increases appreciably their markets. Both offer support to
some farmers in some parts of the country that hurts other farmers in other parts of the country. Neither offers
substantially lower prices to consumers and industry, or substantially lower costs to the taxpayers. Both
concentrate more on the farmer's price than on his net income. Both depend upon rigid controls. Both restrict,
through price structures and necessary tariff barriers, the world market for farm exports. Both subsidize
inefficient and well-to-do farmers while giving little help to those who need it most. It has been estimated that less
than 2% of the nation's farmers receive more than 25% of the price support programs benefits-- while most of
the small and marginal farm operators, who heavily weight the depressing statistics used by those calling for a
more expensive program - the farm families at the bottom of the economic ladder, the tenant farmers of the
South and Southwest, and others - receive on the whole few, if any, of the benefits distributed under such
programs. Your responsibility for clearing up these misunderstandings between farmers and politicians is a
heavy responsibility indeed. The misunderstandings and barriers that separate the farmer and the politician, that
prevent the kind of full, frank discussion and cooperation needed, will not be easily overcome. There are, on both
sides, those who look only to the next election instead of the next generation. They are those who believe the best
advice is that given by Mary Lease to the embittered farmers of Kansas over a half a century ago. "Farmers",
she said, as you will recall, "should raise less corn and more hell,"
I an convinced this morning that the answers to the difficult problems of our farm society do not lie in raising
hell, in dumping milk or in throwing eggs. They lie instead in an attitude on both sides of cooperation, foresight
and determination - and in the light which you who are engaged in bringing light to the farmers can shed on
these problems.
In his book "One Man's America," Alistair Cooke tells the story which well illustrates this point. On the 19th of
May, 1780, as he describes it, in Hartford, Connecticut, the skies at noon turned from blue to gray and by
midafternoon had blackened over so densely that, in that religious age, men fell on their knees and begged a final
blessing before the end came. The Connecticut House of Representatives was in session. And as some men fell
down in the darkened chamber and others clamored for an immediate adjournment, the Speaker of the House,
one colonel Davenport, came to his feet. And he silenced the din with these words; "The Day of Judgment is
either approaching; or it is not. If it is not, there is no cause for adjournment. If it is, I choose to be found doing
my duty. I wish, therefore, that candles may be brought."
Agricultural Agents of America, those of us who are here today concerned with the difficult and despairing tasks
ahead in this field ask once again that you bring us candles to illuminate our way.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Blue Key

Banquet at the University of Florida in Gainesville,
Florida, October 18, 1957
CAN WE COMPETE WITH THE RUSSIANS?

We meet tonight on this festive occasion in an atmosphere of tension and dissension. The autumn air is filled with
calls for a special session of Congress, for a full-scale investigation of our missile and satellite program, for a new
arms commission or weapons czar. There are satellites in the sky, strontium in the atmosphere and hurried
conferences on the Trans-Atlantic cable. Many Americans, shocked at our failures, dismayed at our set-backs,
fearful of our course, are asking themselves the one question I would pose to you tonight:
Can we compete with the Russians?
Can we compete with the Russians? We have always assumed the answer was automatically yes. To express
doubt has been unpatriotic and un-American, a sign of weak-kneed thinking or hopeless pessimism, a
demonstration of a lack of faith in our nation and in our way of life. Of course, it was felt, we could compete with
the Russians - were we not, after all, the greatest, richest, most powerful, most intelligent nation on the face of the
earth, our armies never defeated, our factories never out-produced, our ideals never outshone in their appeal to
the rest of the world? Compete with the Russians? We can outrun them, outsmart them, and outmaneuver them
at every turn - even more drastically than what the University of Florida is going to do to Mississippi State
tomorrow afternoon.
This, I repeat, is the feeling of confidence, of superiority, of security, that has characterized our attitude, officially
and unofficially, since the very start of the Cold War.
But tonight I must ask the question again - soberly if not sadly, objectively if not smugly - can we compete with
the Russians? Can our political system, with its free elections and free criticism - our economic system, with its
free labor and free enterprise - our educational system, with its free choice of careers and methods - compete with
a totalitarian state with leaders who need give little thought to the popularity of their course, who need pay little
tribute to the public opinion they manipulate, and who may force, without fear of retaliation at the polls, their
citizens to sacrifice present laughter for future glory. Can we compete with a nation that has absolute power to
determine the number of scientists it shall produce and the projects on which they shall work - that can
determine with little regard to public feeling what proportion of its economic resources shall be applied to the
instruments of war and diplomacy, and what proportion to consumer luxuries. Can Washington compete with
Moscow - where there are tonight, I can assure you, no citizen petitions for lower taxes, no rivalry between the
services on the jurisdiction of missile development, no pleas to end conscription, no complaints from friendly
governments about not being consulted on policy changes, no allocation of steel for washing machines, and no
scientists deciding to leave government service to devote their talents to developing a new detergent.
Where can we compete with the Russians? In recent years, the Communists have scored political-ideological
victories in Southeast Asia and Latin America, diplomatic victories in the Middle East and Asia, and military
victories in Indo-China and Hungary. Their economic, technical and military assistance programs have been
more consistently successful than ours in furthering their objectives - their propaganda more effective in saving
dissension - their voting bloc in the UN more cohesive. Even our geographic advantages are crumbling, as the
Russians establish their first solid foot-hold in the Middle East, NATO fades, and intercontinental missiles and jet
bombers reduce the significance of time and space.
In short, the Russians are singing, with some justification and with some results, the old refrain - "Anything you
can do, I can do better." And they are demonstrating it in the four key areas of the Cold War - military build-up,
productive capacity, foreign economic relations and scientific achievement.
First, recall, if you will, the record of comparison in the race for military security. When, some ten years ago,
Americans expressed concern over the Russian edge in manpower, we were reassured by our monopoly of
nuclear power. When the Russians developed and tested atomic and then hydrogen weapons, we were reassured
by our superiority in air power. When the Russians passed us in terms of fighter aircraft and prepared to pass us
in terms of jet, long-range bomber strength, we were reassured that our superiority rested in ballistic missile and
satellite developments. And now we enter the age of sputnik.
Secondly consider the advantages of the Russian system in terms of industrial capacity. We in this country can
produce twice as much steel as the Soviet Union - but roughly one-fourth of this goes to automobiles, and a large
proportion of the rest is in sheet and strip, for refrigerators, washing machines and other consumer goods.
Practically all of the Russian steel capacity, on the other hand, is devoted to structural, heavy steel shapes and
steel plate production - for armaments and capital goods, for developing their own capacity and for exporting to
the underdeveloped nations the capital goods they cannot obtain in sufficient quantity from us. The Soviet Union
may still lag behind this nation in terms of total national production - but it has passed us, believe it or not, in the
production of capital goods, in industrial output generally, in its rate of industrialization and productive growth,
and in the production of military end items.
Third, consider the advantages of a monolithic economy that can ignore the wishes of consumers, taxpayers and
Congressional Committees in concluding arrangements for foreign aid and trade. Indonesia wants ten
technicians, says Mr. Krushchev - send them twenty. The World Bank demands 4% interest on a capital loan to
Burma - we'll let them have it for 2%. Ceylon is trying to sell rubber at the world price - we'll pay them 10%
above the world price. Syria needs to buy expensive oil-refining equipment - we shall sell it to them at a loss.
Afghanistan needs markets for her wool and cotton - we shall buy it whether we need it or not.
Fourth and finally, consider the advantages enjoyed by the Russians in channeling their scientific and
educational resources into the cold war. There have been attempts in recent weeks, as previously, to console the
American people with the message that every Russian gain is either a crude imitation or the result of espionage
or stolen secrets. The truth of the matter is that the Soviet Union already has available for this kind of work more
engineers and scientists then we presently have in any capacity in this country, and very nearly as many as this
country and. western Europe combined. In recent years, the output of new engineers and scientists in the
U.S.S.R. has surpassed that of the total United States and Western Europe classes graduating in these fields - and
their current enrollment of engineering and science students in institutions of higher education exceeds our own.
This lead is not merely one of numbers, but of quality as well. A special study concluded by the Joint Atomic
Energy Committee of the Congress concluded that "the training given Soviet engineers and scientists is of a high
order, and compares favorably with the best in the United States and Europe."
It is rather difficult to reverse these trends when the teaching of the physical sciences and mathematics in our
own secondary schools has declined; when about half of those with talent in these fields who graduate from high
school are either unable or uninterested in going to college; and when, of the half who enter college, scarcely 40%
graduate. It is rather difficult to reverse these trends when nearly a million boys and girls are deprived by the
classroom shortage of full-time schooling, when millions more are held back in unwieldy classes of forty or more,
and when we pay the average railway conductor nearly twice as much as we pay the teacher who conducts our
elementary classes.
This is a wonderful, wealthy country in which we live - we can buy stock on margin, television on credit and a
new freezer on the installment plan. We can demand from our government higher subsidies and lower taxes, and
vote out of office those who do not comply with our wishes. We can make more political speeches, hold more
press conferences, stage more conventions and plan more formal dinners than any three Communist countries in
the world combined. We can take comfort in the fact that, although Russian diplomats may have scored in Syria,
one of our teams won the World Series. They may have launched the first space satellite - but we were the first to
come out with the Edsel.
But can we, I ask, can we compete with the Russians? I do not ask this question, or raise these doubts, in order to
replace complacency with panic. This is not a time for panic, for fatalism or for political maneuvering. I would
not want our future course in the cold war determined by either those who, with their eye on our nuclear
stockpile, glibly assert that we have nothing to fear - or those who, with their eye on the Russian moon, cry out
frantically that all is lost. Let us be calm, let us be realistic, let us be determined, let us face up squarely to the
question: can we compete with the Russians?
If we are to answer that question in the affirmative - and we must, for our very life and way of life depend upon it
- it will require a full-scale reassessment of our methods, our objectives and our role. We are not going to give up
our liberties to match the Soviet ability to make hard and swift decisions. We are not going to bid against the
Russians for the privilege of seeing who can send the most aid to a wavering nation. We are not going to duplicate
their trade agreements that call for repayment in surplus agricultural commodities, as long as we cannot get rid
of our own.
Our propaganda and ideological warfare will probably never be as successful in telling falsehoods, arousing
hatreds and sowing doubt and disunity. And finally, when both sides possess sufficient nuclear weapons and
missiles to devastate the entire earth in case of war, reaching what Sir Winston Churchill called the point of
"saturation", then any advantage in this area, even if it could be achieved, would be meaningless.
In what area, then, can we successfully compete with the Russians, as compete we must The answer, it seems to
me, lies in our area of greatest weakness - for it is also our area of greatest strength: the American people - their
capacity for leadership, their determination to survive, their willingness to sacrifice. We will not, we cannot, we
dare not sacrifice our liberties, however great a luxury or inconvenience they may sometimes seem in competing
with the Russians. But can we sacrifice some of our comfort, some of our economic pleasures? Have we, in short,
the spiritual resources required to make a sacrifice of our material blessings large enough to match the Russian
advantage obtained through denying both the blessings of liberty and the blessings of prosperity?
It is a discouraging prospect, I agree. Record budgets, burdensome taxes, heavy debts and not enough left over
for essential programs here at home have been our lot, as for more than ten years we generously distributed
foreign aid to our friends abroad - and we had every reason to hope that the extent of this aid and the extent of
European recovery would have made possible by this time a relaxation of our efforts.
But it would be self-defeating, I am afraid, to consider the job finished. For the great challenge to our status and
security in the next several years may well be neither military nor political, but economic - and the most critical
problem in this economic sphere is the problem of underdeveloped nations in the uncommitted world. For in the
midst of this age of prosperity and abundance, this age of rising wages, profits, production end consumption, the
standard of living for much of the world is declining, their poverty and economic backwardness are increasing,
their share of the world's population is growing, and their vulnerability to Communist exploitation becoming
daily more obvious. In the world community of nations, the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting
poorer. Per capita income in the United States may have climbed to some $2,000 a year for every man, woman
and child - but it is $110 a year in Egypt, $54 in India and $25 in Libya. The world may be enjoying more
prosperity than ever before - but, strange as it may seem, it has also never seen so much poverty in all its history.
Among the primary causes of this ever-widening gap is the overwhelming and utterly unprecedented world
population explosion. We are now adding more inhabitants to our globe each year than presently constitute the
entire population of France; and this still-rising rate threatens to double the world's population before the 20th
Century is out. To feed each day's increase in population requires that we find 150 square miles of new arable
land every day.
To feed one year's gain alone would require a new farm as large as the state of Illinois.
And, unlike previous increases, the greatest gains have came in the poverty-stricken, under-developed countries
least able to support them - in Latin America, where the population is increasing more than four time faster than
that of Northwestern Europe; in East Asia, increasing more than three times as fast; and in the Middle East. This
explosion has resulted not, as most assume, from an increased birth rate but from a phenomenal reduction in
these countries in the death rate, from the control of infectious diseases, sanitation improvement, and medical
progress.
Mexico, for example, will double its population during the next twenty-three years, largely because it has
decreased its death rate in the last decade by an astonishing 43%. In already crowded Puerto Rico the death rate
has declined. 82%. In Ceylon, the DDT war on malaria mosquitos has cut the death rate in half, so that in twenty
years the population will have doubled --with 600 persons for every square mile! The prevention, reduction: and
elimination of cholera, malaria, venereal disease, smallpox and other plagues of mankind; the introduction of
public health centers, insecticides, antibiotics, free milk and mass vaccines - these and other advancements have
all shown tremendous progress - while at the same time presenting a serious challenge to the American people.
To greet this challenge, the old "relief and rehabilitation" concepts of foreign aid are no longer adequate. A new
emphasis is needed, to act as "seed" capital to private investment, both from this country and from Europe - for
irrigation and power projects, communications and harbor improvements - through long term loans wherever
possible, and through private investors to the extent feasible.
Congress, as a start, must broaden the authority and increase the capitalization of the International Development
fund which the Senate launched in this year's Mutual Security Act. We must explore, too, the possibility of
utilizing our vast and costly agricultural surpluses as a means of capital investment abroad - sending them to
under-developed nations who may not be suffering from a shortage of those products, but who can then devote
the human and material resources which would otherwise be devoted to feeding their population to the building
of roads, dams and other capital improvements.
This problem of underdeveloped areas is only one aspect of our race with the Russians. Here as elsewhere, there
are no easy decisions to make or simple problems to solve. What we need from the American people, then, is not
sacrifice alone but leadership - the service of dedicated, responsible leaders, who can look beyond. the problems
of the next election to see the problems of the next generation. Where are those leaders to come from? Primarily
from the University of Florida and the University of Massachusetts, from all of the colleges and educational
institutions of our nation. In the long run, it is upon these colleges and the type of graduates they produce that
our answer to the Russian threat ultimately depends.
I do not say that our political and public life should be completely turned over to college-trained experts who
ignore public opinion. I would not adopt the provision from the Belgian Constitution of 1893 giving three votes
instead of one to college graduates (at least not until more Democrats go to college). Nor do I suggest that the
University of Florida be given a seat in Parliament as William and Mary College was once represented in the
Virginia House of Burgesses.
But I do urge that each of you, regardless of your chosen occupation, consider entering the field of politics at
some stage in your career, that you offer to the political arena, and to the critical problems of our society which
are decided therein, the benefits of the talents which society has helped to develop in you. I ask you to decide, as
Goethe put it, whether you will be an anvil - or a hammer, whether you will give to the world in which you were
reared and educated the broadest possible benefits of that education.
Prince Bismarck had it reduced to a formula - one third of the students of German universities, he once stated,
broke down from overwork; another third broke down from dissipation; and the other third ruled Germany. (I
leave it to each of you to decide which third is here tonight.)
But if you are to be among the rulers of your land, from precinct captain to President, if you are willing to enter
the abused and neglected profession of politics, then let me tell you that our profession stands in serious need of
the fruits of your education. I realize that no education is usually considered necessary for political success,
except the ability to find your way around a smoke-filled room. But; in truth we stand in dire need of men who
can ride easily over broad fields of knowledge - men, for example, like Thomas Jefferson, whom a contemporary
described as "A gentleman of 32, who could calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice,
try a cause, break a horse, dance a minuet, and play the violin." We do not need political scholars whose
education has been so specialized as to exclude then from participation in current events - men like Lord John
Russell, of whom Queen Victoria once remarked that he would be a better man if he knew a third subject - but he
was interested in nothing but the Constitution of 1688 and himself.
And so it is here that our hopes for competing with the Russians must be fulfilled, here in this citadel of learning,
from which you can take with you upon graduation all the accumulated knowledge and inspiration you may need
to face the future. I am assuming, of course, that you will be taking something with you, that you do not look
upon this university as Dean Smith regarded Oxford. It was truly a great seat of learning, he said; for all
freshmen who entered were required to bring some learning with them in order to meet the standards of
admission - but no senior, when he left, ever took any learning away; and thus it steadily accumulated.
We want you to bring some learning away, to bring enlightenment, vision, and illumination to a troubled world.
Recall, if you will, the story which Alistair Cooke tells in his book, ''One Man's America," that well illustrates my
point. On the 19th of May, 1780, as he describes it, , in Hartford, Connecticut, the skies at noon turned from blue
to gray and by midafternoon had blackened over so densely that, in that religious age, men fell on their knees and
begged a final blessing before the end came. The Connecticut House of Representatives was in session. And as
some men fell down in the darkened chamber and others clamored for an immediate adjournment, the Speaker
of the House, one Colonel Davenport, came to his feet. And he silenced the din with these words: "The Day of
Judgment is either approaching - or it is not. If it is not, there is no cause for adjournment. If it is, I choose to be
found doing my duty. I wish, therefore, that candles may be brought." Students and friends of the University of
Florida, we who are here today concerned with the dark and difficult task ahead ask once again that you bring
candles to illuminate our way, to show us whether and how and where we can compete with the Russians.
Perhaps we cannot. Perhaps it is too difficult, too burdensome or too late. But we dare not fail to make the effort.
"Men's hearts wait upon us," said Woodrow Wilson in 1913 - "Men's lives hang in the balance, men's hopes call
upon us to say what we will do. Who shall live up to this great trust? Who dares fail to try."
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Phi Alpha

Delta Legal Fraternity Breakfast, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida, October 19, 1957
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. One draft of this
speech exists in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F.
Kennedy Library. Links to page images of the speech are given at the bottom of the page.
Almost a quarter of a century ago, Supreme Court Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, speaking at the dedication of the
University of Michigan Law Quadrangle, delivered one of the most important addresses ever made in this
country to a company of lawyers. His subject was the professional responsibility of the bar - and needless to say,
he did not consider the topic exhausted by a few well-chosen words on the evils of ambulance-chasing. His thrust
was more far-reaching and basic - in essence an indictment of two generations of corporation lawyers.
The bar, said Justice Stone, had been the servant of the country's mushrooming corporate growth in the gaudy
twenties. It had placed the skills and technical proficiency of centuries of professional development at the
command of the financial community. Some of these corporate and financial operators, not unsurprisingly, some
of these clients of a generation ago, were unscrupulous, dishonest, operating around the fringes of the law or
seeking to bend it to fit their improper objectives. A larger minority of these entrepreneurs and brokers were
simply unaware of the duties and responsibilities that necessarily bind those dealing in other people's money -
men who were not so much dishonest as they were misguided, imprudent, ineffective, reckless or irresponsible.
But unfortunately, according to Justice Stone, too many of the lawyers of that day and age who served these
corporation executives did not draw any such distinctions. Too many of them had surrendered the function of
independent and critical judgment which has been the historic pride of the legal profession - a judgment that
never spared and often guided the clients to be served. And as a result, said Stone, the nation's lawyers had to
bear a large share of the responsibility for the chaos these harmful corporate activities had created by the
beginning of the 1930's, and for the always unwelcome effort to impose governmental regulation where private
self-regulation had failed.
I have often thought of Justice Stone's appeal to the Bar as I sat during the past several months through the grim
and sometimes shocking hearings before the Senate Committee on Improper Practices in the Labor or
Management Field, the McClellan Committee. Watching that parade of witnesses from the irresponsible fringe of
the labor movement - some unscrupulous, some only misguided - and watching or hearing about their attorneys
as well, it has seemed to me to present a striking parallel to the situation of which Justice Stone complained some
23 years ago.
For during the past two decades organized labor has grown enormously in wealth, in strength and in numbers. It
has been fostered and encouraged by federal and state laws. Its votes and support have been prizes eagerly
sought by both political parties. We count on it to perform indispensable functions in the operation of our
economy - to help spread the benefits of increased production among workers and their families, to help keep the
economy on an even keel by acting as a counterweight to big business.
The development of such economic power and the organization of such collective effort could not have been
achieved - and was not achieved - without the active assistance of wise and skillful lawyers. In fact, since the
period of major union growth coincided with large-scale federal regulation of labor relations under the Wagner
Act and the Taft-Hartley Act, high grade legal advice and legal services were needed at every step of the way.
The legal profession as a whole has never been as thoroughly committed to the service of labor as, a generation
ago, it was to business. Nevertheless, in the thirties and after, an increasing number of able law graduates were
drawn to the growing labor movement by a sense of adventure and service. There was, I think, idealism and
dedication in the election of many young men to "go into" the field of labor law - and properly so. It meant
service to the many and not the few, to the cause of economic justice and a better way of life. For most of those
who have pursued distinguished careers in this field, this idealism has remained bright and untarnished to this
day. Our Committee has been greatly aided, for example, by the helpful cooperation and expert advice of the
AFL-CIO's wise and honorable General Counsel, Arthur Goldberg, who deserves much of the credit for that
group's precedent-shattering set of Ethical Practices Codes.
But there are others, I am afraid - too many others - to whom Justice Stone's strictures of almost a generation
ago apply in full force today. "I venture to assert," he said, "that when the history of the financial era" (and for
this we must substitute "era of union growth") "which has just drawn to a close comes to be written, most of its
major mistakes and its major faults will be ascribed to the failure to observe the fiduciary principle, the precept
as old as holy writ, that 'a man cannot serve two masters'. . . . There is little to suggest that the Bar has yet
recognized that it must bear some of the responsibility for these evils. But when we know and face the facts, we
should have to acknowledge that such departures from the fiduciary principle do not usually occur without the
active assistance of some member of our profession; and that their increasing recurrence would have been
impossible but for the complaisance of a Bar, too absorbed in the workaday care of private interests to take
account of these events of profound import - or to sound the warning that the profession looks askance on these
as things that 'are not done'."
In the past several months, our Committee has held up to public and Congressional view a long list of
malpractices currently characterizing the small racketeering element in our trade union movement - practices
which have again been in most instances the result of serving two masters, one's union and one's self; and
practices which have again been made possible by the "active assistance" of some members of the bar. As this
sorry story unfolds, some of the lawyers appearing before our Committee - as counsel or as witnesses - or whose
names have otherwise been involved in the testimony, have brought shame to the name of an honorable
profession.
Their ranks - those who engage in what might well be called legal racketeering - including the following:
(1) Lawyers who, working for a union official, arrange, conceal and worst of all share in the illicit profits of a
variety of improper transactions that use union funds or power for private gain.
(2) Lawyers paid from union funds, to which all of the union's members have contributed, who appear before our
committee or a court to advise the union's suspect officers against revealing the purposes for which those
members' dues have been used, or to otherwise defend those officers against charges of stealing from or
defrauding these same members that pay the lawyer's salary.
(3) Lawyers who represent management in the morning and so-called unions or union leaders in the afternoon,
who draw up the "sweetheart" contracts that keep respectable unions out, keep wages low and keep the profits to
both the employers and the fake union leaders very high indeed. These lawyers have been particularly active
lately in the exploitation of Puerto Rican workers for substandard wages in New York.
(4) Lawyers who organize "paper" locals, sham employer associations, so-called independent unions and fake
health and welfare plans in order to promote the kind of collusion that costs responsible management and labor -
as well as the general public - dearly.
(5) Lawyers who use their position with the union to promote their own financial interests, using union funds or
union power to accomplish transactions and investments of benefit only to themselves.
Those, my friends, are but some of the examples that disturb me deeply today as I address you who are dedicated
to the high traditions of your profession's honor and integrity. But I am even more deeply disturbed by the Bar's
apparent indifference to these events. I know of no action by any State Bar or other appropriate authority to
institute proceedings against these individuals. With the possible exception of New York State, I know of no Bar
association re-orienting its codes and canons of ethics to stamp out these practices - as the AFL-CIO itself has
done to stamp out labor racketeering. Where is the Justice Stone of today who will rise up to indict this
corruption and complaisance, this deceit and dishonor?
There should be no delay because the wrongfulness of any of these tactics is in doubt. A lawyer who is retained by
a labor union is the union's representative. His client is not the union president or the officers or the members of
the executive committee - his client is the union. He is paid with union funds, dues collected from the members -
and it is to them as an organization that his true professional responsibility runs. That organization is something
bigger and more important than the persons who temporarily hold office in it.
The officers, like the officers of a corporation, are themselves only the servants of the broader membership. They,
too, are subject to fiduciary principles. They hold the funds of the union in trust, and must manage its affairs to
serve not their private ends but the larger interests of the organization. How, then, can the union's lawyer take
fees from the union treasury to defend its officers against the charge of embezzling from that same treasury?
The parallel here to the corporate field is again perfectly plain. Officers and directors of companies are often
called to account, by their share-holders, public officials or others, to defend their stewardship of the corporate
funds in court. In such cases, it is firmly established that the director or officer must pay his own defense and that
the same attorney that represents the company cannot, with propriety, represent the defending official. The few
statutes which permit the official to reimburse himself out of corporate funds, if the suit against him proves
groundless, regulate this right stringently. Certainly no less stringent conceptions of propriety should prevail in
the union field.
But I think it would be naive to suppose that lawyers have engaged in the kind of practices I have outlined
because they were not aware of the unethical character of their acts. And thus this effort to formulate codes of
conduct is not useful because it results in any new understanding of what
is right and what is wrong - but because it focuses professional attention on the policing of the bar, properly and
traditionally the bar's own professional responsibility.
The problem is not now, and it never has been, that all, or a majority, or even a very large minority, of labor
lawyers have engaged in improper practices. But the fact that one has not personally profited from impropriety
does not absolve him of all responsibility for that impropriety. For if the act of belonging to a profession is to
have any special significance at all, it is at least in part that you become your brother's keeper on matters of
professional conduct. The strength of our professions, and particularly the Bar, has been their ability to impose
high standards of conduct not on their best elements - because that would be easy - but on their worst.
In the final analysis, this discipline is obtained not by grievance committees and disbarment proceedings, but by
the weight of professional opinion - informed, organized, focused upon the areas in which departures from
fiduciary principles are becoming "increasingly recurrent" on the part of both clients and their lawyers. Such a
mobilization of professional opinion cannot prevent every instance of wrong-doing on the part of members of the
bar - be they labor lawyers or tax lawyers or corporation lawyers. There will always be some to whom the
material rewards of wrong-doing will seem more attractive than their public reputations or the esteem of their
colleagues. But professional opinion can prevent individual instances of impropriety from turning into an
epidemic, the kind that Justice Stone saw in the corporate bar 25 years ago, and the kind that must be eradicated
before it spreads in the labor bar today.
I leave that challenge in your hands, trusting that it will never be necessary for the Congress to police the ethics
of the legal profession. And when that profession cleanses its ranks and restores itself to its true position of
leadership in our society, then once again lawyers and non-lawyers alike shall recall the eternal wisdom of Justice
Stone's reminder that "the great figures of the law stir the imagination and inspire our reverence according as
they have used their special training and gifts for the advancement of the public interest."

Freedom Award to the Hungarian Freedom Fighters in
New York City, October 23, 1957
This is a redaction of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. One draft exists in the
Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. A link to
the page image is given at the bottom of this page.
Four thousand four hundred and six miles from here there lies tonight a captive city. While we who are free
salute at festive banquets her noble fight for freedom, she weeps for the freedom - and the sons and daughters -
that she has lost. While we who acted not deplore the frailties that held us back, she guards the graves of those
who gave the last full measure of devotion. While we who only watched and waited seek loudly now to fix the
blame and point with shame, she silently waits with ever dimming hope and strength for the keys to her prison
door.
This is October 23, 1957 - the first anniversary of a day that shook the world - a day that will forever live in the
annals of free men and free nations - a day of courage and of conscience and of triumph. No other day since
nations were first instituted among men has shown more conclusively, to oppressed and oppressor alike, the
utter, inevitable futility of despotic rule. No other day has shown more clearly the eternal unquenchability of
man's desire to be free, whatever the odds against success, whatever the sacrifice required of him.
But October 23, 1956 shall also be permanently etched in man's history of man as a day of judgment - and of
failure. For on that grim and tragic day, and all through the bloody, perilous days that followed, we in the West
were unprepared to act effectively, unwilling to act decisively, unable to act with unity. To those who sought help
and revolution, we offered only hope and resolutions. To those who begged with urgent hearts and eloquent
tongues for deeds to match our words, for actions to match our promises, we offered only the cruel
disillusionment of "all assistance short of help." There were, to be sure, those among us who asked with
passionate interest: What can we do? But we knew not what to do.
I do not offer these thoughts in any partisan spirit, for these are matters too fundamental and grave for purely
political considerations. Nor do I point a bitter accusing finger against those who failed to act - for their motives
were always high, their weaknesses were in us all and their guilt must be shared by an entire nation, if not all
mankind. Nor, finally, have I come to preach a funeral oration over the silent grave of the martyred Freedom
Fighter of Hungary. For he needs no eulogies or plaques from us to keep his memory alive.
Till the future dares forget the past, His fate and fame shall be
An echo and a light -- unto eternity.
Rather than conduct either eulogies for dead martyrs or autopsies of past mistakes, let us, in the words of our
own nation's Great Emancipator, "here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain . . . It is for us
the living . . . to be dedicated to the unfinished work which they . . .
so nobly advanced."
Did the Hungarian Freedom Fighters fight and fall in vain? Did they contribute no more to the history of
freedom than sealed boxcars to Siberia, homeless thousands in exile and unmarked graves near the avenue once
briefly renamed The Street of Hungarian youth instead of Stalin Road?
The answer is largely in our hands. If the tragic course of events of one year ago taught us nothing, if future
October revolutions find us as helplessly unprepared and hopelessly divided as did East Berlin, Poznan, Warsaw
and Budapest, then the world may rightfully ask whether we who enjoy the greatest quantity of freedom do not
appreciate its quality the least. If we have only moved as a nation from a grandiosely optimistic conception of
what we can do to a passively fatalistic picture of what we cannot do, then freedom's hopes for the future as well
as the past lie buried in the rubble of Budapest.
So let us remember the living as well as the dead. And let us look for the larger meaning and lessons of the
Hungarian revolution, in the hope that some future October 23 may be commemorated with joyous liberty in the
streets of Budapest as well as New York.
II.
As we meet tonight, the air is filled with talk of new and greater Soviet prestige. The success of the sputnik
satellite, it is said, has made a deep impression on the uncommitted world, brought new admiration for the Soviet
system and persuaded untold thousands of the benefits to be gained by adopting the Communist way of life. Yet
in the midst of all these Moscow boasts and propaganda, in the midst of all these rocket launchings and missile
tests, there stands one mute witness to the utter horror of the Soviet system - betrayed and enslaved Hungary. No
amount of spectacular rockets firing on the moon will ever wipe out the memory of Russian tanks firing on
hospitals and churches, on aged refugees and crippled children. We cannot let the satellite in the Soviet sky dull
our memories of the satellites under the Soviet's heel.
There may in the difficult days ahead be further triumphs of Soviet science and further triumphs of Soviet
diplomacy - there may be new attempts to portray the face of the Kremlin as the jovial Kruschchev, the stately
Bulganin, the calm Zhukov. But in the ancient city of Budapest in the early morning hours of last November 4,
the face of the Kremlin tyrant vas painted too clearly, too permanently, too tragically for any to forget - a face of
savage hate and ruthless power, a face that knows no mercy, no justice, no honor. So long as the memory of that
face burns within our minds, let us hear no more about the prestige of the Soviet system or the advantages of the
Soviet way.
III.
Just as the fate of Hungary must touch forever the hearts of uncommitted peoples, so, too, does its lesson
command the attention of our own foreign policy makers here at home. Yesterday's New York Times report from
behind the Iron Curtain told once again of the ill effects that "stem from (the) basic Washington…feeling that
Eastern Europe is a 'lost cause'." The so-called "practical" men who have made these miscalculations are not
wholly confined to one party - nor are they foolish, disloyal or unsympathetic. Knowing full well the iron grip
with which a Communist regime seizes a nation's schools, and churches, and press, and above all the mind of its
youth who recall no better day or other way, these men despair of ever restoring the light of freedom to that dark
side of the continent.
But to say that Eastern Europe is a "lost cause," its freedom a futile dream, a vanished hope - to say that these
honored dead have indeed died in vain - that, it seems to me, flies in the face of every story written in the streets
of Budapest. For the very students in whom the false Gods of Communism had been thoroughly and repeatedly
dinned were the first to fight for a liberty they had never known. Workers wooed by the pledge of a ruling
proletariat preferred a hero's grave to a seat on the oppressor's council. To give up their chains, intellectuals gave
up their studies, shopkeepers their livelihoods, mothers their homes - and even when they saw the odds were
hopeless, they did not feel theirs to be a "lost cause".
Viewing their efforts and their sacrifice, by what right do we in this country say that Eastern Europe is a lost
cause? What, may I ask, have we tried? A negative policy of containment - an empty, irredeemable promise of
liberation - a half-hearted loan that came too little and too late - a series of moral pronouncements that offered
neither help nor hope? What have we tried - by way of devising a third course of action, a course that lies
between tardy resolutions and total war, between a policy of massive retaliation and no policy at all? What have
we tried I ask you, to entitle us to say that Eastern Europe is a lost cause?
Have we exhausted the tools of diplomacy, of political and economic sanctions, of UN and NATO action? Have we
backed up our challenge to the illegality of the puppet Kadar regime, and to the illegality of the current
executions of patriots? Have we fully exploited the cracks in the Iron Curtain that have appeared first in
Yugoslavia and now in Poland - to make new friends, exchange more goods, more ideas, more people, more
culture? Have we coordinated Western diplomatic machinery in preparation for the new outbreaks of violence
that are certain to come, including the creation of a permanent UN observation commission, ready to fly at a
moment's notice to any spot where an advance toward freedom is under fire? Have we revamped our foreign aid
legislation which does not now recognize the painful evolutionary path to freedom these nations must take? Have
we sufficiently revised our immigration laws, which now leave in limbo the fate of 17,000 refugees from
Hungary's reign of terror? Have we reoriented our propaganda agencies that they might be better prepared for
the next satellite explosion?
Perhaps all of these steps are not immediately feasible; perhaps some that are feasible will not be wholly
successful; perhaps some that could be successful involve an element of risk. But risk for risk, cost for cost, I
would rather see us formulate such a course of action, however limited it may be, than to sit timidly by when free
men and free nations fall. In the name of those whose valor we honor tonight, let us cast out from their high
places these false prophets of pessimism and gloom, these so-called realists who say a cause is lost before they
have even tried to win.
Eastern Europe a lost cause? No - never! It is a cause that shall never be lost - not so long as free men and women
everywhere keep alive the spirit of those whom we honor here tonight - not so long as we recognize that the
destiny of those behind the Iron Curtain is our destiny, their hopes our hopes, their future our concern.
Their cause, our cause, is not lost - and the Hungarian people, after centuries of resisting foreign tyranny know it.
The Irish and the Jews and the Vietnamese and the Tunisians, indeed the peoples of practically every nation on
earth, and particularly we Americans - we all know it. We all know that, however dark the night of oppression,
the day of liberty is certain to dawn. We all know, in the words of Byron, as he fought and fell for Greek freedom
in the rain at Missolonghi, that
"Freedom's battle once begun
Bequeathed by bleeding sire to son
Tho baffled oft is ever won."
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Associated

Industries of Massachusetts Annual Meeting in Boston,
Massachusetts, October 24, 1957
This is a redaction of this speech for the convenience of readers and researchers. One draft of the speech exists in
the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. A
link to page images of the draft is given at the bottom of this page.
It is a genuine pleasure to be with you this noon to participate in this annual meeting of the Associated Industries
of Massachusetts. Your organization, your members and the role which they play in our state are of such
importance to this Commonwealth and its economy that I am deeply honored to have received this invitation
from your very able Executive Vice President, my friend Roy Williams. These annual meetings are, I know,
events of considerable importance to you and the common principles which bind you together -- and I welcome
this opportunity to participate in your deliberations.
Permit me to present my credentials to a group of business executives. I appear before you today as a refugee
from the Board of Directors of a closed corporation known as the United States Senate, in which all American
citizens are stockholders. This is the slack season in our business, the production line is all but closed down and
my fellow directors are inspecting branch offices in all parts of the world. Should any of you aspire to serve on
our board -- and many do -- permit me to tell you that it is not always an easy life -- for proxy votes are never
allowed, the newspapers tend to list our stock as below its actual value, and the stockholders are constantly trying
to force our retirement whether we are over age or not.
exaggeration that I feel privileged to be here today before one of the most influential gatherings in this state and
nation. Your influence is not in bombs, satellites or national fame; nor is it dependent upon political pressure or
sheer force of numbers. But the fact remains that we are in the long run more dependent for our life and our way
of life upon the industries of this state and nation than we are upon either political parties or force of arms. Your
responsibilities in the direction and management of these industries, whether they succeed or fail, whether they
fulfill the demands of our times, whether they live up to their obligations to the community -- all of these my well
have a more profound effect on our national feature than perhaps any decision we may make in the Senate.
This is particularly true in Massachusetts. Our natural resources and advantages are few. We have no significant
industrial rev materials -- we have no oil, no coal, no huge resource of water power. Our fuel costs are high -- and
so are our freight and other transportation costs. What resources we do have, such as fisheries and forests, are
being depleted. As the oldest regional civilization and economy in the United States, we must guard against
economic arteriosclerosis, against a dependence upon the outmoded methods, machinery and management of the
past. In short, to compete with other states and areas, with more natural advantages, Massachusetts is
particularly dependent upon foresighted, responsible, progressive management. I know that you who we here
today are aware of your grave responsibilities to our state
For similar reasons, we in Massachusetts are also dependent upon sound labor-management relations. Few other
areas in the country are so dependent upon cooperation between management and labor in order to compete in
terms of quality, cost and productivity with other areas of the country. We have been fortunate -- extremely
fortunate -- in this regard in this state. Our record of harmonious industrial relations is, to my knowledge,
unsurpassed in any other section of the nation. For some twenty years, the total of man-days lost because of
strikes, lockouts, jurisdictional disputes, violence or other labor trouble has compared most favorably with the
rest of the country.
All of us may take pride in this record -- and we may particularly take pride in the fact that it has been achieved
on the whole without compromising the integrity of either labor or management, and without either side shirking
its responsibilities to the public. Any other course, in my opinion, is not only unconscionable but inevitably
disastrous -- in the long run costly to business, labor and the public alike. A labor peace purchased through the
payment of tribute to a labor racketeer is no peace at all -- and union stability achieved through a denial of union
democracy dictated by a handful of bosses, is not the kind of stability Massachusetts wants. We have recognized
this in our State Legislation, which pioneered. in this country on the question of union democracy and the
prevention of arbitrary dental of a worker's rights and membership
Consequently I was much disturbed to read the press reports of the meeting held in New York last month under
the auspices of the Industrial Relations Research Association. At this meeting, according to a Washington
reporter, several speakers - particularly from management -- expressed both public and private opposition to the
principle of union democracy. Compelling union officials to be more responsive to the membership, it was said,
will breed harsher and more unrealistic contract demands -- "democratic unionism means difficult unionism" to
employers; and greater rank and file control limits the strength and stature of those with whom employers are
accustomed to bargaining. Labor leaders who are secure in their position can devote less time to the internal
problems of their union and more time to collaborating with employers to help solve the problems of the
industry. These are some of the advantages to undemocratic unionism which were stressed at the meeting to
which I have referred.
But, based upon my experiences as a member of the McClellan Committee, I must sharply dissent from that
point of view. Undemocratic unions brood labor racketeers -- and whatever temporary advantages some
businessmen may see in collaborating with them, the existence of these unscrupulous, disreputable men in an
overwhelmingly honest labor movement can in the long run mean only violations of the trust of their members,
extortion and violence for employers and higher costs and prices to the general public.
I am confident that if you could sit where I sit, hear what I hear, and see the parade or hoodlums, perjurers,
profiteers and "fifth amendment refugees" who appear before our committee, you would agree with me that
labor racketeering in this country must be stamped out.
The Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field has now been in
existence nearly nine months. We have heard over 250 different witnesses in some 130 sessions, and our staff has
received over 65,OO0 letters of complaints of improper practices in labor-management relations. A large share of
these complaints relate to the undemocratic practices which enable racketeering to flourish.
One particularly frequent abuse of the democratic process is found in the device of trusteeship. One union of the
Operating Engineers in Chicago has been in trusteeship for over 25 years. Some 13 percent of all Teamster locals
are presently under trusteeship, some for as long as 15 years. The Teamster high command admitted to our
Committee they had no idea why some of these locals were put under trusteeship, nor why they remain in this
status today. Yet the individual members lose complete control of their affairs in a union under trusteeship, for
there is no election. One International officer may be a trustee with absolute power for many locals -- Jimmy
Hoffa, for example, serving as trustee for 17 Teamster locals.
In Chicago, a Vice President of the Bakers serving as a trustee, took more than $40,000 from the union and
purchased Cadillacs and an Eldorado for himself, air conditioning, earrings and necklaces. In a Los Angeles
local, arrangements were made for the girl friend of the President of the Bakers Union to be placed on the
payroll. We are unable to find evidence of any official duties commensurate with the pay which we know she
received.
Other undemocratic devices are used by the racketeers to keep themselves in power. In the 1956 Teamster Joint
Council election in New York City, when one union boss, so rumor has it, stayed in over 20 years and would be
there still if some scoundrel hadn't broken into headquarters and stolen the election returns for the next 20 years.
Our committee has not yet finalized the form which such legislation should take. Certainly limitations on the
device of trusteeship will be considered. Certainly a requirement of full membership consent to all large or
suspect financial transactions with union members' dues will be considered. We may also include some provision
similar to that in our Massachusetts law providing a right oil appeal to workers denied union membership on
arbitrary grounds; or that union constitutions presently filed with the Secretary of Labor, but contributing
nothing more than added bulk in a Government storehouse, be examined, and subject to approval or
disapproval, on the manner in which they provide for free elections, fair grievance procedures and the other
standards I have mentioned.
But legislative measures resulting from our investigations will not be limited to the problem of union democracy.
Other measures will be needed if the scourge of labor racketeering is to be effectively attacked. The next item to
receive our attention will be the operations of employee health and welfare funds, which provide unlimited
opportunities for graft, racketeering and abuses of every sort. These plans, whether operated by unions, moment
or both, are not at the present time registered with any Federal agency or subject to any kind of annual reports
or audits; and they are not required to meet nay minimum standards or safeguards in terms of the adequacy of
their reserves, the existence of collusion or discrimination or their use by union officials for personal gain. There
is no requirement that commercial insurance carriers handling such plans be selected through competitive bids.
As a result, some labor racketeers today are abusing and manipulating those plans for personal gain; establishing
fake plane which the rank-and-file neither knows of nor benefits from but to which the employer is forced to
contribute; embezzling welfare funds, receiving kickbacks from employers or insurance brokers, selling favored
treatment or other collusion to individual employers; or channeling a monopoly of a union's welfare fund
business to personal friends cm business associates, without regard to the cost, or to those willing to give them a
commission on the side. Teamster leader Frank Brewster, for example, channeled a multi-million dollar
monopoly in his union's welfare plans to an insurance broker who also turned out to be Brewster's partner in a
stable of race horses, a supposedly equal partnership that was unusually profitable for Mr. Brewster to the tune
of $44,OO0, while his partner lost exactly that amount.
The labor legislation subcommittee of which I am chairman has recently reported to the full committee for action
early next year a bill intended to curb these abuses largely through registration and disclosure. Our bill also
prohibits kickbacks and conflict of interest transactions, and requests that the Department of Labor prepare
additional standards of conduct for consideration by the Congress in the near future.
Even this is Bill not legislation to be hastily considered. The total reserves of pension funds in this country are
somewhat in excess of 30 billion dollars. Their growth in the past 11 years has been phenomenal -- today
employers are contributing nearly 5 billion dollars a year to such programs, and employees are contributing
approximately half that amount. Their benefits to wage earners, to the sick, the aged and the disabled, to the
insurance and banking industries and to the securities and investments markets, are tremendous. The SEC has
reported that pension fund reserves alone are currently the largest single source of equity capital.
Most of these plans are being administered responsibly and honestly and our committee cannot lightly undertake
legislation which might damage this tremendous program. The abuses and irregularities of a few union officials
and a few insurance companies must not be used as a basis for harming the more than 75 million people who are
covered in some measure by these programs. Our objective, rather, is to provide the framework within which all
such plans may operate without undue interference or undue opportunity for dishonesty -- or as Finley Peter
Dunne put it: "Trust everybody -- but cut the cards."
The next area of legislation to be considered by the Congress relates to regular union funds not covered by health
and welfare fund legislation. The Senate has already passed a resolution sponsored by Senator McClellan and
myself to make public the union financial reports filed under the Taft-Hartley Act -- but both of us stressed that
this alone would accomplish little or nothing, and would have prevented none of the misdeeds discussed today.
For those Taft-Hartley financial reports are completely inadequate and frequently inaccurate, containing no
detail or breakdown to reveal transactions such as these I have mentioned today. They require no itemized listing
(such as the SEC asks of all registrant corporations) of all the transactions, past or proposed, in which the
principal officer or his associates have any financial interest. The accuracy of these reports is not subject to any
check by the Labor Department or any independent audit, they are not filed under oath; and no union is
penalized for filing false information.
In addition to remedying these loopholes, it may be desirable to require the bonding of union officials handling
such funds, but even more important in this area of union dues is the necessity for legislation simply prohibiting
the embezzlement, misappropriation or comingling of union funds, and legislation prohibiting; all conflict of
interest transactions with union funds on the part of union officials. Those of you who must deal with the SEC
and its legislation will be interested to know that there is no federal law today on unions, similar to the Act of
1940 applicable to investment companies, which prevents officers from borrowing funds from the general
treasury, selling their own property to the treasury or receiving an under-the-table cut in the profits from
transactions they helped to arrange; and no Federal law for unions, similar to that governing stockholder
corporations under the Securities Acts, which permits the union or its members to recover into the treasury any
personal profit which an officer made as the result of abusing his official position.
As a result, labor racketeers are financing their investments, hobbies, private affairs and even their homes with
dues contributed by members to strengthen their union; and obtaining this money either through questionable
loans, so-called gifts, or outright larceny. One Chicago union official, for example, who spent $3400 of his
members' money on what he called a "goodwill" tour of Europe. "To whom were you spreading goodwill?", he
was asked. "Myself," came the reply. Mr. Dave Beck was particularly ingenious in discovering new ways of using
the dues of his members for his personal gain. If you recall the testimony concerning his sale to the union at a
handsome profit of the very house that union funds had helped to build in the first place, and then continuing to
occupy it rent free, you will agree with me that in his case, to refer to a recent popular title, a house is not a home
-- it was a business asset. Even when asked to explain the profits he had arranged for his son, David Beck, Jr.,
from union transactions, he refused to identify him - thus proving, perhaps, the old adage that "It is a wise father
that knows his own son."
The wrongfulness of the conduct I have been describing is clear -- the correct legislative remedy, stamping out
the chiselers without injuring honest, responsible and innocent union leaders and members is more difficult to
produce. In view of my joint responsibility as a member of the McClellen Committee and as Chairman of the
Semite Labor Legislation Subcommittee, I have been engaged for several months in the task of analyzing our
legislative loopholes and the language necessary to close those loopholes. Your suggestions are, of course,
welcome -- and I know they will prove to be helpful.
I cannot close without reminding you of the tremendous responsibilities which you, too, must bear in this field,
and of the disturbing evidence before our Committee indicating that all members of the business community have
not fulfilled these responsibilities. Our hearings this week on the activities of the labor consultant and
management representative Nathan Shefferman disclosed in ugly detail, I am afraid, how collusion between
certain management and labor racketeers injures union members, competing employers and the general public
But even before the ease of Mr. Shefferman, our Committee had learned of employer practices which enabled
labor racketeering to thrive. Permit me to cite a few examples:
Example No. 1 is the large producer that gave to labor racketeer Dave Beck an exclusive and valuable dealer's
franchise covering more territory than any other dealer in the country, obtaining in return Mr. Beck's help in
settling a strike to the detriment of its employees, and his inside information on the competitive position of its
fellow employers.
Example No. 2 is the sizable industry that loaned to the corrupt President of the Baker's Union, James Cross, the
sum of $40,000, subsequently requesting from him an unusual favor with respect to a wage contract.
Example No. 3 is the New York manufacturer who worked in collaboration with the local racketeer, and who
among other things agreed with him to withhold $23,400 of union members' dues for the personal use of the
company.
Example No. 4 was the transport company that set up Jimmy Hoffa's wife in a business that promptly realized
$125,000 in profits without any visible labor and very little risk -- and receiving in turn Mr. Hoffa's
extraordinary talents in settling a Teamster labor dispute.
Many other examples could be cited - exchange of loans, fake unions and welfare funds, so-called sweetheart
contracts to keep wages low and responsible unions out, and other examples of collaboration, frequently intended
to force their business competitors out and to obtain monopolies for themselves. Thus, the problem of labor
racketeering is not one for the Federal. government alone, or even primarily -- the responsibility for cleaning up
this foul situation is divided also among union members, employers, local government, and the general public.
Many people have written or spoken to me about this labor racketeering investigation. They consider it to be
exciting, glamorous work, appropriate for crusading knights in shining armor. They are wrong. It is a
discouraging, difficult task, taking the Committee into a seamy side of American life and American labor that
would be more pleasant to ignore, and stirring hostilities and prejudices that are politically better left dormant.
But this is our assignment, and we have accepted it -- and with the understanding and assistance of well-informed
members of the public like yourself, we shall continue our efforts to bring a little more light and a little more
justice to this dark and troubled area on the American scene.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Democratic

City Committee Annual Pre-Election Dinner in Easton,
Pennsylvania, October 30, 1957
Library. A link to the page images is given at the bottom of the page.
. . . (96 Senators) . . . A visit to Pennsylvania, of course, is always a privilege for anyone interested in the history of
the Senate - for it was in this state that the Congress and Constitution were created, and Congress sat for several
years before establishment of the capital in Washington.
All Senate historians are indebted to Pennsylvania's first Senator, William Maclay - for it is his diary that
provides the best description of those early Senate sessions about which we would otherwise know very little.
Take for example, the vivid picture of that early Senate we are able to draw from Maclay's diary entry for April
3, 1790: "Went to the Hall. The minutes were read. A message was received from the President of the United
States. A report was handed to the Chair. We looked and laughed at each other for half an hour, and
adjourned." (I might add that several meetings of the Senate last session would be very nearly identical with this
- except we looked and laughed at each other, with a few speeches thrown in, for 5 ½ hours instead of half an
hour, and then we adjourned.)
It was here in Pennsylvania that the Senate first decided in 1794 to open its sessions to the public by providing
galleries for spectators. "Some of the younger members," Vice President Adams warned, "may descend from
their dignity so far, perhaps, as to court popularity at the expense of justice, truth and wisdom, by flattering the
prejudices of the audience; but I think they will lose more esteem than they will acquire by such means."
There is no denying the fact that the Senate since that day in Philadelphia has contained members - not all of
them young - who courted popularity at the expense of justice, truth, and wisdom. But it is also true that such
Senators have in the end enjoyed less esteem than those who chose, in Webster's words, to push their "skiff from
the shore alone" into a hostile and turbulent sea. One such courageous Senator was a little-known man from
Pennsylvania, Edgar Cowan. Senator Cowan was one of those whose conscience led him to break with his party
and state in the bitter days that followed the outbreak of the Civil War. A very able lawyer from Westmoreland
County in the western part of your state, he was elected to the Senate in 1861 at the age of 45 as one of
Pennsylvania's most prominent Republicans. But he could not agree with the more radical leaders of his party
that the purpose of the war was the conquest of the southern states - instead of the suppression of a rebellion. He
refused to support his party's confiscation act, legal tender act, national bank act and attempted expulsion of
Senator Bright of Indiana. As a result, he vas bitterly denounced by his state and party. Senate Republican leader
Ben Wade called Cowan the "watchdog of slavery". The Republicans of Allegheny County officially censured
him at their annual convention.
But Edgar Cowan stood firm in his adherence to the Constitution and his own ideals - and, in the turbulent
reconstruction period that followed the end of hostilities, he refused to follow those Senate Republican leaders
who wanted Andrew Johnson to administer the downtrodden southern states as conquered provinces which had
forfeited their rights under the Constitution. Believing instead that a charitable and Constitutional approach to
reconstruction had been desired by his idol Abraham Lincoln - for whom he had been an elector in 1860 - Edgar
Cowan attended a national unity convention in Philadelphia in 1866 and served as chairman of its committee on
resolutions. As the reward for his courage, Pennsylvania denied Edgar Cowan reelection to the Senate; and when
Andrew Johnson nominated him to be Minister to Austria, his own former colleagues in Washington - caught up
in the maelstrom of what Claude Bowers aptly termed an age of hate - refused to confirm his nomination. But
before Edgar Cowan died in 1865, both the wisdom and the courage of his course were recognized in Washington
and Pennsylvania alike.
There are dissonant voices within the Democratic Party today, voices that threaten at times to pull our party to
shreds. There are those of us who disagree with our southern brethren on issues of race relations, those of us who
disagree with Congressman Walter on immigration, disagreements on labor and agriculture and a host of other
issues. But we Democrats are not like Russians, walking out of the United Nations because their point of view was
voted down. We are not like the Republicans, driving out of the party the George Norrises and Bob LaFollettes
who disagree with them.
We Democrats will always have dissension within our party - for Democrats, unlike Republicans, champion the
right of dissent. We will always have differences within our party - for Democrats, unlike Republicans, come
from all different areas of the country with different needs and problems. But let us agree to disagree as
Democrats, within our party organization. The common bonds of our party - a common tradition, a common
spirit, a common cause and an inseparable destiny - holds us within the party we honor and serve.
We recognize that what unites us is greater than what divides us - and in that spirit we meet tonight as
Democrats - not as Northern, Southern, liberal or conservative Democrats, not as New Deal, Fair Deal, States
Rights, Massachusetts or Pennsylvania Democrats - but as just plain unashamed, unyielding and unbeaten
Democrats. Those of us who recognize that the Democratic Party is bigger than one man, one section or one issue
- who recognize that the nation and the times require a united, responsible party to assume the reins of
leadership, to save the nation from drift and disaster - will join hands in working toward our common goals for
the American people. And I for one am confident that the American people, in every section of the country, of
every race and religion and occupation, will in turn recognize the necessity and desirability of continuing
progressive leadership in the Congress in 1958, and resuming responsible, thoughtful leadership in the White
House in 1960.
Let us examine for a moment the Republican drift of leadership on the domestic scene. The Republicans, of
course, are claiming success for their program - and predicting victory for their party - because, they say,
prosperity prevails throughout the land. But I ask you: prosperity for
whom? Where is the prosperity for our farmers, who have seen their prices and income go steadily down as their
debts go steadily up? Where is the prosperity for our small businessmen, who have seen their profits decline 52%
while business failures jumped to record highs? Where is the prosperity for our working men and women whose
average earnings have increased less than 1/6th as much as the increase in the profits of our largest corporations?
Where is the prosperity for our consumers, who see prices at an all-time high, their installment debt increasing
and their personal savings declining: What kind of prosperity is it that sends children to overcrowded schools,
that sends the sick and disabled to overcrowded hospitals and that maintains pockets of chronic unemployment
in all parts of the nation.
To be sure, there is prosperity for our largest corporations, whose profits have increased 61 percent. There is
prosperity for the Defense Department's 100 largest contractors, who have received 68 percent of all the
contracts. But I don't think that is what you call prosperity here in Pennsylvania.
Every time President Eisenhower says this so-called prosperity is equally shared by all segments of our economy,
I am reminded of the rabbit stew served during the meatless days of World War II ... etc ...
I do not say that this leaderless, rudderless Administration has not made any records for the history books.
Consider Mr. Eisenhower's budget - the highest peacetime budget in the history of our country, a budget with
more Federal employees and more alphabet agencies than Franklin Roosevelt ever dreamed of. Mr. Eisenhower's
five budgets exceed the last five Democratic budgets under Harry Truman by nearly 74 billion dollars, enough to
run the whole Federal Government for an entire year even under a Republican Administration.
What is called, for want of a better name, New Republicanism is breaking some other records too. The cost of
living is at an all-time high, so high that it will cost the American people nearly $7 billion more just to live
through 1957 than it did in 1955. There are more monopolistic business mergers than ever before, more small
business failures and bankruptcies under Modern Republican Administration. Their attitude is very much like
the man who complained to me on the street the other day that his wife was always asking him for money, ...
etc. ...
But the real clue to the meaning of Modern Republicanism was delivered by Republican National Chairman
Alcorn. "I would like to see us (Republicans) develop," he said, " a greater pride in partisanship - a feeling that
anything Republican is good because it is Republican."
I only hope that the Democratic Party never becomes that "Modern." I trust that we shall always put our nation
first, that we shall consider each proposal regardless of its source, that we shall defend the president not only
against his enemies abroad but also against his friends at home, and that we shall support the President whenever
we think he is right - whether he is a Republican President in 1957 or a Democratic President in 1961.
Let us turn now to the critical need for leadership in foreign affairs. And when I say leadership, I do not mean
popularity, or publicity, or prestige, or even power - all of which have during the past five years been frequently
confused with real executive leadership in Washington - and, I might add, in Newport, Augusta, Gettysburg,
Thomasville, Key West and Denver. I mean real, executive leadership, imagination and initiative.
A leader does not sit back and await with hope but no help the efforts of others to loosen the grip of Soviet
control, as in Poland and Eastern Europe. A leader is not caught wholly unprepared for a revolution in Hungary,
an invasion in Suez, a coup in Syria, a Communist foothold in Indonesia, or a Gluck in Ceylon. A leader does not
condemn Adlai Stevenson's suggestion for suspension of H-bomb tests as a "theatrical gesture . . . catastrophic
nonsense (and) . . . dangerous wishful thinking," only to tell the world a few months later that this is our leading
proposal for disarmament. A leader does not make campaign promises heard in the cellars of Eastern Europe
about a new policy of "liberation" that will push back the Iron Curtain, only to prove in East Germany, Hungary
and Poland that we are prepared to give them all assistance short of help. Retreat, retraction, reluctance,
retrenchment, regret - these are all characteristics of our foreign policy today and they are not the characteristics
of a leader.
The free world cries out for leadership - strong, responsible, vigorous leadership - before it is too late, too late to
save both peace and freedom. In recent years, the Communists have scored political-ideological victories in
Southeast Asia and Latin America, diplomatic victories in the Middle East and Asia, and military victories in
Indo-China and Hungary. Their economic, technical and military assistance programs have been more
consistently successful than ours in furthering their objectives - their propaganda more effective in sowing
dissension - their voting bloc in the UN more cohesive. Even our geographic advantages are crumbling, as the
Russians establish their first solid foothold in the Middle East, NATO fades, and intercontinental missiles and jet
bombers reduce the significance of time and space.
As our position in the Cold War becomes more and more critical, what has happened to our preparedness to
deter a Hot War? When, some ten, years ago, Americans expressed concern over the Russian edge in manpower,
we were reassured by our monopoly of nuclear power. When the Russians developed and tested atomic and then
hydrogen weapons, we were reassured by our superiority in air power. When the Russians passed us in terms of
fighter aircraft and prepared to pass us in terms of jet, long-range bomber strength, we were reassured that our
superiority rested in ballistic missile and satellite developments. And now we enter the age of sputnik.
Leadership in international affairs requires something more than a Secretary of State who can go around the
world in less than 80 days. It requires something more than a Secretary of Defense who came in with a sputter
and went out with a sputnik, who stated in 1956 that he didn't care if the Soviets were first with a satellite - and
who stated in 1957 that it was just "a nice scientific trick."
Presidential adviser Randall may call it "a silly bauble", Senator Wiley a "great propaganda stunt", Deputy
Secretary Quarles "no cause for alarm" and Cabinet Secretary Rabb "without military significance" - delighted
to hear that the launching of the satellite, with its clear indications of Soviet missile leadership, doesn't raise the
President's "apprehensions one iota" - but the truth of the matter is that the pigeons are coming home to roost at
the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House itself - and they are darkening the Washington sky. I
would like to read to you from a letter I have recently received from one of the nation's top engineers engaged in
technical and scientific work on matters of defense, for he states our situation far better than I can describe it to
you:
"The preponderance of the scientific community working upon rocketry, guidance and electronic detection
devices are alarmed over our inferior position and further by the incredible complacency of the consequences of
the demonstrated superiority in rocketry and the Eisenhower administration. Most of us working upon the
nation's military devices feel that the country is bordering upon catastrophe, the consequences of the
demonstrated superiority in rocketry and guidance evinced bye the USSR. We feel that this nation may find itself
in the same position as Japan after Hiroshima, and in the near future. Mr. Eisenhower has diminished the truth
in regard to these matters. The President's military prestige is such that his complacency reassures the public.
(But) this may not continue without the loss of the nation. This issue of national military failure is certainly the
greatest ever to face the nation."
I do not say that all is lost . . . that the United States will never regain the lead in the defensive and deterrent
strength required to keep the peace secure and the world free. But we need action, not complacency, in
Washington - leadership, not drift. Perhaps we shall have to wait until 1960 to obtain that kind of leadership - I
pray it will not be too late. But three steps can be taken immediately.
First, The President should, on nationwide television, tell the American people the truth about where we stand in
the weapons race - where we have lost ground, where we are in danger, what we need to do and what burdens the
people will have to assume.
Secondly, The President should issue the necessary executive orders to put our lagging, half-hearted missile
program on a top priority, round-the- clock basis, eliminating wasteful competition, assuring sufficient funds,
and concentrating the scientific, military, and financial resources of the nation in another Manhattan Project-
type effort.
Third, The President should send to the Congress a comprehensive legislative program for the intensified
development and utilization of American scientific and technical manpower and know-how, attracting additional
scientists to government service and making certain their findings and views are given high level attention instead
of being pigeon-holed.
This is not a time for panic, for fatalism or for handicapping our efforts with political charges end investigations.
Let us be calm and realistic, let us be determined and forthright - but, in the elections of 1958 and 1960, let us be
heard.
So long as there is one child without milk, so long as there is one family without a decent home, so long as there
are aged persons without pensions, working mothers without fair wages, struggling farmers without income, so
long as there are overcrowded schools, inadequate hospitals and families on relief, so long will the need for the
Democratic Party continue - and so long will we be called upon to assume the responsibilities of leadership.
I do not pretend to say that the future will always be rosy, even under a Democratic Administration. There will
be crises, there will be problems. But only the Democratic Party has the enthusiasm and the determination and
the new ideas necessary to meet those problems. We can build the schools and the hospitals and the homes and
the dams that our nation needs. We can wage unrelenting war against drought and poverty and illiteracy and
illness and economic insecurity. We can build, through strength and justice and realistic leadership, a lasting
peace. And we can go forward to a new and better America, never satisfied with things as they are, daring always
to try the new, daring nobly and doing greatly. It is in this spirit that we meet here tonight. It is in this spirit that
we will sweep the nation in 1958 and 1960.
But to carry this spirit forward, to carry the torch of our party and our principles, we will need stout-hearted
men such as yourselves in every part of the country. We ask of you not despair or discord, but light and
leadership.
Recall, if you will, the story which Alistair Cooke tells in his book, "One Man's America," that well illustrates my
point. On the 19th of May, 1780, as he describes it, in Hartford, Connecticut, the skies at noon turned from blue
to gray and by mid-afternoon had blackened over so densely that, in that religious age, men fell on their knees
and begged a final blessing before the end came. The Connecticut House of Representatives was in session. And
as some men fell down in the darkened chamber and others clamored for an immediate adjournment, the
Speaker of the House, one Colonel Davenport, came to his feet. And he silenced the din with these words: "The
Day of Judgment is either approaching - or it is not. If it is not, there is no cause for adjournment. If it is, I choose
to be found doing my duty. I wish, therefore, that candles my be brought."
Fellow Democrats, we who are here tonight concerned with the dark and difficult tasks ahead ask once again that
our party bring candles to illuminate our way.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, "The New

Dimensions of American Foreign Policy," November 1,
1957
Library. An annotation on the speech draft indicates that it was intended to be delivered at the University of
Pennsylvania. A link to page images of the draft is given at the bottom of this page.
The theme of my remarks today is on the new dimensions of American Foreign Policy. I realize only too well the
twin perils of such a title. It either stimulates the hope that one can guide through frontier territory previously
unsurveyed and unprospected or it induces the illusion, to use the words of Angel Gabriel in Green Pastures, that
"Everything nailed down is comin' loose". So let my first words be cautionary ones: by placing stress on factors
of change and flux in the nature and conduct of our foreign policy today, I am not attempting to obscure or
bleach out the continuing and fixed elements of policy. For we have daily evidence that all is not change: the
overarching necessity for a cohesive coalition within the Atlantic Alliance; the continuing plight of a divided
Germany, Korea, and Indo-China; the seeming impossibility of achieving any meaningful international
disarmament. But there is always the danger that we live and act too much under the hypnotic spell of the past,
that we seek to achieve future success by the pattern books and position papers of earlier victories. It is my strong
conviction that there are new contours, new silhouettes, and challenges in new guises which need to be blended
into the image we have of our international responsibilities.
By almost any reckoning America has passed through a decade of revolution in her foreign policy. During that
time, and especially during the period between the announcement of the Truman Doctrine and the entry into
Korea the United States has taken bold steps which have prevented the Soviet Union from absorbing Western
Europe and have lessened the Communist danger in some of the uncommitted areas of the world. The great
achievement, however, was in Europe. It both demanded and deserved prior attention. Apart from the common
bonds of culture, political heritage, and economic interest, we must always remember that Western Europe has
had a capacity equal to the Russian in economic strength and not far different in population and resources. If we
consider the Russian economic and scientific threat today as awesome, it staggers the imagination to take the
measure of a Russia whose satellites border on the Atlantic rather than on the Elbe. While Europe went through
its economic convalescence and while we jointly erected a protective military shield, we also were able to create in
NATO an alliance which both symbolized and served the common needs of North America and Western Europe.
In past tenths, however, even this bedrock structure has swayed under the pressure of new developments in
science and weapons and from the cross-pressures created by the sweep of nationalism in other parts of the
world. Indeed, there was a period after the Sues adventure of last autumn when NATO seemed to have lost all its
thrust and momentum. The Sues episode, joined as it was with the concurrent series of events in Eastern Europe,
was and remains especially instructive to those who doubt the new outlines of international diplomacy. For
during that crisis not only were France and Great Britain at odds with the United States, but the United States
found itself voting in the UN with Russia against its chief European allies. Even Canada adopted a policy
independent of the mother Commonwealth country, Great Britain. And, for better or worse, the Arab-Asian
nations, whose votes now exceed those of Europe in the General Assembly, effectively demonstrated a political
influence of their own. In that crisis, too, there was a deep division of opinion in Great Britain. For France the
expedition to Sues appeared a back road by which the Algerian revolt could be ended. And during the weeks
after the Egyptian seizure of the Canal there was an ominous and unprecedented breakdown of communications
between the European capitols and Washington.
Many are the disillusionments which those tragic weeks have left behind. There is little point at this date trying to
assign exact responsibility to each country. We all share some of the guilt: the United States not least of all for the
course it pursued diplomatically throughout the fall and for the manner in which it tried to call the Soviet bluff
by canceling its assurances regarding the Aswan Dam. What should concern us now is the question of why it was
that it was easier to obtain a condemnation of the Suez invasion than it was of the far more brutal Russian
intervention in Hungary. Why, too, did Soviet influence rise in the Middle East at the very moment when the
Soviet Union was exposing unmistakably its cast-iron grip on Eastern Europe?
To state the question is much easier than to suggest the answers, but let me try to pinpoint a few features of the
current international scene which are inherent in the events of the past months and which will be with us in the
years immediately ahead.
First, the Suez episode and the events surrounding it illustrate the important impact of the dissolution of the old
European empires. New nationalisms have successfully asserted themselves in Asia and Africa, but most of them
have a narrow economic base, a small governing elite, and populations increasing in numbers but often stagnant
or declining in their standard of living. As nationalism triumphs in the former colonial states, a residue of
defensive nationalism is left in France and Great Britain as the paralyzing Algerian War and the ill-fated British
attempts at national self-assertion in Jordan and Egypt last year clearly indicate.
However, if the age of armed colonial repression is over, neither can we assume that political independence is
more than a prologue to the political and economic health of the new nations. With our own frontier settlement
tradition and with a historic faith in democratic values, we all too easily believe that these same advantages can
be conferred on the emergent states of Asia and Africa. But there cannot be any such simple transmigration.
Americans quite properly must grasp the truth that a capacity for creating an ordered and peaceful society is
within the grasp of any people no matter what its stage o£ economic and social development, instead of accepting
the far more compelling evidence showing that free institutions of the Western world are the sophisticated
products of a series of historical developments of a unique kind. Therefore it is not enough that we proclaim our
anti-colonialism; we must also help these new states to find the means for accelerated economic growth and stable
self-rule.
This raises the second hard truth with which we must come to terms. That is the unprecedented population
expansion which is bursting in almost all parts of the uncommitted world, accompanied by a capital starvation
among the private and governmental investors of the world.
We are already adding more inhabitants to our globe each year than now constitute the entire population of
France. The world population will likely double before the century is out. Unlike many earlier increases, the
steepest gains have come in countries which are underdeveloped, where poverty is greatest, where there is little
immediate likelihood that productive gains from either agriculture or industry can keep step with the rise in
population--in Latin America, East Asia, and in the Middle East. It has not been the increased birth rate so much
as the phenomenal reduction in these countries of the death rate, from control of infectious diseases, sanitation
improvement, medical progress which has been the chief cause of the rise. And to this our own technical and
economic assistance has contributed significantly. In places close to the United States we note this dramatically:
in Puerto Rico the death rate has declined 80% in little more than a decade, whereas in Mexico there will be a
doubling of population in 25 years as the death rate has declined by 43% in ten years. The population explosion is
especially marked in the world's peril points: in places such as Egypt, Algeria, Indonesia.
In counterpoint to this development is the hard fact that economic backwardness is growing in these same areas
especially when set against the steady prosperity of most of the West. In the world community of nations it is true
to say that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Per capita income in the United States may
have climbed to some $2,000 a year for every man, woman, and child--but it is $110 in Egypt, $54 in India, and
$25 in Libya. With more prosperity in the world than ever before, there is also more poverty--more particularly
since "the revolution of rising expectations" is a part of the story of the nationalisms. For with modern means of
communication, the spread of education, and the widened experience of all nations it is impossible to seal off
peoples and hope that they will continue to obey customary and established authority and follow old modes of
living. For as Stuart Hampshire has pointed out, there is a new "critical restlessness which is becoming part of
the 'nature of man'", which "drives him to make critical comparisons with other ways of life and other standards
of justice".
The harsh prospect remains, however, that the gap between developed and under-developed countries is growing
greater and will continue to do so with advances in productive capacity, scientific know-how, plant investment,
consumer demand. While some industrialized countries are enjoying fixed investment today at a rate higher than
20% of their national product, other countries could not now afford an investment of even 5%. Yet an annual
growth of 5% is almost essential over a period of years if the underdeveloped states are to achieve real economic
progress and growth.
With these enormous problems of "triggering" growth, it was only natural that the possibility of building the
Aswan Dam, a multi-purpose structure, held enormous and perhaps exaggerated appeal not only to people in
Egypt but also in other Middle Eastern states. Yet the United States did not deliver on this project, it has not
made progress in leading towards a Middle Eastern Development Fund, and it has not raised more than verbal
hopes about the Jordan River development and other proposals contained in the Johnston Plan. Nor has
American business leadership come forward wither with money or ideas apart from the oil industry.
For a number of reasons, economic and political, there is a serious capital shortage in all these areas. Private U.S.
investment abroad last year did exceed four billion dollars, but one third of this amount was in Canada, another
third in oil, and lose than 10% can even liberally be described as venture capital in underdeveloped states. Of
course, there was some private capital flow from European countries, especially Germany, which may continue to
rise, but the gap between the cumulative amount of foreign investment and the amount which could effectively be
used is very broad.
From this we derive a third lesson from the events of last year-the greater and subtler maneuverability which the
Soviet Union enjoys in the fluid stream of events in the uncommitted areas of the world. For the crisis in the
Middle East a simple military response has not been adequate. For military pacts and arms shipments are
themselves a new divisive force in area shot through with national rivalries, without historic boundaries and
allegiances, without the type of colonial tutelage which has allowed them to build up the skilled classes and
political administrators who can pilot the new states through the treacherous tides which run throughout the
Middle East and much of East Asia and Africa.
In the highly combustible condition of these countries new opportunities have been opened up for Soviet
stratagems. And the Soviet Union has not hesitated to devise skillful--and not very costly-appeals to the
underdeveloped countries. It has done so not by open seizure of power, nor by direct conquest, nor border
aggression, nor even always through Communist parties. Rather it has negotiated fairly painless arms, technical,
and barter agreements, by small economic aid programs, by loan of personnel, by serving -- this is particularly
important not only in Egypt and Asia - by serving as a counterweight, as in the Middle East, to what many Arabs
regard as overzealousness for our interests, and by persuading significant elements in many of these new nations
that the attainment of economic growth and persistent development is best secured through an adaptation of
Soviet techniques and experience.
To countries with primitive economies and low industrial capacity, the Russian and even the Chinese passage to
modernity in a generation's time inspires confidence and excites imitation--even as does Egypt's move in seven
years from a seemingly subjected state to the status of at least a strategic power.
Against this the conceptions embraced in such structures as the Baghdad Pact, the Southeast Asia Treaty
Organization and the framework provided by the Eisenhower Doctrine are very fragile. There are at least three
weaknesses in the treaty arrangements in the Middle East: First, they are clumsy tools with which to treat the
Soviet strategems of leap-frogging and subtle infiltration which we have seen in Syria, Yemen, or Egypt--and
which in Southeast Asia have been emerging in Indonesia and in the Indian state of Kerala. Second, they tend to
heighten and sharpen the rivalries which already exist in the Middle East by their very existence whereas efforts
to give the Eisenhower Doctrine concrete application in the Jordanian instance have backfired to create a
common anti-Western front in the Middle East. Third, such paper agreements by themselves do not help
materially to shape the political direction and social content of the nationalist movements of backward countries.
We must always remember that the Soviet attraction is not grounded on threat alone and that there are tensions
in the underdeveloped areas of the world which would exist even if there were no Communist threat. Nor can we
be too complacent about the appeal of Marxism even under better circumstances. As the Economist has well put
it, "Communism appeals to people full to tine brim with incoherent social resentment, and accustomed to
authoritarian rule and to a creed which lays down the whole way of life."
What is more, Communism is able to retain in many peoples' minds the glamour of novelty, of breaking fresh
ground, and seeming to offer a disciplined, coherent, and irresistible answer to the overwhelming problems of
economic management and progress.
Indeed, it is one of Marxism's cruelest ironies that it has gained special force not in advanced industrial societies,
but particularly in areas of stagnation, peasant economy, or petrified authoritarianism. It is for this reason that
the United States cannot simply stand aside from the crises of the underdeveloped world; we must make resolute
efforts to demonstrate that Western techniques and ideas can offer intelligent and intelligible answers to the felt
needs of these countries. It is for this reason that I feel the United States must seek to help in the search for
solutions to the unresolved and especially abrasive colonial controversies.
To my mind French North Africa will be one of the major touchstones by which Western intentions and practical
policies will be judged. To speak of this utter is obviously to touch raw and sensitive nerves, to lay oneself open to
the charge of undercutting the essential cords of our Atlantic Alliance, to traffic in matters that are of purely
domestic concern in France. I realize the hard difficulties of the North African crisis, how hard will be the
emotional wrench for France to loosen its authority over Algeria, haw many Frenchmen have a direct stake in
the destiny of Algeria and its neighboring countries. Nor do I think that we have any right to believe that the
United States also might not act similarly in a parallel situation.
But if there is danger of an excess of self-righteousness on our part, there is also the danger that the slow burning
fuse in the Algerian crisis will later explode in an even greater calamity. The ending of direct French rule will
obviously expose Algeria to economic weaknesses and there is the fact that Algeria has only a small leadership
class of its own. But prolonged paralysis and rigid adherence to a program which offers no timetable of
independence will only further deepen the racial and political cleavages which have already cut far.
In my Judgment, in a situation where there are no idyllic solutions and where common sense must make the
choice, the dangers of Communism only become the greater as a settlement is postponed. This I say because
Algeria lies at the heart of any solution for North Africa as a whole and because Algeria is an important
ingredient of any secure advance in plans for the economic integration of Europe or Eurafrica. This is an area
where we do have two relatively stable and popular governments in Morocco and Tunisia, both of whom are
naturally inclined toward Western ways and values and both of whom would like to find a political and economic
framework which is interdependent with France. The economic costs and military commitments of France in the
Algerian War run high. France is not alone in diverting energies and resources to wars which cannot have a
permanent military outcome. On a lesser scale, the British also have made commitments in Cyprus which have
detracted from NATO in manpower and in antagonizing other NATO members. In Asia, the unresolved conflict
over Kashmir has also drained some of India's economic and military resources which logically would better be
applied to the hard battle for economic maturity. The knot is, however, tied hardest in Algeria. The tremors of
this revolt echo in every country of NATO as well as throughout Africa.
I do not happen to believe that France's role in the world has passed into the shadows. In fact, France has in
recent years and continues today to make impressive contributions to the growth and vitality of a new world
system. In the United Nations its representatives have raised challenging opportunities for more effective
international assistance on a multi-lateral basis. In French West Africa, the French government has made
generous grants of autonomy which provide gradual promise of independence, perhaps within a federal
framework.. Many sectors of the French economy have made remarkable technical and productive strides in past
years. And a significant portion of French political leadership is helping to guide plans for the European
Common Market, which will take life over a period of 12-15 years and which is especially well-suited to the
demands being made of European industry in such fields as atomic energy and aircraft production.
But most of these horizons--as well the vista of a Saharan development--will be darkened if there is not a
tolerable peace in Algeria. Painful and complex as any accommodation of this dispute must be, I am strongly
persuaded that this bad debt must be cancelled soon if the Western partners are to have the resilient strength to
meet the new challenges which are being set in the competition with Russia and its orbit, which in recent days has
encompassed the heavens as well as large parts of the earth.
I should like to stress three of these present challenges--in foreign assistance, in the scientific and military race,
and to the conduct of our foreign policy itself.
In all of these areas we must react imaginatively and not woodenly. Nor is there any single answer--more money,
or government reorganization, better propaganda, a single "crash" effort, a new Secretary of State, all which
might be highly desirable.
I am convinced that in the vital tests facing us we do have room for maneuver ourselves and that what must be
done can be done. Naturally, if our leaders see their role as limited to proposing no more than the mood of the
moment requires, if we consider our national policies to be only exercises in public accountancy; if we hold to a
static image of the world balance which takes no account of nationalist pulsations in all parts of the world
including Eastern Europe; if we mistake assertions of collective will for the substance of collective security and
moral pronouncements for moral authority--then, of course, the erosion in our position will be unabated.
In years hence we may, therefore be thankful to Sputnik for having awakened us from the years the locusts have
eaten. Sputnik has, I believe, roused many Americans to reconsider and bring up to date their appraisal of Soviet
capacity. Too often in the past when we have received periodic hints of Soviet achievement to come, we have
quickly returned to the comforting mental grooves with their fixed illusion about the preordained superiority of
our military and scientific capabilities. This time we perhaps recognize that the Russians are training more
scientists and technologists than the whole […unreadable…] their energies and of the West put together; they
concentrate their talents and energies more effectively on first objectives with less wasteful dispersion of skilled
manpower; they appear to possess a marked lead in important phases of missile development and technology;
their ballistic missiles are able--or soon will be-to strike any designated target anywhere in the world.
These advances are taking place against a background of basic progress in economic capacity as well. Their
annual rate of growth is more than twice ours--at a conservative 7%--and Russia will again be able to double her
industrial output in no more than 12 years. She is able to generate a level of internal savings and investment
higher percentage-wise than the United States. And a far smaller percentage of her basic resources are devoted to
items which are not essential indices of national strength--private automobiles, dishwashers, and the like.
This is not to say that the Soviet economy is a flawless mechanism with perfectly smooth performance. With its
successes Russia will have to take more account of rising consumer pressures and needs domestically and in the
satellites. Soviet agriculture is still very inflexible in meeting the changing requirements of mechanization and
consumption. And in the near future, Russia will have a shallower manpower pool as she feels the effects of the
war-time birth drought. It would, however, be fanciful to assume that these are inevitably lethal weaknesses. The
Soviet economy has made difficult adjustments in the past-harsh as the human price has been.
Also significant is the fact that Russia seems now to possess a special fund of knowledge, which cannot be
measured as exactly as economic ratios or military inventories. With their satellites Russia may become a vendor
of new information, while the value of our own nuclear and atomic information has depreciated in value and
prestige.
It seems to me essential therefore that we reevaluate dispassionately but closely the nature of our own
educational effort. This is in part a domestic problem--creating incentives for advanced scientific study and
training, providing public programs which pay special regard for the person of talent and unusual gifts, making
certain that every person of ability finds opportunity to gain the education he seeks. This requires too a review of
our military personnel programs--giving more searching attention to the type of inducements of professional
incentives outlined in the Cordiner Report; making certain that the pools of fundamental scientific inquiry are
not dried up either from economy restrictions or from an unfavorable climate of research. Beyond this the
Executive and Congress must make certain--and give public reassurance--that sterile rivalries and arbitrarily
contrived budgetary ceilings do not destroy the forward thrust of our weapons and missiles programs.
But the same type of review must take place within the Western alliance, where there is equal danger of false
economies, redundant military programs, archaic secrecies, excessive scientific isolationisms, and national
prestige programs which detract from common strength. For if NATO is to have real meaning in the changing
context of weapons developments and is to have a flexible strategy in response to developments in the Soviet
Union, it is clear that some barriers of information will have to fall and that a greater mutual exchange of
knowledge and personnel will have to occur. In this Congress will have a special responsibility, because there are
serious legislative barriers to such a condition.
The second range of new responsibilities lie in the area of foreign assistance. Here old concepts of "foreign aid"
must be put to the test. Not all the lessons of the economic recovery of Europe apply to other sectors of the world.
Nor are we concerned only with relief, with a distribution of charity to the less fortunate, with the purchase of
tenuous friendships throughout the granting of gifts, or with the bidding for "privilege" of aiding a country
against the bids of the Soviet Union. At its simplest, so long as the loss of large areas of Latin America, the Middle
East, and Asia would adversely affect our security, the status of their economies must necessarily be of concern to
us. To some extent we can seek a new emphasis in concert with close allies such as Canada and Germany, whose
economies can now absorb more international spending and investment.
A leading example of a common problem in which the United States must take the lead but in which the help of
others can be sought is the appeal which India is now making for a foreign loan, the importance of which I
consider absolutely critical in the ability to maintain this most important of all uncommitted states--and others
like India--outside the zone of Communist control and influence.
But a new emphasis is needed generally for the underdeveloped areas of the world, a program which would act as
"seed" capital to private capital from this country and Europe and which can generate a sufficient rate of
growth. Irrigation and power projects, communications and harbor improvements are the type of help which
many countries must have to move forward. The faint beginnings of such a program is contained in the
International Development Fund which the Senate launched this year in the Mutual Security Act, but its
authority must be broadened and capitalization increased if it is to have the necessary continuity, durability, and
reliability.
We can explore further also the possibilities of using our vast and costly agricultural surpluses as means of
capital investment abroad. The United Nations has reported significant success with pilot projects of this nature.
When possible, these programs call for the use of our surplus agricultural products to go to underdeveloped
nations who may be suffering from a shortage of those products, but who can as a result of our loan devote the
human and material resources which would otherwise be devoted to feeding their population to the building of
roads, dams, and other capital improvements. In this fashion, our political liability becomes their capital asset,
without further burdening the American taxpayer. This approach is limited by our obligations to other allies who
also have surpluses--such as Canada--and by the difficulties of applying the right techniques, but it deserves our
every effort.
A further feature of our aid program which requires study is the legislation governing the granting of assistance
and loans to countries such as Poland after her revolution of last October and as other Eastern European
countries might become in the future. As our legislation is written today--and particularly because of the Battle
Act of 1951--it is nearly impossible to give assistance to any country unless there can be a showing that it is not
under "Communist domination"--hence a "free" state. The experience with the Polish loan was that it came too
late and probably in too small an amount to have the maximum impact--and this was caused very largely by the
legislative hurdles and restrictions which first had to be cleared. Since the experiences in Hungary proved
conclusively what many had always suspected--that "Liberation" was more a policy of bluff than real intention,
it is all the more necessary that we have a flexible set of tools by which we can aid states--short of force--who are
passing from under total Soviet domination but who are not able to become completely free states. It is quite
conceivable that other states may come into this limbo in the future; at the very least our laws should be flexible
enough so that we could grant aid in instances where the President felt it to be clearly in our national interest.
But all of these suggestions--and others--have no meaning if our national leadership does not show sufficient
nerve, resolve, and courage. At most periods of our history, our national prestige and effective influence has been
measurable by the strength of will, the capacity for judgment, and the articulation of policies at the pinnacle
--and that is the Presidency. If initiative falters there, if the public is not honestly informed, if all executive action
is merely reflex action, then foreign policy by its very nature cannot but fail in its large objectives.
Too often in recent times, we have tended to equate a sound policy with its gadgetry and form. But no amount of
reorganizations in the administration, no end of ambassadorial changes, and newly contrived verbal policies can
substitute for the confidence that our leadership in the White House and State Department means what it says
and is willing to act on its words. Congress has many faults, but I cannot think of many instances in history
where it has failed to act when clearly confronted with a challenge to national security and strength by the
President. This has been true regardless of what party controlled the Congress.
In the last few sessions of Congress, there has been a relaxation of purpose in both defense and foreign aid, but in
both fields the executive has either been behind Congress or but a faltering half step ahead. In the realm of
foreign policy this is a unique--and dangerous state of affairs.
Far more than the cut and thrust of debate and controversy we must guard against the suppression of dangers
and the evasion of issues which the nation must meet anyway in the long run. In our foreign policy there are
altogether too many false harmonies and weak compromises which only obscure the permanent realities of our
time. It is always hard--and never painless--to break with settled conceptions, tested techniques, and inherited
thinking. This has been true of all periods of time and in all realms of human activity. But in this perilous phase
of international politics, let us recall the answer which Galileo gave to the well-intentioned but brittle minds who
argued in his day for the status quo "Eppur si muove"----"But the Earth does move". And so it does in our time.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy before the 10th

Biennial Convention of the Young Democratic Clubs of
America, Reno, Nevada, November 8, 1957
This transcription of this speech is made for the convenience of readers and researchers. One draft of this speech
Library. A link to page images is given at the bottom of the page.
The successful elections of 1957 are now behind us - the Democratic victories of 1958 are now just ahead. I have
no doubt whatsoever of a Democratic victory in 1958 - I have no doubt whatsoever of our ability to increase our
margins in both Houses of Congress by a sizable amount, enough to pry loose some of the more controversial
legislation no narrowly-divided Congress can pass. I have no doubt whatsoever that we are going to win - and win
"big".
The question is: will we deserve to win? Will we color our statesmanship with distorted partisanship, compromise
our principles of democracy with displays of demagoguery? Will we, in our eagerness to seize the reins of
responsibility, commit acts that will make us unworthy of assuming such responsibility?
I trust we will not - but I have one difficult issue in mind tonight as I raise these questions - and that is the issue of
a tax cut in 1958.
I realize that all the statistics and predictions about tax income and surpluses and expenditures are not yet in. I
realize that we have not yet received new budget requests, or calculated how many billions could be recouped if
only certain tax loopholes could be plugged or certain rate structures revised. And I realize that the initial
decision on this matter must originate in the House of Representatives.
But speaking for myself, as one Democrat that must seek reelection next year, I want to state here and now that I
think it would be both misleading and irresponsible for us to predict a tax cut in 1958 - for us to promise that to
the people - for us to stake our claim for victory upon it.
I think we would be more honest with ourselves and the people if we said, here and now, that such a cut is most
unlikely. I would like to see the Democratic Party take such a stand in response to the President's talk of last
night - and the resolutions to be adopted by this Young Democrats Convention may be our first and best
opportunity.
I do not say that such a stand will gain us a single vote anywhere in the country - I do not say that it can answer
all of the desperate pleas for tax relief from workers, housewives, pensioners, small businessmen and farmers.
But there are times when a political party must do something more than garner votes, win elections and seek
political advantages - it must offer responsibility and leadership. Instead of yielding to the pressures and petitions
of the various voter blocs, it must yield only to the unavoidable requirements of national interest. Instead of
appealing to the voter's pocketbook or bread-basket, it must appeal to his courage and conscience.
There is no glory to be obtained by such a stand, however noble it may sound. There will be many who will argue
with telling logic that a tax cut in 1958 is not only a political necessity for our Party, but an economic necessity for
the country. The Chairman of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee has declared recently that
Congress "can and must cut taxes" as "an act of responsibility." One of his colleagues on the House Ways and
Mean Committee has announced:
"When (our) Committee meets next January 7, I will be there demanding tax reduction and less government
spending. Let us not be stampeded. Unless I miss my guess, the people will get results - there will be tax
reductions next year."
The Republican drive for a tax cut, if it is made, to woo new votes is a campaign they cannot otherwise win, may
well usurp the familiar Democratic position - tax relief for those who need it most, down at the bottom of the
economic ladder. The very voters we hope to win back to the Democratic columns, the underpaid and the
unemployed, the little man and the little shop - they will all benefit from a Republican election-year tax bill, and
they will want their Democratic friends to support it.
But, to use the words of our Republican friend, let us not be stampeded. Let us look at the hard, cold unpleasant
facts as to why no tax cut is feasible in 1958 and very likely for years to come. Look at the budget figures
themselves. Income to the Treasury is likely to fall below its earlier estimates by at least a small amount, due to
what Secretary of Commerce Weeks calls a "sideways movement" in the economy, a "readjustment period," a
chance to "catch your breath." The President also says the American economy is "taking a breather." I am not
certain what those terms mean - but remembering some of the vague terms they used to reassure us about the
1954 recession, I am deeply disturbed. A real recession, of course, could create an urgent need for tax revision.
But as Federal revenues decrease the hopes for a Treasury surplus, the tide of Federal expenditures continues to
rise inexorably no matter how loudly Administration spokesmen implore it to halt. Republican tight money
policies mean higher charges on the national debt; Republican limitations on social security and aid to surplus
labor areas mean higher costs of public assistance; Republican farm policies are costing us higher surpluses and
more dollars than the previous twenty years of Democratic programs combined. Above all, the Defense Budget -
which the Republicans for five years have slashed away at, hacked, clipped, stretched out, cut back and frozen -
can exist under its arbitrary ceiling of 38 billion dollars only by ignoring the star and the moons - the Red Star on
Soviet moons.
There is no point any longer in pretending that we can cut taxes by holding the defense budget to 38 billion
dollars, when there are no prospects for disarmament, when the Soviets have surpassed or outmoded much of
our defensive and deterrent strength and when the weapons of tomorrow take more and more money.
There is no point any longer in pretending that we can cut taxes by tapering off and ending our foreign aid
program, when the standard of living for much of the world is getting poorer and poorer, their population
pressures greater and their need for development capital desperate.
There is no point any longer in talking about cutting taxes in a nation that cannot graduate as many scientists or
engineers as the Russians, that lacks classrooms for some nine million children and that pays the average railway
conductor nearly twice as much as it pays the teacher who conducts our elementary classes.
Let us not talk of tax cuts when we are critically short of low-rent public housing, when our blighted cities cry out
for urban redevelopment, when more than one-half of our talented high school graduates are unable or unwilling
to go to college, when we face a crisis of too few doctors, too few nurses, too few hospital beds and too few health
insurance policies available to the aged and chronically ill who need them most. Let us not talk of tax cuts at a
time when the tottering new Polish government needs the aid that might wean her from Moscow, when the Nehru
government in India must receive help or leave a vacuum only Peking will fill, when UNICEF and SUNFED and
an International Food Bank have never realized their potential.
I would rather see the Democratic Party talk about the surplus labor areas all over the nation which this
Administration has ignored. I would rather see us talk about the 3 Billion dollar increase in the farmer's debt, the
doubled rate of farm foreclosures, and the astounding loss of several hundred farms every day under this
Administration.
I would rather see us talk about our lag in basic research, missiles, jet engines, rocket motors, air defense and
atomic fuels - about our untapped or wasted natural resources, our shameful slums and our underpaid Federal
employees, whether they be mail carriers or scientists.
We cannot talk about these issues and at the same time talk about tax cuts with any degree of sincerity or
responsibility. The relentless facts of life in the world today, the hard facts of our national security and expanding
nation, do not permit talk of tax cuts from a party that will in 1960 acquire full responsibility for facing up to
these facts. Perhaps we could deceive some of our constituents - perhaps we could outmaneuver the Republicans
on this issue - but there is no point in deceiving or outmaneuvering ourselves.
Last night the President delivered his first address to the Nation on this subject. The speech was well-thought out,
well-written and well-documented - and I am sure it will be well received by every American, regardless of party.
The President stated that he was going to tell the Nation the "rough" facts as well as the smooth - "the sternly
demanding" as well as the reassuring. He asks for the "energetic support of every American," that we "face up
to certain pressing requirements and set out to meet them at once," recognizing that this problem "surmounts
any division" partisan or otherwise - and to meet it we will "close ranks as Americans."
I am certain that everyone here would join me in assuring the President that as Democrats and Americans we
stand ready and willing to face whatever harsh facts must be faced and to assume whatever heavy burden must
be assumed.
We do not intend to make political capital out of national disasters - we do not intend to play politics with the
critical issues of War and Peace.
But neither do we intend to forget our responsibility as Americans and as the minority party to offer constructive
criticisms and alternatives. For this Nation will never survive unless the channels of free dissent are kept open,
and the Democratic Party is necessarily the primary channel of dissent available today.
I think, therefore, that we have a right as Democrats and as Americans to ask the President to tell us all of the
harsh facts we must face, and not just some of them. We have a right as Democrats and Americans to ask
whether the President's proposals are not now too little and too late. And we have a responsibility - an
unavoidable responsibility - as Democrats and Americans to promulgate additional proposals to meet the
problem left unsolved by the President, and to implement our proposals in the Democratic Congress.
It is in this spirit that I would like to discuss with you tonight the President's address, and my own reflections
upon it during the past hour.
In the first place, the American people ought to be told that the facts of our current military position are far more
grim than the President indicated. The President told the Nation that we are behind in satellite development - he
did not say how distressingly far behind we really are. The President stated - and though he stated it calmly, to
avoid any reaction of panic, it is a critical fact to face - that we are also behind in some areas of missile
development, particularly the all-important inter-continental ballistic missile. But he did not go on to say what
effect this would have on our overseas bases, now that our allies are exposed to Communist blackmail, and the
bases themselves are now on the bulls-eye as never before. He did not say how this might now endanger the safety
of our own shores or that part of our strategic air force which cannot be kept continuously airborne.
The President stated that the Soviets are ahead of us in what he called "special areas". But he did not spell out
these areas - he did not tell the people that we may also be as much as several years behind in rocket motors, new
fuels, jet engines, radar, and nuclear powered planes.
In short, the President did not tell the Nation the real meaning of these "rough" facts - that the United States has
never in its history stood in so critical a position in world affairs. We have been accustomed to winning, to being
first - and the tragic fact of the matter is that until a few years ago, in terms of defensive and deterrent security in
every line, we were first; and we could have been first today. It is not correct to say, as some do, that we lost our
lead this fall - we obviously lost it long ago. Only one man was in a position during these five critical years to
know all these facts, to make all the decisions, to hire and fire those responsible - and that one man was the
President of the United States.
In the second place, the President did not tell the American people why it is we are lagging behind the Soviets in
so many areas. That is what the American people want to know - and that is what they have a right to know. The
President referred to what he called "alleged inter-service competition". May I respectfully suggest to the
President that this wasteful competition is not alleged - it is proven. Since 1953, we have witnessed three separate
missile development programs, duplicating each other's efforts, competing for funds, for personnel, for scientific
facilities and brainpower, and surreptitiously undercutting the other two to Congress and the press. While the
Navy was spending $200 million or more to build a Regulus, the Air Force was building an almost identical
missile - the Matador - with other money and other scientists. When the Air Force was developing the Thor, the
Army - instead of turning over its know-how, men and money, after an order keeping it out of this field - went
right on building the Jupiter. Those are not allegations, Mr. President, - those are facts.
The President reassured the nation last night that there has been a "high-level of expenditure on research and
development for defense." The truth of the matter is that his administration has not once in five years requested
a budget for Defense Research and Development as large as that requested in the last Democratic year, despite
complaints and warnings from service chiefs and scientists. And even after Congress appropriated the full
amount of funds requested - sometimes more - Secretary Wilson cut them back. The President did not tell us why
research and development funds were cut back 10% this year just prior to the first Soviet moon-launching; or
why no attention was paid to Secretary of the Air Douglas' warning about our missile cuts at the time the
President was saying everything was being done "as rapidly as it can be done".
The President stated last night that missile development in our defense department got into high gear more than
two years ago." He neglected to say that it should have gotten into high gear more than four years ago - but that
Secretary Wilson was permitted to shelve for all practical purposes the entire missile-satellite program for two
critical years, on the ground that it was "visionary" stuff that caused our Defense Department to spend more for
research and development than even General Motors itself. And even when we got into what the President calls
"high gear", there was no round-the-clock, "crash" priority basis, no strong leadership, and a disorganized,
wasteful, rivalry-ridden management in Washington.
Third, and finally the President's proposals, while good as far as they go, must still prove that they are capable of
closing the gap. I congratulate the President upon the appointment of Dr. James Killian as his special assistant -
Dr. Killian is a distinguished resident of my State who will bring great energy and intelligence to this program.
But the question is - will the President give to Dr. Killian a role of something more than a mere advisor? Will he
be able to do more than merely round up scientific genius? Will he be able to get the money he needs, knock
together heads in the Defense Department, end the complacency and the confusion that now grip his
administration over this issue, and hereafter give our missile and anti-missile programs the priority, the
personnel, the funds and the attention they have sorely needed for so long? We have in the past two years already
had a wealth of coordinators, special assistants, and expeditors - it takes more than new names, new jobs and new
promises the job done.
The truth of the matter is that no special assistant and no new act of Congress is enough. Only the President of
the United States has the power and the facts and the position to lead us through these critical years. Whatever
fears we may entertain as Democrats, we must - as Americans - hope that he will meet the test. We shall have our
initial answer next Wednesday night.
Perhaps it is already too late for us to catch up with the Soviets - perhaps there is nothing we can do - but we dare
not fail to make the effort. We dare not fall back on the same policies of drift and complacency that have
characterized this administration's programs at home and abroad for nearly five years.
In spite of our concern with past failures by those in high positions of responsibility, nevertheless as Democrats, I
am sure we all pledge our nation and our leadership our undeviating support in the years ahead and I am
confident that support will be sufficient to insure our security.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Temple

Emmanuel in New York City, November 19, 1957
This is a redaction of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. One obviously incomplete
draft of the speech exists in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the
John F. Kennedy Library. A link to page images of the draft is given at the bottom of this page.
One of the great universal minds of the past - the German writer and thinker Goethe - had as his credo: "He only
earns his freedom and existence, who daily conquers them anew." The lasting truth of this belief has embedded
itself in our consciousness by the events and revelations which have posed so sharp a challenge to our foreign
policy in these past weeks.
For in these weeks there has been a realization that the scale of the Soviet challenge has grown, that it has new
guises, a new repertoire of stratagems, and a range of technological and economic capabilities formerly little
appreciated by most Americans. Events have been brought upon us with such speed that they have produced the
illusion, to quote the lament of Angel Gabriel in Green Pastures that "everything nailed down is coming loose."
While we have daily evidence that all is not changed, the over-arching necessity for cohesive coalition within the
Atlantic alliance, the continuing plight of a divided Germany, Korea and Indo-China, and the seeming
impossibility of achieving any meaningful international disarmament, we, nevertheless, recognize that there are
new contours, new silhouettes and challenges in new guises which need to be blended into the image we have of
our international responsibilities.
It is perfectly clear that the next months confront our nation with an extraordinary challenge - both to our
imaginations and to our self-discipline. For this country must again - just as a decade ago in 1947 - adapt itself to
a world picture whose many perplexing dimensions do not permit any single answer - but demand response. No
single "crash" program, no easy reorganizations, no mere change of personnel, no lump sum of money provides
the necessary accommodation to the changed world scene. Nor are there any escapist solutions - by cutting taxes,
by letting events ruin their course, by hoping that the "dust settles". I cannot, of course, in this brief speech,
cover the whole canvas of our responsibilities, and I ask your permission to dwell primarily as two features of the
current world picture - the rise of new states whose interests have become meshed with our own and the
economic cast which much of international world politics has assumed. While the scientific challenge which the
Soviets have thrown into the air in the form of Sputnik has absorbed most of our attention in recent weeks,
tonight I would like to dwell on what I believe to be an even more serious challenge to our capacity to survive. I
have no doubt that if we are willing to pay the price in sacrifice and if the right leadership is given us we can
match the Soviets in scientific capabilities. The more exacting test will be found in the jungles and deserts of Asia,
the Middle East and Africa where the Communists also have us an the defensive. It is here that the Communists,
I believe, mean to defeat us. As they recognize that a mutuality of terror exists between ourselves and the
Russians, they mean to turn our flank there by subversion, propaganda and diplomatic initiative.
Much as we see the world as fractured in two, as a dualism between the United States and the U.S.S.R, the truth
is becoming ever enlarged that there is no such simple counterpoise any longer. That these two giants are still the
nuclear centers of world power is undeniable, but that there are other states which cannot be ignored is equally
certain. Neither the U.S.A. nor the U.S.S.R. can any longer frame international policies oblivious to the existence
and temper of other nations - India, China, Egypt, Japan, and a host of uncommitted countries whose individual
speaking parts may seem very small, if not inarticulate, but whose common consciousness will powerfully affect
the future pattern of world power.
Parallel with this has come a recognition that national survival rests on more than military power and that the
equations of strength have a decisive economic factor in them. It has been said that where states used to make
shifting alliances with an eye to the balance of power, they are now constructing their associations out of respect
for the balance of trade.
For as the Suez episode and the events surrounding it illustrated, there is important impact of the dissolution of
the old European empires. New nationalisms have successfully asserted themselves in Asia and Africa, but most
of them have a narrow economic base, a small governing elite, and populations increasing in numbers but often
stagnant or declining in their standard of living. As nationalism triumphs in the former colonial states, a residue
of defensive nationalism is left in France and Great Britain as the paralyzing Algerian War and the ill-fated
British attempts at national self-assertion in Jordan and Egypt last year clearly indicate.
However, if the age of gunboat diplomacy and armed colonial repression is over, neither can we assume that
political independence is more than a prologue to the political and economic health of the new nations. With our
own frontier settlement tradition and with a historic faith in democratic values, we all too easily believe that these
same advantages can be conferred on the emergent states of Asia and Africa. But there cannot by any such
simple transmigration of the soul. Americans quite properly must grasp the truth of a British observer that "they
assume that a capacity for creating an ordered and peaceful society is within the grasp of any people no matter
what its stags of economic and social development, instead of accepting the far more [...]
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the National

Conference of Christians and Jews Dinner, Chicago,
Illinois, December 3, 1957
It is a rare honor and privilege to be with you tonight to join in honoring the National Conference of Christians
and Jews. I was particularly delighted to accept the invitation of your distinguished dinner chairman, John
Knight - for he has befriended not only me but also, in his life end, career, the ideals of truth and justice and
opportunity to which we all rededicate ourselves at this Dinner. The National Conference of Christians and Jews
and its annual Brotherhood observances have long ago proven to be a permanent, valuable part of American life
- enriching our heritage, stimulating our conscience, and overseeing the progress of human relations in our land.
We honor here at this dinner tonight a principle - a principle we call brotherhood - in the hope that all
Americans will honor this principle in their hearts all year round.
We meet tonight at a time of peril. Americans do not like to talk about peril. We do not want to admit that we
could be in danger, that we have fallen behind, that we may be second best in some areas. There has always been
something un-American or defeatist about suggesting that we could lose a war or lose our way of life. We have
traditionally believed America to be invincible because America was right, because we have never lost a war,
because we have always been successful in whatever we set out to do as a nation. Those who talk of peril here
been alarmists, lacking faith in the superiority of our system - demagogues, handicapping our efforts by arousing
fear or panic - malcontents, calling into question the wisdom of our methods and our leadership.
But tonight we meet at a time of peril - and it would be foolish to deny, or conceal the stark facts of our situation.
There may still be some benefits in terms of avoiding panic and retaining confidence through continued
reassurances and optimistic prophecies - but these benefits are outweighed, it seems to me, by the larger
responsibility of democratic government to keep the people fully and frankly informed. Neither the "boy who
cried wolf," nor the "gentlemen (who) cry peace, peace - (when) there is no peace" can long serve in a
government dependent upon the trust and faith of the general public, once the facts are out. The hard truths of
our position, of our failures as well as our successes, our perils as well as our hopes, are inevitably going to come
out - and I for one have full confidence in the ability of a free and fully informed people to face those facts with
calm and courage.
We are in peril today - and by that I do not mean simply the danger to our lives and our fortunes, to our
unscarred shores and our unsurrendered flag. For we could lose more than a war, more than our lives - we are in
peril of losing our whole way of life, not only our nation's peace and freedom but our own peace of mind and
freedom to think, our cherished concepts of democratic government and individual liberty. And we could lose it
all, all we hold dear, without a single shot being fired.
For the military peril that confronts the United States lies less, in my opinion, in the likelihood of our destruction
during the next few years than in the Soviets' ability to launch that destruction. Our bargaining power at the
international conference table, our ability to deter Communist advances elsewhere through the threat of massive
retaliation, our ability to shield the Free World through brink-of-war diplomacy, our prestige in the struggle for
uncommitted nations - all of these and similar instruments essential to successful American foreign policy are
weakened by any extensive Soviet lead in the military field.
Although the exact facts have yet to be stated directly and clearly to the public, it is increasingly apparent that
the Soviets do hold extensive leads in a number of vital military areas. Whether they hold an overall edge of
military superiority is necessarily a matter of judgment that only a decisive war could prove with finality. But it
is no matter of conjecture that we are behind - possibly as much as several years behind - in the race for control
of outer space; in the development, perfection and stockpiling of both intermediate-range and long-range ballistic
missiles; in rocket motors, jet engines and new fuels. There is every indication that the Soviets will next beat us
with nuclear powered planes and more highly developed space vehicles. Our much-vaunted DEW line network of
guidance and detection installations for continual air defense, only recently completed at great expense and
stretching up into the Arctic, may now be completely outmoded. Designed for aircraft and not missiles, it cannot
even see the present Russian satellites. Not only are the European bases of our Strategic Air Command
vulnerable to Soviet Intermediate Range Missiles, but so also are the cities and bases of our own shores, now
within range of missiles launched, by a Soviet submarine 500 miles out to sea. Britain's strategic bomber bases,
and our European fighter aircraft and bomber refueling bases, can no longer be relied upon in case of all-out
attack. And once the Russians have a quantity of long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles, capable of
traveling from Moscow to Chicago in roughly 30 minutes, each and every one of us will be living on the "bull's-
eye".
This is all rather difficult to comprehend here in America. We have never lived on the "front lines" of
international war. We cannot imagine destruction being rained upon our cities, without time to seek evacuation
or shelter. And we have justifiable confidence now in our ability to strike back at the Soviet Union, from planes
already in the air or bases too widely dispersed to be knocked out in the first round. Certainly the Russians are
no more secure than we. But our retaliation would neither heal our own wounds nor make the world more
inhabitable and free from the radioactive fall-out that recognizes no boundaries, friends or victors. War, in short,
has a very different meaning for our country, more awful to contemplate than ever before - and the danger of the
Russians risking an attack upon us, significant as I have said even though it is never more than a possibility, will
be particularly great during the next two or three years while these various Soviet military advantages remain.
But the peril we face today is not only military but economic and political as well. In our current emphasis over
our military danger, we tend to lose sight of the even greater Soviet threat of non-military conquest. For the
economic decline, political chaos and ideological disillusionment upon which Communism breeds and spreads are
all on the increase - threatening to divide and reduce the strength of the Free world, curtail the geographic
advantage so necessary to the dispersal of our bases and the defense of our own shores, and turn world opinion
gradually against us.
The standard of living for much of the world's rapidly growing population is declining. Our balance of trade with
the rest of the world is once again moving sharply out of balance. Raging inflation consumes available capital and
clogs channels of trade. The new independent nations of the world are encountering increasing difficulty in
eliminating the poverty they have previously blamed on their oppressors, in securing an industrial base to raise
per capita income and in providing the health, education and community services necessary for a stable society
that can remain outside the zone of Communist influence. The growth of the world's population, centered largely
on those nations of the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America least able to support it, seems certain to
outstrip all of our efforts to increase living standards and consumer goods by any similar proportions. To feed
each day's increase in population requires that we find 150 square miles of new arable land every day. To feed
one year's gain alone would require a new farm as large as the state of Illinois.
Into the disorder and distress caused by these trends march Messrs. Khrushchev and company, who can
conclude arrangements for foreign aid and trade without respecting the wishes of Congressional Committees,
consumers and taxpayers. The leaders of the Soviet Union can - and have - purchased commodities they did not
need from wavering nations, sold expensive equipment at a loss to an uncommitted state, purchased raw
materials at a level far above the world price from an under-developed nation, and provided loans to potential
allies at a rate of interest far below the world bank and other normal levels.
On this economic front, we are even in danger of losing out to the Russians in the race for industrial productive
superiority - the race which may well decide the future of all the other issues. We in this country can produce
twice as much steel as the Soviet Union - but roughly one-fourth of this goes to automobiles, and a large
proportion of the rest is in sheet and strip, for refrigerators, washing machines and other consumer goods.
Practically all of the Russian steel capacity, on the other hand, is devoted to structural, heavy steel shapes and
steel plate production - for armaments and capital goods, for developing their own capacity and for exporting to
the underdeveloped nations the capital goods they cannot obtain in sufficient quantity from us. The Soviet Union
may still lag behind this nation in terms of total national production - but it has passed us, believe it or not, in the
production of capital goods, in industrial output generally, in its rate of industrialization and productive growth,
and in the production of military end items.
Our reverses on the diplomatic and political front have accompanied these economic trends. Russian penetration
in the Middle East, after more than a century of efforts in that direction, has never been so successful or so
ominous. The prestige of the American in the Middle East, Africa and Asia has never been so dim. The solidarity
of the Western Alliance appears incapable of ever regaining the strength which characterized its pre-Suez period.
NATO itself has declined as a military factor, and never realized its promise as a political and economic force.
Even the solidarity of the Western Hemisphere has been weakened by our continued emphasis on other areas;
and Communist and other anti-American influences have made the most of it. War in Algeria, political confusion
in Indonesia, the prospects of bankruptcy in India, the fanning of American rivalry in the Middle East - in every
part of the globe, the peril to Western security continues to grow.
Finally, we face a peril of Russian domination in the fields of science and scientific discovery. Dr. Teller, in his
impressive testimony before the Senate Preparedness Subcommittee, has given us some terrifying previews of
what it would mean to lose this race as well - the exploitation of the weather to play havoc with a nation's
mobility and food harvests; the colonization of other planets of the world; the conversion of salt sea water and the
exploitation of the ocean bed. It is no longer possible to believe that every Russian gain is a crude imitation, the
luck of a "backward" nation, or the result of espionage, stolen secrets, and kidnapped scientists.
It is now clear that there are scientifically and militarily significant areas of knowledge in which the Soviet Union
is not only closing the gap, but also breaking fresh ground. There is much we can - and should - decry in the
Soviet educational system, but there is also much we cannot any longer deny: its laboratories are not just prisons
of thought, its schools not just the manufacturers of assembly-line stereotypes, its scientific breakthroughs not
just prestige projects or theatrical gestures or science fiction.
The truth of the matter is that the Soviet Union already has available for this kind of work more engineers and
scientist than we presently have in any capacity in this country, and very nearly as many as this country and
Western Europe combined. In recent years, the output of new engineers and scientists in the U.S.S.R, has
surpassed that of the total United States and Western Europe classes graduating in these fields - and their
current enrollment of engineering and science students in institutions of higher education exceeds our own. This
lead is not merely one of numbers, but of quality as well. A special study concluded by the Joint Atomic Energy
Committee of the Congress concluded that "the training given Soviet Engineers and scientists is of a high order,
and compares favorably with the best in the United States and Europe."
It is rather difficult to reverse these trends when the teaching of the physical sciences and mathematics in our
own secondary schools has declined; when about half of those with talent in these fields who graduate from high
school are either unable or uninterested in going to college; and when, of the half who enter college, scarcely 40%
graduate. It is rather difficult to reverse these trends when nearly a million boys and girls are deprived by the
classroom shortage of fulltime schooling, when millions more are held back in unwieldy classes of forty or more,
and when we pay the average railway conductor nearly twice as much as we pay the teacher who conducts our
elementary classes.
This is a wonderful, wealthy country in which we live - we can buy stock on margin, television on credit and a
new freezer on the installment plan. We can demand from our Government higher subsidies and lower taxes, and
vote out of office those who do not comply with our wishes. We can make more political speeches, hold more
press conferences, stage more conventions and plan more formal dinners than any three Communist countries in
the world combined. We can take comfort in the fact that, although Russian diplomats may have scored in Syria,
one of our teams won the World Series. They may have launched the first space satellite - but we were the first to
come out with the Edsel.
But can we compete with the Russians? Can we survive our present peril? I do not ask these questions, or raise
these doubts, in order to replace complacency with panic. This is not a time for panic, for fatalism or for political
maneuvering. I would not want our future course in the cold war determined by either those who, with their eye
on our nuclear stockpile, glibly assert that we have nothing to fear - or those who, with their eye on the Russian
moon, cry frantically that all is lost.
But how are we to compete successfully with the Russians? How are we to regain the initiative in world affairs,
restore our nation's prestige and security, and weather the present peril as we have weathered as a nation many
earlier crises? We are not going to do it by giving up our liberties to match the Soviet ability to make hard and
swift decisions. We are not going to conscript scientists and engineers or turn our nation into an armed camp. We
are not going to bid against the Russians for the privilege of seeing who can send the most aid to a wavering
nation. We are not going to duplicate their trade agreements that call for repayment in surplus agricultural
commodities, as long as we cannot get rid of our own. Our propaganda and ideological warfare will probably
never be as successful in telling falsehoods, arousing hatreds and sowing doubt and disunity. And even if we
could make bigger, better and more terrible weapons, if we could achieve the capacity to destroy their nation (if
not the world) with five bombs instead of fifty, such an advantage is obviously meaningless.
Upon what can we rely? Where can we compete? In what can we find hope for the future?
The answer, I believe, lies ultimately in the very principles which we honor tonight - the principles of our Judaic-
Christian heritage. It is a heritage which teaches us self-discipline - which will enable us to sacrifice economic
convenience and physical comfort to a degree sufficient to offset the sacrifice of human values and liberties which
has been extracted from the Russian people. It is a heritage of rich spiritual resources, renewing our energies end
determination even when the day is darkest and the odds most overwhelming. It is a heritage that enables us to
build with Christian and non-Christian nations alike a spirit of unity and brotherhood far stronger than the
unanimity that the Russian tanks brought to Budapest. Our heritage has taught us to respond to the needs of
other humans when they are in difficulty and to the principles of human justice when they are under fire. No
Communist dictatorship, no Godless totalitarian society, no people living in fear of the future and without faith in
themselves, can ever match the wealth of that inheritance.
I ask tonight, therefore, that we concern ourselves as a nation not only with our armaments and armies, not only
with our scientists and engineers, our diplomatic alliances and economic assistance - but that we concern
ourselves as well with the spiritual resources which have made this nation great. For there are disturbing signs
that the fabric of our national life has also been hurt in the long test of endurance which we are still making.
Some of you may have read a recent account of the Army report on the conduct of American prisoners during
their captivity in North Korea. Not only was there a frighteningly high rate of collaboration with the enemy;
there was also only a very spotty will to resist and survive. A third or more of the prisoners were guilty of at least
minor acts of collaboration; an unprecedented high rate helped actively in Chinese propaganda and in spying on
their fellows. Leaving aside instances of brutal torture - of which there was less by the Chinese than commonly
imagined - there was an astonishing rate of easy yielding not only to enemy commands but also to fear and
breakdown of self-discipline. Comrades were abandoned on roadsides, dysentery victims rolled out into the snow
to die, and there was little useful activity among the captives. Many soldiers even refused nourishing if unfamiliar
foods like soya beans, preferring death or malnutrition. Over 38% of the captured died - the highest of any war
in our history - and there was not a single successful escape from a prison camp. And most of these men were not
victims of sustained "brain-washing" or torture. The Army reports show, on the other hand, that of the 229
Turkish prisoners, all survived though half were injured when taken captive, not one collaborated in any
significant way, and they retained a remarkable sense of discipline.
The Korean War, to be sure, had special features, and its goals were not entirely clear to many participants. But
we are now in a period where decisions are always likely to be hard, when challenges are subtle, when the
resourcefulness and stamina of the enemy will be high. The spiritual difficulties of our age are hard and lasting
ones, and we would at least do well to ponder the meaning of this Army Report - to see whether it gives evidence
of sufficient mental clarity and self-discipline for the times we are in. We may at the very least derive a measure
of strength from the fact that in the United States the Government was willing and able to make this revelation of
shortcomings. It is certain that the Soviet Defense Ministry would not publish such a document.
Americans have traditionally responded to the large challenge, to the new frontiers. Clearly we are in midpassage
- between a world dying and a world not yet born. At the risk of betraying my provincial origins here in
civilization's heartland - Chicago - I should like to recall the words of Governor John Winthrop delivered aboard
the Arabella in passage to the American shore in 1620:
"A community of perils calls for extraordinary liberality..for this end we must be knit together in this work as
one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection; we must be willing to abridge ourselves of our
superfluities for the supply of the others' necessities; ...We must delight in each other, make others' conditions
our own, rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together: always having before our eyes our
commission and community in the work, our community as members of the same body."
In this spirit we must go forward. In this spirit exists the National Conference of Christians and Jews.
Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy at the 60th

Anniversary Banquet of Pere Marquette Council of
Knights of Columbus, South Boston, Massachusetts,
January 12, 1958
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. One draft of this
speech exists in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F.
Kennedy Library. A link to page images is given at the bottom of this page.
It is a rare honor and privilege to be with you tonight to join in celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Pere
Marquette Council of the Knights of Columbus. When your dinner chairman and my good friend Bill Toland
graciously extended this invitation to me, I was delighted to accept - not only because of my friendship with Bill
and your other leaders, but also because of the honor attached to addressing this important gathering. This
council in 60 years has witnessed many changes - in the altered face of this community and state, in the fast-
moving developments in the world about us, and in the challenges we face in our devotion to our nation and
church. But throughout these years of change, despite conflicts, pressures and obstacles of every kind, the
Knights of Columbus and this Council have remained steadfast in their devotion to the ideals upon which they
were initially founded. They have enriched the lives of our church and our community - and we pay tribute to
their ideals tonight as we prepare to continue their implementation for 60 and more years to come.
One theme which has always been prominent in the activities of the Knights of Columbus has been your devotion
to the national interest. Tonight that national interest is in perhaps greater peril than it has been at any time in
the 20th century. We face the prospects of being relegated to the status of a second-class military power. We live
for the first time on what may be the front lines in an international war, on the bull's-eye of Soviet missile targets.
We face the prospects of Communist control of outer space and the weather, with all the terrible consequences
that would have for life on this continent. We face a very real danger of Communist advances spreading
throughout most, if not all of the world, through political and economic means as well as military. We face a
future which may well bring devastating attacks against which we have no real defense, the loss of our bargaining
power at the international conference table, the loss of our peace, our peace of mind, and our way of life.
These are very grim prospects, which most of us would rather not face. We like to talk about where we are ahead
instead of where we are falling behind. We like to emphasize what we are going to do instead of what we have
failed to do. We like to believe in the triumph of right and justice rather than the advantages of dictators and
aggressors. We are accustomed to being first and we do not like to be told that we may be second-best in some
areas.
Nevertheless, I believe that you who have gathered here tonight to rededicate yourselves to the ideals which all of
us hold dear are entitled to know exactly where we stand in the continuing battle to protect those ideals. Perhaps
I am wrong in believing that you want to hear these facts and are able to face them. Perhaps those of us who take
this attitude will be called alarmists or demagogues or pessimists who have abandoned hope or politicians who
seek to exploit our danger for partisan advantage. But it has always seemed to me that regardless of whether the
outlook was favorable or perilous, regardless of which party was in power, a democratic form of government has
an unavoidable responsibility to keep the people fully and frankly informed. In this country, the people - all of
the people - are the ultimate boss - the government is ultimately dependent upon their confidence, their support
and their trust. And once the facts are out, as they always inevitably do come out, the bad along with the good,
our faith in our government and in our elected officials will depend upon the extent to which they have been
honest and forthright with us. I for one have full confidence in the ability of a free and fully informed people to
face the facts with calm and with courage.
Consequently, when I am asked by my constituents worried about the headlines of Soviet sputniks and weapons:
"What do we do now?", my answer is that our first task is to find out exactly where we stand and where we are
behind. Until we know this, we cannot fully comprehend the enormity of the challenge, the extent of the danger
or the nature of the steps which must be taken. Once we know exactly where we stand, we can determine what we
must do to catch up, how long it will take and what sacrifices it will require. Much more important than an
assessment of blame for our past failures is an assessment of our needs for the immediate future.
Exactly where do we stand today? Such an appraisal is not limited to missiles or even to military strength. On the
contrary, the danger is perhaps even greater in non-military areas - in the free world's economic decline, in
Soviet political and diplomatic successes, in the ideological struggle for the minds of uncommitted peoples. But it
would be impossible to deal adequately with each of these areas this evening - and consequently I shall attempt no
more than to "brief" you tonight on our status in the battle to protect our security in the airways and outer
space.
The question I am most frequently asked is the one we must first answer: Where are we behind? All of the facts
are not yet clear. Some of them are matters of dispute - some of them are top secret - and others will be known
definitely only in the tragic event of another war. But on the basis of the testimony before the Senate
Preparedness Subcommittee, the addresses of the President and other high officials, and the statements of our
leading scientists and other experts, the grim answer to that grim question must include the following:
- We are behind in the development and production of ballistic missiles
- We are behind in the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles in terms of actual launchings and useful
tests
- We are behind in the development of intermediate range ballistic missiles in terms of present operational
capabilities
- We are behind in the development and actual production of improved and more powerful rocket engines
- We are behind in the development and utilization of space satellites and other methods of exploring or
conquering outer space
- We are behind in the accumulation and utilization of basic research information on outer space and its control
- We are behind, or will soon be falling behind, in the development of jet engines, new fuels, nuclear powered
planes and other scientific advances
- We are behind, or will soon be falling behind, in long range jet bombers with a nuclear bomb capacity
- In short, we are behind, or will soon be falling behind, in overall air striking power, including both missiles and
a long range air force, and our general capacity for instantaneous massive retaliation.
But this is not all.
- We are behind in our ability to fight local or "brushfire" wars
- We are behind in the number of divisions, mechanized and otherwise, which we can put into the field
- We are behind in submarines and in the current production of submarines
- We are behind in the production of military end items, in our rate of industrialization and productive growth
- We are behind in the production of new scientists and engineers
- We are, in short, in danger of falling behind in terms of overall military capabilities, on land, sea and air.
Undoubtedly this list is only a beginning. Nor would the full list of where we are behind tell the whole story of
where we are lagging and what we must do. For we must also keep in mind the fact that we have no adequate
defenses today to a Soviet missile aimed at Boston from a submarine 500 miles out at sea. We have no adequate
protection for our Strategic Air Command bombers now parked wing to wing on a limited number of congested
bases, where most of them could be destroyed by a missile attack before they could get off the ground. We have
made poorer use of
our intelligence than the Russians - we have taken longer to make decisions - we have devoted less of our strategic
materials and fewer of our scientists to this crucial struggle for security and survival.
Very obviously I do not say that we have lost the whole battle. Nor do I say that this grim list represents the full
picture. America is not weak, our forces are not debilitated, our advantages have not all vanished. I present this
list tonight because I think it is upon these areas we must concentrate - because this is the list we cannot ignore
any longer. If such a list - of areas in which we are behind or falling behind - is shocking to the average American
citizen, then it is time we were shocked. For all of our old beliefs, all of our basic policies, all of our most
entrenched practices must now be reappraised in the harsh light of the new Soviet position.
This will not be easy. Obsolete weapons and defense systems must be discarded, regardless of the efforts and cost
they represent. New missiles and weapons, nuclear-powered aircraft and space vehicles - operating from moving,
concealed or submerged bases - must replace less costly but more vulnerable means of massive retaliation.
As long as the Strategic Air Command is our strongest arm, prompt steps must be taken to disperse its bases still
more widely, increase that portion of the fleet which is continually airborne and shorten its alert-response period
even further. Our Allies must possess intermediate range missiles until we develop an intercontinental ballistic
missile capable of reaching Moscow from our own shores. Our basic concepts of a citizen Army and Selective
Service; our traditional systems of budgeting, researching, procuring, developing and assigning weapons; our
interservice competitions and divisions - all of these must be re-examined in the harsh light of the Soviet "moon".
Still more must be done to accelerate and expand our research and development programs; speed up the
development and manufacture of the intermediate and intercontinental missiles now being worked on;
strengthen our educational systems; streamline the decision-making process; increase cooperation with our allies,
particularly in the exchange of information; build shelters and store food and machinery as a precaution against
Russian attack; build as quickly as possible an early warning radar system capable of detecting missiles; and take
other urgent steps not heretofore contemplated.
But even more will be required if we are to compete successfully with the Russians, if we are to weather the
present peril and regain the initiative in world affairs. We are not going to do it by giving up our precious
liberties in order to match the Soviet ability to make hard and swift decisions. We are not going to conscript
scientists and engineers or turn our nation into an armed camp. We are not going to bid against the Russians for
the privilege of seeing who can send the most aid to a wavering nation. We are not going to duplicate their trade
agreements that call for repayment in surplus agricultural commodities, as long as we cannot get rid of our own.
We shall never dictate to our allies the unwavering line the Soviets extract from their satellites. Our propaganda
and ideological warfare will probably never be as successful in telling falsehoods, in arousing hatreds or in
sowing doubt and disunity. And even if we could make bigger, better and more terrible weapons than the
Russians, if we could achieve the capacity to destroy their nation (if not the world) with five bombs instead of
fifty, such an advantage is obviously meaningless.
Upon what can we rely? Where can we compete? In what can we find hope for the future? The answer, I believe,
lies ultimately in the very principles which we honor tonight - the principles of our religious heritage. It is a
heritage which teaches us self-discipline - which will enable us to sacrifice economic convenience and physical
comfort to a degree sufficient to offset the sacrifice of human values and liberties which has been extracted from
the Russian people. It is a heritage of rich spiritual resources, renewing our energies and determination even
when the day is darkest and the odds most overwhelming. It is a heritage that enables us to build with Christian
and non-Christian nations alike a spirit of unity and brotherhood far stronger than the unanimity that the
Russian tanks brought to Budapest. Our heritage has taught us to respond to the needs of other humans when
they are in difficulty and to the principles of human justice when they are under fire. No communist dictatorship,
no Godless totalitarian society, no people living in fear of the future and without faith in themselves, can ever
match the wealth of that inheritance.
I ask tonight, therefore, that we concern ourselves as a nation not only with our armaments and armies, not only
with our scientists and engineers, our diplomatic alliances and economic assistance - but that we concern
ourselves as well with the spiritual resources which have made this nation great.
John Boyle O'Reilly once wrote:
"The world is large when its weary leagues
But the world is small when your enemy is
loose on the other side,"'
The world is small tonight, and our enemy is loose in it. It is our task in the years that lie ahead to meet this
challenge with all the wisdom and all the understanding that have been bestowed upon us as a nation.
Remarks at the Convocation of the United Negro
College Fund, Indianapolis, Indiana, April 12, 1959
exists in Dave Powers Personal Papers, while two drafts of the speech exist in the Senate Speech file of the John
F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. This redaction is based on the Press
Release of the speech from Dave Powers Personal Papers. Links to page images of the three drafts are given at the
It is a privilege to be able to participate in this program today. It is no exaggeration to say that there are few
educational drives more important or of more vital significance than that of the United Negro College Fund. For
developing through higher education the full potential of so many millions of our young citizens whose skills
might otherwise be lost to our nation by the irrationality of racial discrimination is not only an essential act of
justice - in this world of crisis it is also an urgent requirement of national security.
I am here in my own right as a refugee from a small college known as the United States Senate. There are two
troubles with our Senate school, however - in the first place, you can't tell the teachers from the students and
secondly, although many would-be students are on the waiting list to get in, no present member ever wants to
graduate.
To place the importance of education and of Negro education in particular in proper perspective we must view it
against the background of our troubled world. For it is only from the perspective of our international
responsibilities and opportunities that your work assumes its full dimensions. As Henry L. Stimson wrote in
1947: "No private program and no public policy, in any section of our national life, can now escape from the
compelling fact that if it is not framed with reference to the world, it is framed with perfect futility."
The graduates of all American colleges today will play a pre-eminent role in shaping the course of that world.
They cannot escape the responsibilities of leadership. As Prince Bismarck once put it: "one-third of all the
students in German universities break down from overwork - one-third break down from dissipation - but the
other third rule Germany." (I leave it to you to decide which category predominates in your own school.)
But recognizing that your graduates are to rule America, as community leaders, precinct captains or presidents,
let us make certain that no one regards your college as Dean Swift regarded Oxford. Oxford, he said, was a great
seat of learning - because every freshman who entered, in order to meet the standards of admission, was required
to bring some learning with him - but no senior, when he left, ever took any away - and so it steadily
accumulated.
And I want to make sure that these future leaders - facing the most critical, complex world and most urgent peril
history has ever known - are prepared to deal with these problems. We don't need men like Lord John Russell, of
whom Queen Victoria once said he would be a better man if he knew a third subject - but he was interested only
in the Constitution of 1688 - and himself.
It is necessary, therefore, that we discuss our educational problems in the context of the demands for American
leadership in world affairs, for American contributions to peace, for American assistance to the undeveloped
nations of the world and for American strength in the face of harsh threats from around the world.
When written in Chinese, the word "crisis" is composed of two characters - one represents danger and one
represents opportunity. The danger signs are all around us. With less than half our productive capacity the
Soviet Union has at least equalled us in several crucial areas of military science and technology. Since World War
II a devastated Russia has rebuilt its factories, harnessed its rivers and regimented its manpower in such a way as
to challenge us in many fields of science and technology where we were for so long supreme. Sputnik is a symbol -
the symbol of Soviet concentration on scientific education and development - at the expense, it is true, of the
immediate needs of the Russian people.
Soviet economic growth continues to progress at a faster pace than ours. In addition, 650 million people in China
are being harnessed to the industrialization of that other Communist colossus. Our danger is not merely that the
balance of power may shift in favor of the Soviet-Chinese coalition - it is not that this combination, representing
30% of the people in the world, will overtake us in industrial production - rather the danger lies in the possibility
that we will become increasingly estranged from our allies and friends and the uncommitted people of the world.
The vast majority of these people are colored, poor, and in need of economic development - will probably not be
waged with missiles or thermonuclear bombs - our armaments must be ideas and the battle must be for men's
minds.
Along with danger, crisis is represented by opportunity. The space age offers the opportunity for new voyages of
discovery. Atomic energy and automation can mean the opportunity for unprecedented abundance. Modern
science and technology make it possible for poverty to be abolished everywhere in the world. New developments
in means of transportation and communication offer the opportunity to extend the principles on which we based
our republic to all mankind.
As Lincoln said, the Declaration of Independence "gave liberty not alone to the people of this country, but hope
to all the world." It "gave promise that in due time the weights would be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and
that all should have an equal chance." Never before have we had so excellent an opportunity to fulfill that
promise of an equal chance.
The awakening nations of Africa, the restless people of South America, the suffering millions in Asia are all
looking for leadership. They need our aid, our strength, our skills, our sympathy and - above all - our
understanding. It is not enough to talk grimly of agonizing reappraisals and massive retaliation - we must
participate in the advancement of democratic ideals and the economic development of this rising tide of national
liberation. It is up to you in the colleges you represent to recognize these challenges and to take advantage of
these opportunities on behalf of the free world.
"A university," said Professor Woodrow Wilson, "should be an organ of memory for the state for the
transmission of its best traditions. Every man sent out from a university should be a man of his nation, as well as
a man of his time." To put it another way, our graduates must all be men of their time regardless of any
specialized training they may receive. Some of our education for world responsibility comes from the harsh logic
of events. Some can only come through the experience of actually engaging in world-wide activities - for we still
learn by doing. But much of our education will have to be grasped in our colleges and universities.
Here, it seems to me, you can play an increasingly important part. For Negro colleges and universities share the
general crisis of American education at the same time they face a special crisis of their own. The unanimous
decision of the Supreme Court five years ago tolled the end of the era of segregated facilities.
In the transition period to an integrated society, you will, of course, have to play an increasingly important role in
remedying the results of inferior education at the lower levels due to continued segregation. This will be an era of
ordeal. In some states you will have to continue to carry the main burden of Negro education for some years.
With the rise in school population which is already bursting existing facilities, your great responsibility will grow
greater.
I should like to suggest an added dimension to that task. One way to speed the transition and make it more
successful will be to raise the sights of everyone - students, teachers and parents, Negroes and whites, the society
at large - let them raise their sights beyond the difficulties of racial integration at home to see the challenges of
our contracting universe.
Integration is itself a world-wide process - in India it means Brahmins and untouchables, Hindus and Moslems.
In the Middle East it is Arabs and Jews. In Africa it is colonials and natives. The closing of the gaps caused by
segregation policies here in America is part of a world problem.
It is my hope therefore that at least some of our Negro colleges and universities, perhaps because the crisis for
them is greater and sharper than that facing American education generally, will adapt their curriculum with this
in mind. The new curriculum would be designed to fit Americans for the rigors facing them in the new frontiers
of the world.
In the 19th century successive waves of immigrants, speaking foreign languages and with foreign customs, came
to our shores. They were crowded into city tenements and subjected to humiliating discriminations by the
already established Americans. The Irish in Boston knew something of this discrimination. But education was
available to these immigrant groups or their children. In addition, they had a westward moving frontier to which
they could go and embark on a new life.
For Negroes the pattern has been far more difficult and there is no American frontier. But there is an unlimited
and unexplored region beyond the frontier of knowledge and experience. And there is plenty of room for
expansion in the social, political, professional and industrial work involved in world development. Here old
prejudices are not entrenched - race is not important - talent is all that counts.
Pericles told ancient Athens that it should be the school of all Greece. America today can be the school of all the
world. But American educators must act with the necessary vision. If Negro colleges and universities will assume
leadership - in training students for their global responsibilities - they will contribute mightily to the strength of
America, help destroy the forces of poverty and turn the battle for men's minds in favor of freedom.
So let us raise both our sights and our standards. One era in the history of our Negro colleges is coming to an end.
But another is just beginning. It will require more, not less, effort - greater, not smaller, expenditures - increased,
not decreased, recognition from the American people.
The demand for teachers, doctors, lawyers and businessmen will continue to grow. But there will be new and
unprecedent[ed] demands upon your colleges for community leaders skilled in the arts of persuasion and
conciliation - social workers and psychologists, capable of handling the explosive problems of a transitional age -
scientists and engineers, qualified to fill the critical gap in our defenses and new industries that care nothing
about a man's color and everything about his brain-power - and, to use one final example which to me is pressing,
we will need from your colleges men and women trained for our nation's foreign service, demonstrating by their
work abroad that this is the land of the free, as well as the home of the brave.
In our nation's quest for new talent, new ideas, new brainpower, new manpower, no college can escape its
responsibility - and no qualified young man or woman can be denied. Irrational barriers and ancient prejudices
fall quickly when the question of survival itself is at stake.
This, after all, is the real issue of our times. The hard, tough question for the next decade - for this or any other
group of Americans - is whether any free society - with its freedom of choice - its breadth of opportunity - its
range of alternatives - can meet the singleminded advance of the Communist system.
Can a nation organized and governed such as ours endure? That is the real question. Have we the nerve and the
will? Can we carry through in an age where we will witness not only new break-throughs in weapons of
destruction - but also a race for mastery of the sky and the rain, the ocean and the tides, the far side of space and
the inside of men's minds. We and the Russians now have the power to destroy with one blow one-quarter of the
earth's population - a feat not accomplished since Cain slew Abel.
For the Russian peasant has looked up from his hoe to fling Sputnik into outer space - opening not a new frontier
of hope for all mankind, but a new and somber frontier of fear. We cannot hope to escape a prolonged and
powerful competition with Soviet power - a competition which demands that we act from enlightened impulses
but never act impulsively.
It is the enduring faith of the American tradition that there is no real conflict between freedom and security -
between liberty and abundance. Through centuries of crises, the American tradition has demonstrated, on the
contrary, that freedom is the ally of security - and that liberty is the architect of abundance.
To keep that faith alive - to keep that message meaningful at a time of doubt and despair and disunity - will
require more thought and more effort on your part than ever before. It will require leadership better equipped
than any since Lincoln's Day to make clear to our people the vast spectrum of our challenges.
In the words of Woodrow Wilson: "We must neither run with the crowd nor deride it - but seek sober counsel for
it - and for ourselves."
Statement of Senator John F. Kennedy

Announcing His Candidacy for the
Presidency of the United States
U.S. Senate Caucus Room, Washington, D.C.
January 2, 1960
I am announcing today my candidacy for the Presidency of the United States.
The Presidency is the most powerful office in the Free World. Through its leadership can
come a more vital life for our people. In it are centered the hopes of the globe around us for
freedom and a more secure life. For it is in the Executive Branch that the most crucial
decisions of this century must be made in the next four years--how to end or alter the
burdensome arms race, where Soviet gains already threaten our very existence--how to
maintain freedom and order in the newly emerging nations--how to rebuild the stature of
American science and education--how to prevent the collapse of our farm economy and the
decay of our cities--how to achieve, without further inflation or unemployment, expanded
economic growth benefiting all Americans--and how to give direction to our traditional
moral purpose, awakening every American to the dangers and opportunities that confront
us.
These are among the real issues of 1960. And it is on the basis of these issues that the
American people must make their fateful choice for their future.
In the past 40 months, I have toured every state in the Union and I have talked to
Democrats in all walks of life. My candidacy is therefore based on the conviction that I can
win both the nomination and the election.
I believe that any Democratic aspirant to this important nomination should be willing to
submit to the voters his views, record and competence in a series of primary contests. I am
therefore now announcing my intention of filing in the New Hampshire primary and I shall
announce my plans with respect to the other primaries as their filing dates approach.
I believe that the Democratic Party has a historic function to perform in the winning of the
1960 election, comparable to its role in 1932. I intend to do my utmost to see that that
victory is won.
For 18 years, I have been in the service of the United States, first as a naval officer in the
Pacific during World War II and for the past 14 years as a member of the Congress. In the
last 20 years, I have traveled in nearly every continent and country--from Leningrad to
Saigon, from Bucharest to Lima. From all of this, I have developed an image of America as
fulfilling a noble and historic role as the defender of freedom in a time of maximum peril--
and of the American people as confident, courageous and persevering.
It is with this image that I begin this campaign.
The Presidency in 1960, Address by Senator John F.

Kennedy
National Press Club, Washington, D.C.
January 14, 1960
The modern presidential campaign covers every issue in and out of the platform from cranberries to creation. But the
public is rarely alerted to a candidate's views about the central issue on which all the rest turn. That central issue--and
the point of my comments this noon-- is not the farm problem or defense or India. It is the presidency itself.
Of course a candidate's views on specific policies are important, but Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft
shared policy views with entirely different results in the White House. Of course it is important to elect a good man with
good intentions, but Woodrow Wilson and Warren G. Harding were both good men with good intentions; so were
Lincoln and Buchanan; but there is a Lincoln Room in the White House and no Buchanan Room.
The history of this Nation--its brightest and its bleakest pages-- has been written largely in terms of the different views
our Presidents have had of the Presidency itself. This history ought to tell us that the American people in 1960 have an
imperative right to know what any man bidding for the Presidency thinks about the place he is bidding for, whether he is
aware of and willing to use the powerful resources of that office; whether his model will be Taft or Roosevelt, Wilson or
Harding.
Not since the days of Woodrow Wilson has any candidate spoken on the presidency itself before the votes have been
irrevocably cast. Let us hope that the 1960 campaign, in addition to discussing the familiar issues where our positions
too often blur, will also talk about the presidency itself, as an instrument for dealing with those issues, as an office with
varying roles, powers, and limitations
During the past 8 years, we have seen one concept of the Presidency at work. Our needs and hopes have been eloquently
stated--but the initiative and follow-through have too often been left to others. And too often his own objectives have
been lost by the President's failure to override objections from within his own party, in the Congress or even in his
Cabinet.
The American people in 1952 and 1956 may have preferred this detached, limited concept of the Presidency after 20
years of fast-moving, creative Presidential rule. Perhaps historians will regard this as necessarily one of those frequent
periods of consolidation, a time to draw breath, to recoup our national energy. To quote the state of the Union message:
"No Congress . . . on surveying the state of the Nation, has met with a more pleasing prospect than that which appears at
the present time."
Unfortunately this is not Mr. Eisenhower's last message to the Congress, but Calvin Coolidge's. He followed to the
White House Mr. Harding, whose sponsor declared very frankly that the times did not demand a first-rate President. If
true, the times and the man met.
But the question is what do the times--and the people--demand for the next 4 years in the White House?
They demand a vigorous proponent of the national interest--not a passive broker for conflicting private interests. They
demand a man capable of acting as the commander in chief of the Great Alliance, not merely a bookkeeper who feels
that his work is done when the numbers on the balance sheet come even. They demand that he be the head of a
responsible party, not rise so far above politics as to be invisible--a man who will formulate and fight for legislative
policies, not be a casual bystander to the legislative process.
Today a restricted concept of the Presidency is not enough. For beneath today's surface gloss of peace and prosperity are
increasingly dangerous, unsolved, long postponed problems--problems that will inevitably explode to the surface during
the next 4 years of the next administration--the growing missile gap, the rise of Communist China, the despair of the
underdeveloped nations, the explosive situations in Berlin and in the Formosa Straits, the deterioration of NATO, the
lack of an arms control agreement, and all the domestic problems of our farms, cities, and schools.
This administration has not faced up to these and other problems. Much has been said--but I am reminded of the old
Chinese proverb: "There is a great deal of noise on the stairs but nobody comes into the room."
The President's state of the Union message reminded me of the exhortation from "King Lear" but goes: "I will do such
things--what they are I know not . . . but they shall be the wonders of the earth."
In the decade that lies ahead--in the challenging revolutionary sixties--the American Presidency will demand more than
ringing manifestoes issued from the rear of the battle. It will demand that the President place himself in the very thick of
the fight, that he care passionately about the fate of the people he leads, that he be willing to serve them, at the risk of
incurring their momentary displeasure.
Whatever the political affiliation of our next President, whatever his views may be on all the issues and problems that
rush in upon us, he must above all be the Chief Executive in every sense of the word. He must be prepared to exercise
the fullest powers of his office--all that are specified and some that are not. He must master complex problems as well as
receive one-page memorandums. He must originate action as well as study groups. He must reopen channels of
communication between the world of thought and the seat of power.
Ulysses Grant considered the President "a purely administrative officer." If he administered the overnment departments
efficiently, delegated his functions smoothly, and performed his ceremonies of state with decorum and grace, no more
was to be expected of him. But that is not the place the Presidency was meant to have in American life. The President is
alone, at the top--the loneliest job there is, as Harry Truman has said.
If there is destructive dissension among the services, he alone can step in and straighten it out--instead of waiting for
unanimity. If administrative agencies are not carrying out their mandate--if a brushfire threatens some part of the globe--
he alone can act, without waiting for the Congress. If his farm program fails, he alone deserves the blame, not his
Secretary of Agriculture.
"The President is at liberty, both in law and conscience, to be as big a man as he can." So wrote Prof. Woodrow Wilson.
But President Woodrow Wilson discovered that to be a big man in the White House inevitably brings cries of
dictatorship.
So did Lincoln and Jackson and the two Roosevelts. And so may the next occupant of that office, if he is the man the
times demand. But how much better it would be, in the turbulent sixties, to have a Roosevelt or a Wilson than to have
another James Buchanan, cringing in the White House, afraid to move.
Nor can we afford a Chief Executive who is praised primarily for what he did not do, the disasters he prevented, the bills
he vetoed--a President wishing his subordinates would produce more missiles or build more schools. We will need
instead what the Constitution envisioned: a Chief Executive who is the vital center of action in our whole scheme of
Government.
This includes the legislative process as well. The President cannot afford--for the sake of the office as well as the
Nation--to be another Warren G. Harding, described by one backer as a man who "would when elected, sign whatever
bill the Senate sent him--and not send bills for the Senate to pass." Rather he must know when to lead the Congress
when to consult it and when he should act alone.
Having served 14 years in the legislative branch, I would not look with favor upon its domination by the Executive.
Under our government of "power as the rival of power," to use Hamilton's phrase, Congress must not surrender its
responsibilities. But neither should it dominate. However large its share in the formulation of domestic programs, it is
the President alone who must make the major decisions of our foreign policy.
That is what the Constitution wisely commands. And even domestically, the President must initiate policies and devise
laws to meet the needs of the Nation. And he must be prepared to use all the resources of his office to ensure the
enactment of that legislation--even when conflict is the result.
By the end of his term Theodore Roosevelt was not popular in the Congress--particularly when he criticized an
amendment to the Treasury appropriation which forbade the use of Secret Service men to investigate Congressmen.
And the feeling was mutual, Roosevelt saying: "I do not much admire the Senate because it is such a helpless body
when efficient work is to be done."
And Woodrow Wilson was even more bitter after his frustrating quarrels. Asked if he might run for the Senate in 1920,
he replied: "Outside of the United States, the Senate does not amount to a damn. And inside the United States the Senate
is mostly despised. They haven't had a thought down there in 50 years."
But, however bitter their farewells, the facts of the matter are that Roosevelt and Wilson did get things done--not only
through their Executive powers but through the Congress as well. Calvin Coolidge, on the other hand, departed from
Washington with cheers of Congress still ringing in his ears. But when his World Court bill was under fire on Capitol
Hill he sent no message, gave no encouragement to the bill's leaders, and paid little or no attention to the whole
proceeding--and the cause of world justice was set back.
To be sure, Coolidge had held the usual White House breakfasts with congressional leaders--but they were aimed, as he
himself said, at "good fellowship," not a discussion of "public business." And at his press conferences, according to
press historians, where he preferred to talk about the local flower show and its exhibits, reporters who finally extracted
from him a single sentence--"I'm against that bill"--would rush to file tongue-in-cheek dispatches claiming that:
"President Coolidge, in a fighting mood, today served notice on Congress that he intended to combat, with all the
resources at his command, the pending bill . . ."
But in the coming months we will need a real fighting mood in the White House--a man who will not retreat in the face
of pressure from his congressional leaders--who will not let down those supporting his views on the floor. Divided
Government over the past 6 years has only been further confused by this lack of legislative leadership. To restore it next
year will help restore purpose to both the Presidency and the Congress.
The facts of the matter are that legislative leadership is not possible without party leadership, in the most political
sense--and Mr. Eisenhower prefers to stay above politics (although a weekly news magazine last fall reported the
startling news, and I quote, that "President Eisenhower is emerging as a major political figure"). When asked early in his
first term, how he liked the "game of politics," he replied with a frown that his questioner was using a derogatory phrase.
"Being President," he said, "is a very great experience . . . but the word 'politics' . . . I have no great liking for that."
But no President, it seems to me, can escape politics. He has not only been chosen by the Nation--he has been chosen by
his party. And if he insists that he is "President of all the people" and should, therefore, offend none of them--if he blurs
the issues and differences between the parties--if he neglects the party machinery and avoids his party's leadership--then
he has not only weakened the political party as an instrument of the democratic process--he has dealt a blow to the
democratic process itself.
I prefer the example of Abe Lincoln, who loved politics with the passion of a born practitioner. For example, he waited
up all night in 1863 to get the crucial returns on the Ohio governorship. When the Unionist candidate was elected,
Lincoln wired: "Glory God in the highest. Ohio has saved the Nation."
But the White House is not only the center of political leadership. It must be the center of moral leadership--a "bully
pulpit," as Theodore Roosevelt described it. For only the President represents the national interest. And upon him alone
converge all the needs and aspirations of all parts of the country, all departments of the Government, all nations of the
world.
It is not enough merely to represent prevailing sentiment--to follow McKinley's practice, as described by Joe Cannon, of
"keeping his ear so close to the ground he got it full of grasshoppers." We will need in the sixties a President who is
willing and able to summon his national constituency to its finest hour--to alert the people to our dangers and our
opportunities--to demand of them the sacrifices that will be necessary. Despite the increasing evidence of a lost national
purpose and a soft national will, F.D.R.'s words in his first inaugural still ring true: "In every dark hour of our national
life, a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is
essential to victory."
Roosevelt fulfilled the role of moral leadership. So did Wilson and Lincoln, Truman and Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt.
They led the people as well as the Government--they fought for great ideals as well as bills. And the time has come to
demand that kind of leadership again.
And so, as this vital campaign begins, let us discuss the issues the next President will face--but let us also discuss the
powers and tools with which we must face them.
For we must endow that office with extraordinary strength and vision. We must act in the image of Abraham Lincoln
summoning his wartime Cabinet to a meeting on the Emancipation Proclamation. That Cabinet has [sic] been carefully
chosen to please and reflect many elements in the country. But "I have gathered you together," Lincoln said, "to hear
what I have written down. I do not wish your advice about the main matter--that I have determined for myself."
And later, when he went to sign, after several hours of exhausting handshaking that had left his arm weak, he said to
those present: "If my name goes down in history, it will be for this act. My whole soul is in it. If my hand trembles when
I sign this proclamation, all who examine the document hereafter will say: 'He hesitated.'"
But Lincoln's hand did not tremble. He did not hesitate. He did not equivocate. For he was the President of the United
States.
It is in this spirit that we must go forth in the coming months and years.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Lake

County Women's Club Breakfast Gary, Indiana,
February 5, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A single text of this speech in
the form of a reading copy exists in the Senate Speech files of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the
John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. A link to images of the speech is provide at the bottom of the page.
We meet together to begin work for the great campaign of 1960. That campaign will decide whether the Democratic
Party is at last to have a sufficient margin in the House of Representatives. That campaign will decide whether the
Democratic Party can increase its margin in the Senate. That campaign will decide whether those who administer our
state and local governments in the coming years will be imbued with the principles of the Democratic Party. And finally,
that campaign will determine whether a Democrat will once again lead this nation – in the most important office in the
world – in the office of the President of the United States.
We have every reason to be confident as this election approaches. Less than two years ago we won tremendous victories
in the House, in the Senate and in Governors’ Mansions and State Legislatures all over the country. In fact, since the
Democrats last met in a national convention in July, 1956, 47 out of the 50 states – including the new states of Alaska
and Hawaii – have elected either a Democratic Governor, a Democratic Senator or a Democratic Congressman-at-large.
In 47 states a statewide electorate has chosen the Democratic Party. In every state except New York, Illinois and New
Hampshire, the elections of the past three years have demonstrated that a Democrat can carry that state. The potential for
an overwhelming landslide victory is there – and this state looks like it will lead the parade.
But let us not take this victory for granted. Let us recall some sobering statistics on the other side. Let us recall that our
national ticket in 1950 carried only seven states and lost 41. Let us remember that our national ticket has not obtained a
clear majority of the popular vote since 1944.
Local victories do not make a national victory, even when added together. We learned in 1956 that we could carry the
Congress but lose the White House. I have no doubt that Illinois will send Paul Douglas back to the Senate next year by
a large margin – and I have no doubt that Alabama will send John Sparkman back to the Senate next year by a large
margin. But that does not guarantee that Illinois and Alabama will both agree on and support the Democratic National
ticket.
I have no doubt that a majority of Senators, Governors and Congressmen from each section of the country will be
Democratic – but history teaches us that these majorities cannot always be translated into majorities for the national
ticket.
Let us face frankly the advantages which the Republicans possess. They are in power nationally, controlling the
executive branch – and that means power to channel defense contracts, award patronage, purchase surplus commodities,
file criminal indictments and hold Presidential press conferences. The Republicans in addition have a great asset and a
great campaigner in the current President of the United States. And Mr. Nixon himself is a skillful campaigner, an
experienced political fighter, and a candidate with tremendous financial and newspaper backing.
But the Democratic Party has two important assets – assets which will be decisive if we know how to use them. The first
is the record of eight years of Republican rule – the second, the Democratic Party’s tradition of a dynamic, progressive
man in the White House – a tradition which the sixties demand.
But to send that Democrat to the White House we have to win. And I don’t believe this talk that we cannot win. I think
we can win. I think we will win. I think the American people – after "eight gray years," to use F.D.R.’s phrase – will
know that, for their own future and their children’s future, we must win.
But we are not going to win by mocking Republican slogans – by putting the budget ahead of our security – by raising
interest rates instead of production – by substituting pageants for policy in world affairs. And we are not going to win by
dodging the real issue of this campaign – the Republican Administration itself.
Mr. Nixon said last week that he wants to carry on this Administration’s policies. Let us hold him to that statement. For
I cannot believe that the voters of this country will accept four more years of the same tired policies – four more years of
Mr. Benson’s high farm surpluses and low farm income – four more years of neglected slums, overcrowded classrooms,
underpaid teachers and the highest interest rates in history – and four more years of dwindling prestige abroad,
dwindling security at home, and a collision course in Berlin.
Mr. Nixon said he wants to carry on this Administration’s policies. I say the country cannot afford it. Perhaps we could
afford a Coolidge following Harding. And perhaps we could afford a Pierce following Fillmore. But after Buchanan this
nation needs a Lincoln – after Taft we needed a Wilson – after Hoover we needed Franklin Roosevelt. And after eight
years of this Administration, this nation needs a strong, creative Democrat in the White House.
I recognize President Eisenhower’s great popularity in the polls – the strength of his personal appeal – the magic of his
name. But I also firmly believe that the American people next November will respect that candidate and that political
party which have the courage to speak the truth – to tell the people the grim facts about what has happened to America
during the past eight years and what we must do to survive. The Republican "peace and prosperity" is a myth. We are
not enjoying a period of peace – only a period of stagnation and retreat, while America becomes second in missiles –
second in space – second in education – and, if we don’t act fast and effectively – second in production and industrial
might.
And they talk about their prosperity … but it is a prosperity for some, not for all. And it is an abundance of goods, not of
courage. We have the most gadgets and the most gimmicks in our history, the biggest TV and tail-fins – but we also
have the worst slums, the most crowded schools and the greatest erosion of our natural resources and our national will.
It may be for some, an age of material prosperity – but it is also an age of spiritual poverty.
There is, in short, no time to be lost. The hour has struck. This is the year of our greatest challenge. This is the year of
our greatest victory. For it is a time of decision – a time for Democratic leadership – a time my friends, for greatness.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Democratic

Luncheon, East Chicago, Indiana, February 5, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A copy of the speech exists in
the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library.
It is hard to come to Indiana in this month of February, one hundred years after the election of 1860, without thinking
and saying something about Abraham Lincoln. Carl Sandburg tells how in 1816 Tom Lincoln and Abe on one horse,
and Nancy Hanks and Sarah on the other, with pots, pans and the family Bible piled on, rode the hundred-mile trail into
Indiana, to Little Pigeon Creek, where under the winter sky they lived in a "half-faced camp" with a log-fire burning
night and day against the cold and the wilderness. And Sandburg tells of a night when little eight year old Abe, listening
to a hoot-owl crying, went out to watch the quarter moon.
What did the moon see in that year of 1816, asks Sandburg. It had seen 16,000 wagons come along a Pennsylvania
turnpike, heading west, seeing new land on the frontier –in Indiana where there were three people to the square mile.
The moon saw a new land being opened, land that stretched from the Mississippi to the Rocky Mountains – the
Louisiana purchase, which cost fifteen million dollars, a price that the budget-cutters of Jefferson's day argued we could
not afford. The moon saw a boy who was to grow into a man on Indiana soil, where, Sandburg quotes one of Lincoln's
friends as saying: "We lived the same as the Indiana, 'ceptin' we took an interest in politics and religion."
And what does the moon see now, this year of 1960, this fifteenth year of the atomic age, this first decade of the age of
space?
Well, the people of Indiana still take an interest in politics – and religion. And the traffic still flows over a Pennsylvania
turnpike – though at a somewhat faster pace.
And there are still pioneers – there are still new frontiers – some of them on the moon itself. But the moon has to look
hard to find Americans on this new frontier. It sees a Soviet rocket to the moon, Soviet missiles soaring through space.
But we are asked today to forget about the missile gap, to forget about our dwindling prestige abroad and our dwindling
defenses at home. These are of no importance in the 1960 election, we are told. According to the Vice President of the
United States, Americans are "living better today than ever before and they are going to vote that way."
America is living today better than ever before. We have more swimming pools, freezers, boats and air-conditioners
than the moon has ever seen before.
But "the test of our progress," said Franklin Roosevelt, "is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have
much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
By that test, the last eight years have been eight years of economic failure – eight years of retreat from historic aims.
Last month, in his annual economic message, the President painted a picture of a fat and complacent nation – a nation of
wealth and abundance – a satisfied nation: satisfied with what it had and satisfied with where it was going. But the truth
of the matter is that behind the President's contented phrases are facts that give us no cause for such satisfaction. They
do not meet the Roosevelt test.
Let us look at some of the phases and some of the facts.
1. "The increase in national output," said the President, "has made possible very great gains in the well-being of
American families."
Yet – in an age of record national income – we have seven million families who must struggle to survive on incomes of
less than $2,000 a year. We have more than three million unemployed. We have depressed areas where one-quarter of
the workers have no job.
These "very great gains" the President talks about do not include those drawing unemployment compensation, whose
families must get by on an average of $31 a week. We have seen no "very great gains" for 80 per cent of our old people,
who must survive on substandard incomes – no very great gain in the well-being of seventeen million Americans who
suffer from malnutrition while our farms produce ever-costlier surpluses – no very great gain in the well-being of those
who must live in the five million homes that lack plumbing, or the five million residences which need desperately to be
replaced.
2. "The American economy," said the President, "has sustained its long-term record of growth." But in fact we have
declined to a growth rate which is only half the record increases of the Roosevelt-Truman era. The Soviet Union is
expanding its economy three times as fast as the United States. Eight years of drift and retrenchment – holding down
purchasing power, curbing small business, neglecting our farms and cities, wasting our natural resources – these are the
policies that need to be reversed if we are to increase national income, create national wealth, and bring the good life to
all Americans, while allowing us to meet our obligations abroad.
3. "Notable gains," said the President, "have been made in education and other cultural areas."
And yet today millions of young Americans are deprived of a decent education because of overcrowded classrooms – a
lack of competent and well-paid teachers – and the unwillingness of our great, rich nation to ensure that poverty will not
be a bar to higher education for any talented student. And these problems are getting worse as our population expands –
as our schools grow older – as cities and towns are priced out of the teacher market. We are failing – shamefully failing
– to make what the President calls "notable gains" – but we cannot fail education much longer without failing our future
as well.
4. "The economic security of American families," said the President, "has been advanced significantly."
But family security has not been advanced significantly when the props beneath that security – fashioned nearly a
generation ago by Franklin Roosevelt and the Congress – have been permitted to rust and decay: Minimum wages,
social security, unemployment compensation, aids to housing and farmers and small business. And family security has
not been advanced significantly when it is still subject to the whims of economic fluctuation. Under this Administration
we have seen two serious recessions and – at the very same time – serious price inflation, eating away a family's
savings, using up wage increases, destroying the value of insurance policies and pensions. We have seen the highest
interest rates in history driving the price of money continually higher, slowing the construction of badly needed homes,
and causing a record number of small business failures.
These are just a few of the facts behind the phrases – the hard facts of America's economy, stripped of the cover of
complacent and unjustified words. We are failing to provide for those who have too little – we are failing to meet the
Roosevelt standard and the standard of the Democratic Party. We are increasing our wealth, but we are failing to use that
great wealth to meet the urgent needs of millions of our citizens, and the demands of our growing nation.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Stutusman

County Democratic Committee Dinner, Jamestown,
North Dakota, February 6, 1960
This is a transcript of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A press release of the speech
exists in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library.
The Administration has now unveiled its farm program for 1960. The solution it offers for farm problems - its panacea
for higher surpluses and lower income - its remedy for farm ills - its answer to the demands of the future - is lower, still
lower, farm prices.
Secretary of Agriculture Benson says we must depress wheat prices until they compete with feed grains - he ignores the
chaos in both wheat and feed grain prices that is certain to follow. He urges a continuation of the present corn program -
and ignores the plight of the corn farmer already suffering from this program. And as for livestock - he refuses even to
acknowledge the mounting evidence of a livestock crisis in the near future.
In short it is a clarion call for a continuation of the same disastrous policy Mr. Benson has pursued since coming into
office. Last year the farmers of our Nation made less money than in any year since 1942. And only this week they
received notice from Mr. Benson that they should expect a further cut in income of between 10 and 12 percent over the
next four years.
At the same time that corporate profits will rise an estimated 10 to 15 percent, the Administration program will cut farm
income between 10 and 12 percent.
For some reason the wheat farmer in particular is singled out for attack. According to the same report, the
Administration wheat program will reduce the cash receipts of the wheat farmer by 30 percent during the next four
years.
One may ask who is going to benefit from this relentless Administration attack on farm income. Certainly not the city
dwellers of our Nation, who are paying higher food prices. Certainly not the taxpayers, paying more to see surpluses rot
in storage than they ever paid before. And certainly not the farmers.
I do not pretend to say that a new Democratic President in the White House would have all the answers to all the
problems. I do not agree with those who think that all we have to do is dismiss Mr. Benson and get a new Secretary of
Agriculture. This problem is bigger and deeper than one man or even one administration. There are no quick, easy,
painless remedies. On the contrary, I think the farmers themselves are getting tired of hearing from politicians in either
camp about some new short-term expedient, a wonder drug aimed at treating some current symptom instead of getting at
the real problem. I do not intend to repeat such promises today.
But I do believe that any Democratic farm program must both attack the current problems of surpluses and depressed
prices and meet the long-range objectives of an expanding economy. This presents a dual challenge.
It cannot be met by a single-minded devotion to unrestricted production at lower and lower prices. Our one billion, 400
million bushel wheat surplus will not melt away as prices are adjusted. It would take a 50 percent reduction in price and
would bankrupt one out of three farmers to reduce our enormous surplus problem.
Nor can the farm economy be revived by a deliberate effort to eliminate the family farmer. This effort can only weaken
our entire economy.
Wheat is no different from steel - or from automobiles - or from refrigerators. When the steel industry finds itself with
excess capacity - as it did about a year and a half ago - it trims production. It did not reduce prices. It raised prices.
There was no Administration effort to plow back every third steel company - or even to reduce steel prices. The wheat
producer is entitled to the same consideration.
I do not underestimate our wheat crisis. If we did not grow another bushel for the rest of 1960, we would still have
enough wheat to meet all our domestic needs, all our export requirements, and still have a larger than necessary
carryover in 1961. It costs over $20 million a month just to pay the storage charges on this one crop alone.
Obviously we need a new agricultural policy - the same weary and unsuccessful program Mr. Benson has been pushing
since 1952 will not do. Any attempt to control one commodity and not another is pre-doomed to failure, for our farm
economy cannot exist half controlled and half free.
Last year the Democratic Congress offered the Administration an emergency wheat program. By reducing acreage 25
percent and increasing the support price to 90 percent, we sought to halt the steady accumulation of wheat in our storage
bins. It was estimated it would have saved us $250 million a year.
Unfortunately, an Administration bent upon reducing prices vetoed the bill.
This year, I hope we can pass good, permanent legislation - over a veto, if necessary. Without attempting to speak for all
Democrats - without attempting to write a wheat bill here and now - let me say just this: I believe such legislation must
have a triple objective -
First, it must stabilize producer income at reasonable levels;
Second, it must allow freedom to plant without Government interference;
Third, it must discourage diversion of wheat to other crops.
This last objective is particularly important if we are to avoid solving the wheat problem at the expense of feed grain
producers.
I believe the best hope for accomplishing these objectives lies in a two-price system for wheat; one price will be paid for
wheat used for human consumption; a lower price will be paid for wheat used for feed, for seed, or commercially.
The wheat used for human consumption will be controlled by marketing limitations. These limitations should be low
enough to allow between 100 million and 200 million bushels in storage to enter the market each year, at 100 percent
parity prices. Since CCC stocks cannot be sold at less than parity prices, the wheat produced during the year will
increase in price until it reaches that same price level. In this way the farmer’s income will be protected. At the same
time he will have complete freedom to harvest as much as he wishes for other purposes, selling the secondary wheat at
the free market price.
The accompanying acreage retirement will prevent ruinous competition between wheat and feed grains.
I intend to offer this legislation, and I am confident we will have the whole-hearted support of the wheat growers and the
farm organizations.
But forgetting for the moment about parity indexes, acreage allotments, production payments, and other techniques, any
long-range farm program should include these six basic principles:
First, farm abundance should be treated as a blessing and not as a curse. There are still more than one billion 800
million people in other lands trying to get by on less than a subsistence diet. There are still tremendous possibilities for
using food as a means of capital investment in underdeveloped countries, even in those that have no food shortages.
There are still markets in Europe and elsewhere buying less of our foodstuffs today than they did 20 years ago. There are
still 17 million Americans going to bed each night suffering from malnutrition.
This year’s census-takers, going from door-to-door, will find that we have become a nation of 180 million people. We
will by the end of this century have doubled our population - we will have equaled the population of India in 1951, a
year of critical food shortage in that teeming, famine-ridden, drought-stricken country.
What Mr. Benson now complains about in terms of a food surplus could soon turn into a permanent food shortage. Let
us not forget that Premier Khrushchev was forced to announce in this year’s economic report that Russian farm
production - in such key crops as grain, sugar beets, potatoes and others - was declining while their population was
increasing. While he is being handicapped by shortages, let us not be frightened by our surpluses.
Secondly, any national farm program should be based primarily on the promotion and preservation of the family farm.
That is the basic unit here in North Dakota - that is the way it must continue to be. We have no wish to become a nation
of giant commercial corporation farms and absentee landlords. Our whole vitality as a nation depends on a contrary
course. So let us beware of programs that aid most those who need it least - that encourage the big non-compliers by
giving them a good support price anyway in election years. Our job is to look out for the family farmer - and we can
count on the family farmer to look out for the future of our soil - and the future of our country.
Third, any future farm program should be run for farmers by farmers. Basic administration on the local level should be
in the hands of farmer committees elected by farmers themselves. No bureaucrat, no economist or scientist, knows the
needs and trends and variations of the local farm picture as well as local farmers. On the national level, we need a
Federal Farm Board comprised of leaders from the key commodity groups - a board which can explain the farmer’s
needs to the Administration and the Administration’s hopes to the farmer. This would be a board made up of real
farmers - and by farmers, I do not mean some of those whom Mr. Benson has appointed to high office - so-called
“farmers” who own one cow and ten banks. I mean those who contributed so much to the local administration of our
farm programs in the past - and who can and should do so in the future.
Fourth, any Democratic farm program should encourage, not retard, the growth of the cooperative movement.
Cooperatives can help the farmer escape some of the cost-price squeeze. They can give him some stability and
bargaining power which he otherwise could not have.
Of immediate concern is the current Administration proposal to tax cooperatives and control their private financial
obligations. This would penalize rather than help their operations. As I said in my letter of protest to the Secretary of the
Treasury a year ago, this proposal would tax most heavily those cooperatives with inadequate cash resources who are
least able to bear the tax.
Fifth, any future farm program must concentrate on cutting the farmer’s costs. The high interest rate policy of this
Administration has hurt the farmer looking for credit more than anyone else - and it has held him back even further by
making it more difficult for him to buy more efficient machinery on the installment plan. The REA program of this
Administration has not been one of promoting lower electric rates for our farm homes. It has done little or nothing about
the 300,000 farm families that still lack electricity - and little or nothing about the 40 percent of our farm families in this
great electronic age who have no telephone service whatsoever. By cutting these costs - keeping freight rates down and
keeping them fair - a new administration can save just as much money for the farmer’s pocket as higher farm prices
would bring in.
Sixth, and finally, any future farm program should assure our Nation’s farms of a fair share of the national net income.
This does not mean that farm prices must always rise - but they should not be the only ones to fall.
A program based upon these six fundamental principles would, I am convinced, restore common sense and common
justice to our farm policy. Only then will it be possible to gear national production to international need - to grow food
for stomachs and not for storage - to support the farmer’s prices and income at a level which will cover his costs and a
reasonable profit; and at the same time substantially reduce the cost of this program to the American taxpayer.
I am convinced that the farmers of this country - particularly if they are given a major voice in shaping and
administering this policy - will support it and cooperate with it. This is not a matter of partisan politics - and it is not
even a matter only of farm income. For our basic concern is not the interest of any single political party, or the interests
of any single group in our economy. Our basic interest is the national interest - and dedicating ourselves to that
objective, we can go forward with renewed faith in the future of our land.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Western
Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico, February 7,
1960
I am here this morning to apologize for the speech delivered on the Senate Floor by one of my predecessors from
Massachusetts. He was talking about a mail route from the Missouri to the Columbia Rivers and he was, as always,
eloquent: "What do we want," he said, "with this vast worthless area? This region of savages and wild beasts, of…
shifting sands, dust, cactus and prairie dogs? To what use could we ever put these great deserts, or those endless
mountain ranges…? What can we ever hope to do with the Western Coast, a Coast of three thousand miles, rock-bound,
cheerless, uninviting and not a harbor on it? What use have we for this country?"
Those were not the words of a modern Republican but an ancient Whig. Daniel Webster. And the answer to this
question lies all about us - in the great deserts reclaimed, in the mountains of natural resources, in the great ports and
mines and power projects. It is still vast, but not worthless - still rock-bound but not cheerless. And yet the miraculous
changes transforming this region in the last century are not enough. The Western frontier is still to be explored - its
needs are still to be met.
But I am not here to talk to you about western needs. I do not propose to offer solutions to western problems, or to tell
you how the next President must answer western demands. Nor do I think that you want to hear such a speech. For I am
confident that you share my faith in the vision of two great easterners - Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt - to
whom the great resources of the west were a source of American greatness - to whom the growth of the West was a key
to American growth - to whom the untapped abundance of the West was the basis of American abundance - to whom the
future of the West was America’s future.
Today - under an Administration headed not by easterners (like the two Roosevelts) but by a Kansan and a Californian -
we are in the midst of a depression - a depression in the handling of our natural resources. This is not a depression of
scarcity - it is not caused by a lack of water or power or land. It is due to despoilment, under-development and neglect -
it is due to a lack of vision and a lack of faith - it is due to a reluctance to make the effort needed to transform our
untapped abundance into the raw materials required for today’s needs and tomorrow’s goals. Every day in which we
lack leadership - every day in which no plans are drawn or efforts made - plunges us deeper into this depression.
In the next fifteen years our population will continue to expand. By 1975 there will be 230 million Americans - with the
West growing four times as fast as the rest of the country. And for this growing America we will need a growing supply
of resources. By 1975 we will need twice as much water - water for growing cities, our farms and our industry. We will
consume twice as much food, and we will need 3-1/2 million more acres on which to grow this food - acres which must
be reclaimed now if they are to feed a nation in the future. We will need three times as much power to drive the
machinery and light the homes of our expanding economy.
We will need millions of acres more land for wildlife and recreation. We will need increased efforts to stop the
devastating floods which cause over a billion dollars worth of damage each year and take an incalculable toll in human
life and human welfare. We will need vigorous action to halt the destructive and dangerous contamination of our rivers,
and lakes, and of the air we breathe. We will need increased research and development, to find new sources of water in
the ocean and new uses for our vast mineral resources in the earth - resources which Americans alone have consumed, in
the last fifty years, in quantities greater than all mankind consumed in the entire course of recorded history.
These are the challenges of the future - challenges which we must meet in the Sixties, if we are to meet the needs of this
generation, and preserve the heritage of future generations.
But these challenges have not been met. The past eight years have compiled a record of timidity - of failure. Any
administration which has forgotten the West is an administration which has neglected the nation. And this
Administration’s record of failure and neglect is not only set down in statistics and reports - it is burned into the land
around us - in the parched and arid acres of much of the southwest - in the millions of acre-feet of water which flow
filthy and unused to the sea - in the rotting timber of our national forests. This is their monument of failure - a visible,
tangible, shameful monument.
Let us look at this record of failure - a record which the next - Democratic - Administration - must reverse.
1. First: Despite our growing needs - our expanding population - we have actually been spending less on our natural
resources in the past eight years than we did under Harry Truman and we have spent less in a period when inflation has
cut the value of each resource dollar by one-third. While the Administration’s own conservative Department of
Commerce has been saying that we must spend at least 3 ½ billion dollars per year to meet our minimum resource needs
- the Administration’s budget has asked for less than half that amount.
2. Secondly: With the exception of one project - the Colorado River Storage Project - the product of the imagination and
planning of Oscar Chapman - there has not been one single multipurpose, basin-wide project by the United States in the
past eight years - projects which might transform the Columbia or Connecticut River basins, or the Rampart Canyon
area in Alaska. We must return to the concept of Teddy Roosevelt who realized that "a river was a unit from its source
to the sea," and that only by planning for all the needs of an entire basin could we effectively conserve and develop the
potentialities of our great rivers.
3. Third: The administration has requested less than fifty per cent of the amount needed to maintain and make useful one
of our most important national assets - the great national forests. Last spring we heard - from the Secretary of
Agriculture - the heroic words of the pioneer - promising a bold new program for our forests. But January brought
instead the cold phrases of the budgeteer - cutting the heart out of the Administration’s own program - requesting less
than fifty percent of the needed funds. Our forests are one of our most vital assets - they contain more than one-half the
commercial timber of the West - they provide recreation for millions - they are the major source of water for more than
1600 cities and towns - they drive more than 600 hydro-electric projects - they are necessary to the control of destructive
floods - their proper management would provide jobs for six million Americans and repay every dollar of investment.
We must reverse this failure - we must restore our great woodlands as a source of strength for the nation’s future.
4. Fourth: Until this year - and the coming of an election - the whole nation, not only the West, was the victim of one of
the most shortsighted and destructive policies in the history of our natural resources - the policy of no new starts. This
policy was misnamed - it should have been called the policy of no more progress - no more progress toward utilizing the
90 million wasted kilowatts contained in our flowing rivers - no more progress toward supplying land, industry and
people with some of the 675 million acre-feet of water which is now unused. We must, and shall, resume the march
forward.
5. Fifth: All Congressional efforts to meet the problem of water pollution - to halt the wasteful and dangerous
contamination of our lakes and rivers - to provide healthy and usable water for our homes and industries - have met with
Administration delay and opposition. Even today the threat of veto hangs over the expansion of the Federal water
pollution program - a program which is falling short only because it lacks funds, vision and executive leadership.
6. Sixth and finally: Efforts to use science and technology to find new sources of water and new uses for mineral
resources have been frustrated by Administration policy - and starved by lack of leadership. Only the untiring efforts of
Senator Anderson brought about the beginning of a saline water conversion program - a program which may hold the
key to our future - and possibly the world’s. New and better coal research has been vetoed - mineral development has
been forgotten but in an age of science, the newest of man’s tools must be applied to the oldest of man’s problems - the
development of his natural resources.
These failures and many more like them have been produced by policies which are unsound by the very standards used
to create them - in terms of dollars and cents. For every dollar spent on flood control, on reclamation, on power, on
increasing water supplies, not only contributes immeasurable to national welfare but returns manyfold to the Federal
treasury. Western reclamation projects have produced more tax revenue since 1940 than the cost of all reclamation
projects in our history.
We in the Democratic Party are not spenders but investors - and we are willing to show our faith in America by
investing in her future. In the past eight years we have heard much about budgets and deficits - but the facts are that in
the past eight years we have incurred the greatest deficit in the history of this country - an enormous debt in wasted
resources - in polluted and untapped water - in unused power - in decaying forest - in parched and useless land -
contaminated air - and destroyed natural beauty. This is a deficit in faith - a deficit in vision - and a deficit in leadership.
A Senator from South Carolina said in 1843 that "to talk about constructing a railroad to the western shore of this
continent manifests a wild spirit of adventure which I never expected to hear broached in the Senate of the United
States." Today we must again call upon that "wild spirit of adventure" - for we are confronted with dangers and
challenges greater than any man has ever known. To meet these challenges we must be strong - we must summon all our
resources - resources of mind and spirit, and the resources which lie beneath our earth, and in our mountains, and in our
rivers - those resources on which we have built a great nation - those resources on which her continued greatness
depends. And for those resources, we must look as Americans have always looked - westward.
I am reminded of Winston Churchill’s radio broadcast in April of 1941 - when to the East, Europe crumbled before the
Nazi onslaught - and Churchill, looking westward to America for support, quoted the words of the poet Arthur Clough:
"And not by Eastern windows only,
When daylight comes, comes in the night
In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly -
But westward, look, the land is bright."
Today, back East in Washington, as we view a leadership of indecision and drift - of confusion and pettiness - the
prospects often look dark. But as we Democrats gather strength for the leadership will soon be ours - as we begin the
task of preparing America for her time of greatness - we, too, can say - "But westward, look, the land is bright."
Dinner, Newport, Oregon, February 10, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. Copies of the speech exist as a
press release and a reading copy in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the
John F. Kennedy Library. The texts of the release and the reading copy are the same.
The Democratic Party is constantly under attack today - particularly in last month's nationwide, closed circuit
Republican dinner - as an irresponsible party of spenders. We are trying to spend too much for defense, we are told. We
are trying to spend too much for schools, for housing, for health, for space research and for all the other pressing needs
of a great and growing nation.
But the facts of the matter are that this Republican Administration has saddled upon this nation the costliest policy in our
history - the policy of high interest rates and tight money.
To some theorists in Washington, tight money is just a phrase - high interest rates mean nothing more than a statistical
curve.
But here in Oregon you know exactly what they mean. You see the plight of your distressed timber industry - the
shortage of your schools - the badly needed construction - the unemployment, and the business failures, and the
frustration of those who cannot buy homes for themselves and their families.
Within the last few weeks, the people of Cottage Grove, Oregon, decided to build a new grade school - a grade school
which would cost one-quarter of a million dollars. When they tried to raise this money through a municipal bond issue,
the city fathers of Cottage Grove found that they were forced to pay 4.2% interest - the lowest rate offered by any
bidder. In other words, that school will cost them nearly $128,000 in interest payments alone - and this is almost
$60,000 more than they would have had to pay in 1952, when the interest rate was only a little over 2¼% - sixty
thousand more dollars that did not add a single brick or window or textbook - sixty thousand more dollars which could
have been devoted to more classrooms, or more parks, or more hospitals - or which the taxpayers could have kept for
their own use. This is Cottage Grove's $60,000 sacrifice to the policy of high interest rates.
And it is only one sacrifice in a nation where millions of people and thousands of cities make similar sacrifices every
day. And it is only a small sacrifice compared to the sacrifices which the state of Oregon has made in the past few years
- sacrifices which have brought economic distress to your timber and construction industries - sacrifices which have
given Oregon the highest rate of small business failures in the nation - sacrifices which have cost Oregon and the nation
billions of dollars in lost productivity.
What is this policy of high interest rates and tight money all about? All of the complicated explanations and technical
justifications boil down to this: there is under this Administration a consistent and deliberate effort to increase the price
of money - to raise the interest rate which every person who borrows must pay. The purpose of this policy - we are told -
is to halt inflation. By making money more costly it will be harder to borrow - there will be less spending - and prices
will go down.
But the clear facts of the matter are that this policy has not worked. Prices have not gone down. Inflation has not been
halted. The interest rate has gone up - but so has the price of other goods. The cost of borrowing money has climbed -
but so has the cost of everything else. The only time prices declined under this Administration - and they declined very
little for a very brief period - was when Republican economic policies and short-sightedness plunged us into a recession.
There is considerable talk in this campaign about what we can and cannot afford. In strictly economic and budgetary
terms, this emphasis is misplaced - because we cannot ever afford to be second in schools, second in defense and second
in the development of our natural resources. But even in the strictest economic sense, the Republican policy of high
interest rates and tight money is a policy this nation cannot afford. For it has not only failed in its objective of halting
inflation - it has destroyed the hopes and progress of millions of Americans.
Let me cite a few examples of the incredible costs - the human costs and the economic costs - which have resulted from
this irresponsible, spend-thrift policy.
1. First, we cannot afford the cost in small business failures. When interest rates climb, money gets harder to borrow -
credit is limited. The small businessman finds that he cannot obtain or cannot afford the capital he needs to expand, to
reinvest or to meet the current expenses of a struggling new business.
As a result, in the last eight years, the rate of small business failures in this country has doubled - and Oregon has been
the hardest hit state of all. Your businesses are collapsing three times faster than the national average. Your rate of
business failures has multiplied eight times in the past eight years. Compared with 1952, you have eight times as many
businesses destroyed - eight times as many hopes broken, jobs lost and income erased.
Our major corporations, of course, have not had this trouble. They have enough resources and earnings to continue and
expand without going to the money market - and when they do borrow they are the banks' preferred customers. A policy
which discriminates against small business - which destroys the small businessman at this high rate - is a policy which
the United States cannot afford.
2. Secondly, we cannot afford the cost of unbuilt private homes. Anyone in this audience who has recently bought a
home knows what the policy of high interest rates means - because he is paying for it every month, and paying for it
dearly.
Perhaps the cost is hidden because it is spread out, and because it is combined with payments on the mortgage principal.
But the harsh facts of the matter are that under present interest rates a $20,000 home on a 30-year mortgage costs a total
of $43,200. The interest cost is actually greater than the cost of the house itself. And $9,000 of this interest - well over
one-third of it - is the direct result of the high interest rate policies of this Administration - $9,000 which might have
furnished the house, or expanded it, or stayed in the family budget.
But this increased cost of a single home does not only mean distress for the family. It also means great economic
distress for the entire construction industry, and for the great timber industry of Oregon on which so much of our
housing depends. Despite an exploding population - despite the deterioration of many of our homes - despite the
pressing need for urban development - and despite the traditional hope of more and more Americans to buy their own
home - the number of housing starts in this country is actually beginning to decline - our volume of housing construction
is no more today than it was five years ago. Increased interest rates have only brought decreased construction to an
America desperately in need of homes – and this is a policy which America cannot afford.
3. Third, we cannot afford the cost of unbuilt public works: schools, hospitals, parks, dams and other essential
improvements. The town of Cottage Grove is only a small symbol of the crisis in school construction. Today Americans
spend an average of three billion dollars per year for school construction - and it costs nearly 700 million more dollars in
increased interest to finance these schools - nearly 700 million more dollars than it would have cost in 1952 - nearly 700
million dollars that do not add a single classroom or pay a single teacher's salary. The cost for only one school building -
the increased cost from these new interest rates alone - is $150,000 for the average elementary school and $300,000 for
the average high school. It is an incredible fact that the very same people who foisted these costs upon American
education are now complaining about the Federal Aid to Education Bill which we passed in the Senate last week - and
which the money spent on these higher interest rates alone would very nearly pay for.
These heavy costs are not restricted to school construction. Every dollar borrowed by a city or state carries this fantastic
extra charge. And, as a result, we cannot afford to build the hospitals, the parks, the sewage systems, and the hundred
other public improvements which our exploding and overcrowded cities desperately need.
4. Fourth, we cannot afford the cost which these policies load upon the Federal budget. For high interest rates are not
only paid by homeowners and businessmen - they must be paid by the Federal Government itself. Today we pay 9.5
billion dollars each year for interest on the national debt - 12% of the entire national budget - 3 billion dollars more
interest than we paid in 1952 - and most of this is due to the high interest rate policies of this supposedly thrifty
Administration.
With that three billion dollars we could double this Administration's budget for new Polaris submarines, for aid to India
and Latin America, for improving our national parks, for construction of new hospitals, for control of water pollution
and for research in cancer and mental health. All this we could do with this three billion dollars. But instead of doubling
these programs and others like them, this money is paid out in high interest alone, building nothing, producing nothing,
dollars which "toil not - neither do they spin." And America cannot afford that kind of waste.
5. Fifth and finally, we cannot afford the cost in decreased economic growth. It is incredible that at a time when more
than three million men and women are unemployed - when our economic growth has slowed down to half of what it was
eight years ago - when Russian industrial capacity is expanding nearly three times as fast as ours - it is incredible that at
such a time we would deliberately adopt a policy intended to slow down our economic growth. But that is exactly what
the high interest rate policy does - and is intended to do. By restricting money - tightening credit - it means that business
can no longer get the capital it needs to thrive - to expand - and to create new jobs.
Even the individual consumer cannot afford to buy on the installment plan the appliances and automobiles he could in
1952. In the long run, that consumer finds himself paying some $200 more in interest payments on his new car - $200
which might have helped create new jobs in new plants throughout the country.
There is no reason why new economic policies in 1961 could not increase our economic productivity by 50 billion
dollars - cut unemployment in half - bolster purchasing power everywhere - and give the federal government 17 billion
more dollars to meet the pressing needs of the sixties.
This is one of the real issues of 1960. This is an issue which every American can understand - every time he buys a
house or a car - every time he pays more taxes so that his city, state and federal government can pay more interest -
every time he considers the new schools and the new homes and the new national and international efforts we might
otherwise have been able to afford. It is an issue for the small homeowner, the small businessman, the debtor and the
consumer - and it is an issue which it is within their power to answer next November. For, in the words of Andrew
Jackson: "There are no necessary evils in Government . . . only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal
protection, and, as Heaven does the rain, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would
be an unqualified blessing."
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Student
Convocation, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California,
February 12, 1960
This is a transcript of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. One draft of the speech exists in
Perhaps no area of the world deserves more of our knowledge and attention while getting so little as the great, throbbing
continent of Africa. If we were to ask a group of politicians or college students in Africa about the United States, we
would for the most part receive such stereotyped replies as: "America is rich," "America is free," "There is race
prejudice in America," "Americans hate Russia;" and then a query, "What do your people think of our people?"
Ask the average American about Africa, and he would probably reply in terms of a jungle (though in fact there is very
little jungle, there are more plains, mountains, deserts, savannah and bush); or he might speak of primitive black people
-- though the two hundred million people of Africa include both educated and uneducated persons of European, Asian,
Middle Eastern, Arab and a variety of African descents.
But regardless of what Africa has been in truth or in myth, she will be that no longer. Call it nationalism, call it anti-
colonialism, call it what you will, Africa is going through a revolution. Or, as a special African issue of The Economist
put it so well, ". . . Africa is at one and the same time undergoing an agricultural revolution, an industrial, technological
and urban revolution, a social revolution and a political revolution; it is passing from a feudal and indeed, in places, still
pre-historic age into the atomic age in a matter of decades. It is recapitulating the history of the last five centuries of
European society in fifty years."
Africans want a higher standard of living. Seventy-five percent of the population now lives by subsistence agriculture.
They want an opportunity to manage and benefit directly from the resources in, on and under their land. They want to
govern their own affairs believing that political freedom is the precondition to economic and social development. Most
of all, they want education -- for education is in their eyes the backbone to gaining and maintaining the political
institutions they want. Education is the means to personal and national prestige. Education is, in truth, the only key to
genuine African independence and progress.
I believe that most Americans are sympathetic to these desires of the African people. After all, it was in our schools that
some of the most renowned African leaders learned about the dignity and equality of men, and saw in practice the
virtues of representative government, widespread education and economic opportunity. These are the ideas and ideals
that have caused a revolution -- a largely bloodless revolution, but no less far reaching for that.
But having been the catalyst to many of these changes, do we see the implications to ourselves? We cannot simply sit by
and watch on the sidelines. There are no sidelines. Under the laws of physics, in order to maintain the same relative
position to a moving body, one cannot stand still. As others change, so must we, if we wish to maintain our relative
political or economic position.
The African peoples believe that the science, technology and education available in the modern world can overcome
their struggle for existence. They believe that their poverty, squalor, ignorance and disease can be conquered. This is
their quest and their faith. To us the challenge is not one of preserving our wealth and our civilization -- it is one of
extension. Actually, they are the same challenge. To preserve, we must extend. And if the scientific, technical and
educational benefits of the West cannot be extended to all the world, our status will be preserved only with great
difficulty -- for the balance of power is shifting, shifting into the hands of the two-thirds of the world's people who want
to share what the one-third has already taken for granted. Within ten years, for example, African nations alone may
control 25 percent of all United Nations votes.
To thus extend ourselves will require a political decision. But such a decision will take economic and educational forms.
For what Africa needs and wants first is education, to know how to develop the resources and run the industries and
administer the government; and second, capital, for without the initial capital -- to develop the resources and spur the
trade -- they will never generate sufficient capital themselves to provide for expanding services and development. An
initial injection of capital, personnel to train others and scholarship opportunities is necessary to start this spiral on its
way.
As Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Africa, I would like to make the following proposals:
First, I propose that we in the United States establish an Educational Development Fund, emphasizing particularly the
exchange of students, teachers, and trained personnel --making available our technicians and specialists in a number of
fields where they are most needed, while simultaneously opening our college doors to several times as many African
students as now come over.
Secondly, I propose that, in cooperation with many nations, there should be established a multi-national economic
development fund for Africa, to provide effective financial help for investment, development and personnel, in which
African, European, American and other nations could cooperate. Such a plan should and could be initiated by the
African states themselves -- and they would participate on a basis of complete equality -- as givers as well as receivers.
I first made this proposal last summer. Since that time the Administration has invited several European nations and
Canada to cooperate with the United States in developing investment programs in Africa. This is a step in the right
direction. But to have a truly representative and effective regional economic organization, we must admit the African
nations themselves to full partnership -- and we must increase our objectives.
Such an organization would spread the economic load, substitute cooperation for competition and decrease the sense of
dependence of one nation toward another which is certain to lead to resentment. Such a regional organization would also
be more likely to base its decisions on proposed projects on objective rather than political standards. But whatever final
method is used, sound, orderly economic development for Africa must be on the priority agenda of this session of the
86th Congress.
If African progress falters because of lack of capital and education, if these new states and emerging peoples turn bitter
in their taste of independence, then the reason will be that the Western powers, by indifference or lack of imagination,
have failed to see that it is their own future that is also at stake. As economist Barbara Ward stated it, "The profoundest
matter at stake in Africa is the quality and capacity of Western society itself." Will we accept this challenge -- or will it
be that some future historian will say of us, as of previous civilizations, that "where there is no vision the people perish."
Opening Statement by Senator John F. Kennedy for the
Wisconsin Presidential Primary, Press Conference,
Madison, Wisconsin, February 16, 1960
This is a transcript of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A press release of the speech
I am opening today my drive for victory in the Wisconsin Presidential Primary.

This will be a positive, constructive campaign. Let me make it completely clear right now that I do not intend to attack
my Democratic opponent, to review his record, or to engage in any argument or debates with him. I do intend, when his
name is mentioned, to speak well of him. I request, moreover, that everyone working on my behalf in this state abide by
the same principles.
For this is not a campaign against anyone. This is a campaign for the Presidency.
My objective therefore is to convince the people of Wisconsin that I am best fitted to carry the standard of Wisconsin
Democrats through the convention, through the November elections, and into the White House. And so I shall speak of
future needs and positive programs.
The success of my efforts in Wisconsin will be determined on April 5 by the people of Wisconsin. If a majority of voters
in the Democratic Primary endorse my candidacy here, I am convinced that - despite the efforts of those who reject the
role of primaries, who refuse to enter their candidates in this or any other primary, who defy the history of 50 years in
which no President has been elected without entering and winning at least one contested primary - my candidacy will be
in a strong position at Los Angeles.
So I see no further reason to discuss the new change in the Wisconsin delegate formula. Even if it should prevent that
majority of voters from being represented by a majority of the delegation, it is nevertheless clear that it will be the voice
of the people - their votes, not the delegate count - that really matters.
I regret, too, that Mr. Hoffa and others are coming into Wisconsin to challenge my legislative record, my integrity, and
my competence for the Presidency. But I prefer to leave that judgment, too, to the people of Wisconsin - and I shall
accept their decision on April 5.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Kenosha,

Wisconsin, February 16, 1960
At the top of the list of this nation’s wasting resources is its older citizens. Too many are compelled to retire at the age
of 65, regardless of their excellent health and regardless of the fact that they have skills this nation urgently needs. Too
many older workers able and willing to enter a new occupation are wasting their time and talent in menial work or
idleness. Too much of the contribution to our way of life which can come only from older men and women is lost today
- our society, our family life, our community life lack the wisdom of our elders - simply because too many of them are
in substandard nursing homes, inadequate housing or are struggling to get by on an inadequate retirement income.
This is not a problem to be dismissed lightly. In recent years there has been a dramatic change in the age distribution and
composition of our population. In 1900, influenza, pneumonia, tuberculosis and typhoid still took a high toll of older
people. Medical science as we know it today was in its infancy. A baby girl born in the United States could expect to
live 48 years. Today she can expect to live to the age of 73.
Today almost 10 per cent of the population - 16 million people - are over the age of 65. Forty per cent of these are over
75. Only a small fraction of the 16 million - about 3 million - are employed.
This means that the great bulk of our older citizens must get by on a Social Security check that averages 72 dollars a
month. Three out of five of them receive less than one thousand dollars a year. Four out of five receive less than two
thousand dollars a year.
No matter how they retrench - no matter how many comforts they had learned to do without - no matter how many
expenses they reduce - it is obvious that the later years of too many of our older citizens will be attended by hardships.
And their hardship becomes despair when they are faced with illness and medical expenses. No matter how drastically
their standard of living is cut back, they still cannot reduce their need for essential health care.
Ironically, it is just when their income is lowest that their medical expenses are highest. They are most threatened by the
costs of serious illness when their earning capacity is exhausted. This is the time in life when they are most susceptible
to chronic illness and long term crippling and disabling diseases. This is the time of life when the need for health care
rises sharply.
Of all the costs of living the one which has soared highest is the cost of medical care. In the past ten years the cost of
living has risen 25 per cent. But medical care is up 52%. And hospital room rates are up 110 per cent.
Obviously we cannot expect a person with an income of less than one thousand dollars per year to pay such high
hospital and medical bills - not with a pension that is worth less in terms of real purchasing power than ever before. In as
many as one out of six cases, these expenses total in excess of five hundred dollars a year.
I am convinced that the only solution is an extension of our social security system to provide hospital and medical care
for our older citizens. That is why I offered a medical care bill early this year to provide for such a program, completely
self-financing and based on sound insurance principles. That bill, I know, will be debated at length. But there is no
debate as to the harsh facts of life our older citizens face. And there should be no debate about the fact that this bill must
be passed if we are to make even a beginning in solving this critical problem.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Fond du Lac,
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. Copies of the speech exist as a
press release and a reading copy in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the
John F. Kennedy Library. The texts of the release and the reading copy are the same.
Last year the beaches of Milwaukee - a source of recreation and pleasure for thousands of people - were closed to the
public. The reason: the water was polluted - it was unhealthy and unsafe.
This incident dramatized for Wisconsin citizens what has become a national concern - the coming crisis in water. In
every section of the country the story of the Milwaukee beaches is being repeated. In Colorado the great South Platte
River which irrigates thousands of acres of farmland is filled with the sewage and refuse of hundreds of cities and
industrial plants. In my own home state of Massachusetts, until recently, commercial clammers on the Merrimac River
had to rinse their clams with salt water before selling them. And all of you who have visited our Nation’s capital have
seen - and smelled - the pollution of the historic and once beautiful Potomac - a river which has become so filthy that
people can no longer water-ski on its surface because the spray is injurious to their health. And what has happened in
Milwaukee, in Colorado, in Massachusetts and in Washington - can happen anywhere in the country - from the lakes of
Florida and California, to your own Lake Winnebago.
But water pollution is not merely a destroyer of natural beauty and recreation. It destroys - as effectively as drought -
water which is needed for home consumption, for industrial production and for agriculture. It wastes water supplies
which the nation cannot afford to waste.
Today we consume seven times the amount of water which we used in 1900 - 270 billion gallons each and every day in
the year. But this is only a start. In twenty years we will almost double our need for water. We will need the fantastic
total of 600 billion gallons a day. Yet many parts of our country - large stretches of the West - already need more water
than the land brings forth. How then can we hope to meet this vastly greater need of the future?
The answer - of course - is the re-use of the water which we already have. But water pollution is the obstacle to this easy
and effective solution. Almost all of the country’s rivers are affected by water pollution - and polluted water cannot be
reused. Thus we must halt the destructive filthying of our water if we are to provide the resources on which a sound
economy and a healthy population depends.
And the problem of water pollution is not a local problem - it is not the problem of a single state. The waste which
pollutes the Great Lakes comes from all the states which border those waters, and our great national rivers flow past
hundreds of cities and towns carrying with them the refuse and the filth of all they touch. The need for healthy water
goes beyond political boundaries - it is a national need - and our nation’s welfare and our nation’s health are gravely
affected.
In recognition of this the Federal Government - in 1956 - made fifty million dollars a year available to cities and towns
to help them construct water pollution control projects - to help build the modern sewage and waste treatment facilities
which are necessary if we are to halt the growing destruction of our water supply. Even though this modest federal aid
was limited to thirty per cent of the total cost of any one project, within two years construction of sewage treatment
works jumped 75% - from 222 million dollars a year to 389 million dollars a year.
But despite this electric response - the results were insufficient. Wisconsin alone fell 8 million dollars short of the
construction it needed during the past three years if it was to keep pace with its own water pollution problems. And the
nation as a whole spent far less than the 575 million dollars - which we will have to spend every year for the next eight
years if we are to effectively halt the destruction of our water.
This year Congress is acting to meet this urgent national need, with a bill to increase the amount of federal aid to 90
million dollars a year for the next ten years. The Federal Government will pay only 30% of the cost of any project which
it aids, but - as our past experience has so clearly shown - even this limited increase in Federal aid will serve as an
enormous stimulant to increased construction.
This new legislation also contains some badly needed reforms in our aid program. It allows cities and towns to cooperate
in the construction of joint waste treatment plants, and raises to 500,000 dollars the amount which can be granted for any
one project. This increase is necessary to cover the cost of large cooperative ventures - absolutely essential if
metropolitan areas are to work together to meet this problem. The past limitation has required cities to undertake
ineffective and expensive individual programs - programs which cost the Federal Government and the local taxpayers
far more than a single joint project would have cost.
Yet, despite the overwhelming need and the smallness of the federal aid required, the Administration has vigorously
opposed this progressive and essential legislation. This bill will in all probability be vetoed. The budgeteers in the White
House would like to cut out all federal aid for water pollution - even the small and highly effective program of the past
few years. Thus, in the name of economy, the threat of a Presidential veto hangs over all Congressional efforts to deal
with the national problem of water pollution. But this is false economy - false economy at its very worst. For small
federal effort to help states and cities eliminate the filth which is destroying their precious water resources will return
hundreds of millions of dollars to the economy in terms of increased industrial and agricultural production - as well as
immeasurable dividends in better recreational opportunities and improved human welfare.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Jefferson-

Jackson Day Dinner, Hartford, Connecticut, February
20, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A single reading copy of the
speech exists in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy
Library.
Every American who lived through the past generation has his own favorite memory of Franklin Roosevelt.
I always like to think back to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in 1936 - when F. D. R. was
renominated by wild acclamation. His acceptance speech inspired a crowd of over 100,000 in Franklin Field. It was a
fighting speech. It was a dramatic speech.
But perhaps the most dramatic moment - portraying more than anything else his courage and determination - occurred
just prior to the speech, completely hidden from the audience. As the President came forward behind the curtain, leaning
on his son Jimmy, he suddenly lost his balance and fell to the ground. Lesser men might have lost their composure -
most would have been visibly shaken. But with the aid of his son and the Secret Service, the President was instantly
back on his feet before more than a few had observed what had happened. A few seconds later the curtain opened - and
he stood there calm and erect, accepting the tremendous roar of the crowd with the familiar Roosevelt smile; and
without hesitation, without any sign of recent distress, he launched confidently into one of his most buoyant, most
winning speeches.
"Governments can err," the President said, "Presidents do make mistakes; but the immortal Dante tells us that divine
justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted in different scales. Better the occasional
faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of
its own indifference."
The American people today are very nearly confronted in their Executive Branch with the very danger of which Franklin
Roosevelt warned - "a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."
The Vice President of the United States says - and I quote - that Americans are "living better today than ever before -
and they are going to vote that way."
"The economic security of American families," to quote the President, "has been advanced significantly."
But the facts of the matter are that 17 million Americans go to bed hungry every night - 15 million families live in
substandard housing - 7 million families are struggling to survive on incomes of less than $2000 a year.
We have more than four million unemployed workers, with jobless benefits averaging less than $31 a week.
We have 16 million Americans aged 65 and over - and 80 percent are living out their lives without a decent income.
Five million homes in American cities lack any plumbing of any kind; seven million are unfit and ought to be replaced.
One hundred and nineteen labor markets are still classified as distressed areas, with one out of eight workers
unemployed
Six million American children live in the overcrowded hovels that breed delinquency, crime and disease.
Millions of American workers are being paid less than $1 an hour, to say nothing of $1.25.
Our economy has declined to a growth rate which is only half the record increases of the Roosevelt-Truman era. The
Soviet Union is expanding its economy three times as fast as the United States.
Millions of young Americans are deprived of a decent education because of overcrowded classrooms - a lack of
competent and well-paid teachers - and our unwillingness to ensure that poverty will not be a bar to college education
for any talented student.
And our unfinished agenda is even longer in the area of national security. Whatever the exact facts may be about the size
of the missile gap, it is clear that we shall need more missiles, more ships, planes and men, more atomic submarines and
airlift mobility. It is clear that we are rapidly approaching the point where we will be unable to act as equals at the
bargaining table - where we will be unable to seek arms control from a position of strength - where we will be unable to
back up our position in Berlin, Formosa or the Middle East. As India falls behind China in their race for economic
supremacy in Asia - as new Soviet fires blaze away in the Middle East, Africa and even in Latin America - as NATO
falters from its original goals - it is clear that in the sixties we can no longer drift. We must act - we need leadership that
will act - and that means a Democrat in the White House.
Mr. Nixon has repeatedly stated that he intends to carry on the policies of this Administration. Let us hold him to that -
because I predict on November 8th the American people are going to reject that tradition. Perhaps we could afford a
Coolidge following Harding. And perhaps we could afford a Pierce following Fillmore. But after Buchanan this nation
needed a Lincoln - after Taft we needed a Wilson - after Hoover we needed Franklin Roosevelt…And after eight years
of this Administration, this nation needs a strong creative Democrat in the White House.
Today our very survival depends on that man in the White House - on his strength, his wisdom and his creative
imagination.
We can no longer afford a William McKinley, whose backbone according to Teddy Roosevelt was "as firm as a
chocolate éclair."
We can no longer afford a Calvin Coolidge, who caused a White House usher with 42 years service to say: "No other
President in my time ever slept so much."
We can no longer afford a Warren G. Harding, who reportedly said he saw no real problem in the Middle East "that the
Arabs and Jews couldn’t settle around a table, in the good old Christian way."
We can no longer afford a Ulysses S. Grant, complaining that he didn’t want to be President - he just wanted to be the
Mayor of Galena, Illinois long enough to build a sidewalk from his house to the station…
And we can no longer afford a James Buchanan, whose performance caused Ohio’s Senator Sherman to say: "The
Constitution provides for every accidental contingency in the Executive - except a vacancy in the mind of the President."
But the facts of the matter are that only a creative national party can provide a strong, creative President. The
Republican Party is not a national party. It does not represent all sections, all interest groups, all voters. And that is why
- historically and inevitably - the forces of inertia and reaction in the Republican Party oppose any powerful voice in the
White House, Republican or Democratic that tries to speak for the nation as a whole.
Theodore Roosevelt discovered that. Herbert Hoover discovered that. And, even before he could become a candidate,
Nelson Rockefeller discovered it.
But the Democratic Party is a national party - it believes in strong leadership - and, with your help, we will give the
nation that leadership in January 1961.
But to send that Democrat to the White House we have to win. And I don’t believe this talk that we cannot win. I think
we can win. I think we will win. I think the American people - after "eight gray years," to use F.D.R.’s phrase - will
know that, for their own future and their children’s future, we must win.
But we are not going to win by mocking Republican slogans - by putting the budget ahead of our security - by raising
interest rates instead of production - by substituting pageants for policy in world affairs
So I repeat: When Mr. Nixon says that he wants to carry on the policies of the last eight years, let us hold him to that
statement. For I cannot believe that the voters of this country will accept four more years of the same tired policies - four
more years of Mr. Benson’s high farm surpluses and low farm income - four more years of neglected slums,
overcrowded classrooms, underpaid teachers and the highest interest rates in history - and four more years of dwindling
prestige abroad, dwindling security at home, and a collision course in Berlin.
I firmly believe that the American people next November will respect that candidate and that political party which have
the courage to speak the truth - to tell the people the grim facts about what has happened to America during the past
eight years and what we must do to survive.
The American people, in my opinion, are going to vote for a change - for a President willing to move ahead - for a
President with new ideas and real courage. And I would remind them that just 100 years ago, this nation was brought
from the brink of disaster by a great President - a man willing to back up his words with deed - a man willing to risk his
popularity in order to meet his responsibility. Abraham Lincoln best demonstrated his concept of the Presidency when
he summoned his war-time Cabinet to a meeting on the Emancipation Proclamation. That Cabinet had been carefully
chosen to please and reflect many elements in the country. But "I have gathered you together," Lincoln said, "to hear
what I have written down. I do not wish your advice about the main matter - that I have determined for myself."
And later, when he went to sign it after several hours of exhausting hand-shaking that had left his arm weak, he said to
I sign this Proclamation, all who examine the document hereafter will say: 'He hesitated'."
But Lincoln’s hand did not tremble. He did not hesitate. He did not equivocate. For he was the President of the United
States.
Our next Chief Executive must also be - in every sense of the word - the President of the United States.
Text of Excerpts from the Remarks of Senator John F.

Kennedy at East Side Optimists, Madison, Wisconsin,
February 24, 1960
This is a transcription of excerpts from this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. Copies of the
excerpts from this speech exist as a press release and a reading copy in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy
Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. The texts of the release and the reading copy are the
same.
THE WISCONSIN PRIMARY

In this important primary process, the state of Wisconsin has played a leading and a vital role. In 1905 - disgusted with
the machinations of party chieftains - Wisconsin under Governor LaFollette enacted the first law in our country’s history
calling for the direct election of all delegates to national party conventions. Three years later - acting under that law - the
people of Wisconsin sent to the Republican national convention a slate of delegates pledged to Robert LaFollette, and
dedicated to the liberal principles of the Progressive movement. This group - the first popularly elected delegation -
gained national renown and made a lasting contribution to our political history. According to a journal of the time, the
Wisconsin delegation "stood in that convention, a little band of fearless men, fighting to the last ditch for platform
pledges vital to the public interest. Their contest in the Chicago convention fixed the attention of the country and forced
the candidate nominated for President to broaden the platform by declarations--in favor of several of the important
Wisconsin proposals which the convention had impatiently rejected." This Wisconsin example initiated a wave of
political reform which led to our present primary system.
It was here that Woodrow Wilson won a decisive primary victory over Champ Clark in 1912, and it was Wisconsin
primary support which helped both Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower along the road to re-election.
It was here - in Wisconsin - in 1944, that Thomas E. Dewey won the encouraging primary victory which led him - a few
weeks later - to announce his candidacy. It was here, in 1932, that Franklin Roosevelt won an important victory over Al
Smith.
The Wisconsin primary is an important one - in the nation - in our political history - in its recognition of the voters’
rights. No serious Presidential candidate can afford to pass up this primary - and no serious citizen of Wisconsin can
pass up his chance to vote on April 5th.
Even if your choice of candidates is limited - even if several candidates for the Presidency have refused to submit their
candidacy to your judgment - you do have a clear-cut contest for your support - and you have the chance and the
obligation to choose. The primary is important for another reason - for only by taking part in this historic event - by
voting in the primary - can the people of Wisconsin express their views on these critical issues of the sixties which so
vitally affect the welfare of your state:
1. Whether we can achieve a durable and a safe peace - and an end to nuclear testing - to replace the fantastically
expensive and destructive arms race in which we are now engaged and in which we are constantly falling behind.
2. Whether we can spur the nation’s economic growth to provide a more secure life for all Americans, regardless of
race, creed or national origin, including a higher minimum wage, better unemployment benefits, adequate social
security, and a better break for the mentally ill.
3. Whether your dairy farmers - and all the country’s farmers - are to obtain relief from the ever mounting squeeze of
tight credit, high costs and low income.
4. Whether the great resources of Wisconsin’s forests are to be preserved - and new uses for their products explored -
instead of being allowed to decay under a program which meets less than half the need.
5. Whether the older citizens of Wisconsin - and of the entire country - are to be provided with adequate medical care,
and retirement compensation sufficient to allow them to live in the face of today’s inflationary spiral.
6. Whether we are to build the better roads and provide the adequate rail and air transportation which Wisconsin needs if
she is to survive and grow.
7. Whether we are to let huge agricultural surpluses rot in our warehouses while people go hungry all over the world.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Antigo,

exists in the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library.
One program - of particular interest to Wisconsin - which has been constantly threatened and harassed by the
Administration is our vital program of rural electrification. For over a year now, we have been besieged with the threat
of high interest, tight money and increased taxes upon REA cooperatives.
These policies are justified on the ground that the battle for REA has been won and it is time to be content with the
progress already made. The Director of the Budget, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the REA Administrator all join the
chorus - asking for legislation to curtail loans to cooperatives - to double the interest rate upon the loans already made -
and to compel the cooperatives to go to "private sources" for the rest of their money.
I cannot agree with these demands. I do not believe the fight for rural electrification is over. I will not accept the premise
that the cooperatives must now begin to liquidate. It is true that most farms now have electric lights. It is a fact that REA
cooperatives and power districts are well established, well accepted enterprises. There is no doubt that the dream first
visualized by George Norris and Franklin Roosevelt has been fulfilled.
But today we are faced with new problems and new horizons never even forseen by George Norris. The history of the
REA demonstrates that the farmer's consumption of power can double in as short a time as five years. The key to the
future is power - power on the farm as well as in the factory - power in the country as well as in the city. Let no one
doubt that the role of REA is as vital now, and in the years to come, as it has ever been in the past quarter of a century.
Instead of reducing REA loans, we should be increasing them. Instead of restricting REA's operations, we should be
expanding them. Instead of trying to increase REA interest rates, we should keep them where they are.
The drive to raise REA interest rates, we all know, is closely related to the tight money, high interest rate national
policy. It is no isolated undertaking. And it is time we took a firm stand against this policy, all across the board. One by
one, we have already lost the battle against high interest and tight money in the case of veterans loans, farmers' home
loans, farm credits, and housing. But we must not permit the long established interest rate upon REA loans to follow that
trend.
High interest rates can be an expensive item - for every individual taxpayer as well as every REA co-op. The interest we
pay upon our national debt this year will be three times as much as we lent REA in a quarter of a century. It will be
enough to build two TVA systems. And the cost is still growing. Every time we raise the interest rate one-quarter of one
per cent, we add $250 million to our tax bill.
It is equally important that we resist the attempt to increase taxes upon rural electric cooperatives. The Administration's
proposal to tax cooperatives - which has been repeated this year - shows a basic mis-understanding of the very nature of
the cooperative movement. As I stated last year, when the Treasury Department first suggested it, it taxes most those
least able to pay. Although this proposal was not directed at REA cooperatives, it is clear that they would be next on the
list.
We need in Washington a whole new attitude toward REA - an outlook that does not constantly grumble about REA's
small role in the budget - an outlook that recognizes that the miracle of REA has returned to the public treasuries -
through taxes on new appliances and new farm equipment - many times the entire cost of the program. So let no one tell
you that REA should be cut back in any drive for economy.
And let no one tell you that standard banking and utility practices can do the job. When Franklin Roosevelt and George
Norris decided twenty-five years ago that the job must be done, they assigned it to the cooperatives. They did so because
the banks and utilities could not and would not take it on. We must not permit this decision to be reversed now, when we
need REA more than ever.
Even if and when financial stability is achieved for all rural electric systems, that is not a signal to change our REA
philosophy and increase rates and costs to the system - it is a signal to reduce the cost of electricity to the farmer. For
cheap electric power - for the farmer and his family - is, and must remain, the primary purpose of this program.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Chippewa

Falls, Wisconsin, February 26, 1960
Few National undertakings are of greater importance to the people of Wisconsin than our agricultural research program.
This program is still in its infancy. Yet it has already completely revolutionized the farming concepts of this state and
the nation. Last year - on the smallest acreage in 40 years - with a farm population 5 million below that of the previous
decade - our farmers produced the largest crop in our history. Fifty years ago each farmer produced only enough food
for about 7 persons. Today each farmer produces enough for 25 persons.
In the past 20 years, milk production largely as a result of research into feeds and livestock breeding - has increased 35
per cent per cow. The development of hybrids increased corn production 40 per cent. Our modern industrial economy,
with its high standard of living, would not be possible without the products of agricultural research. And an even greater
emphasis upon research - on improved methods - is absolutely necessary if we are to meet the growing needs of the
sixties.
But to meet these needs we must expand - not contract our current efforts. We must look to future gains - not past
achievements. For research is, as Charles Kettering said - "a tomorrow mind instead of a yesterday mind." And our
future may well depend upon our ability to stay ahead of the needs of the Free World in food and fiber production.
Our present failure to support badly needed research in the name of budget balancing is seriously jeopardizing that
ability. We are on the threshold of important and revolutionary discoveries - a breakthrough in speeding plant and
animal growth - electronic machinery which will revolutionize farming, processing and marketing - the use of starch
from grain to improve paper, which would consume 100 million bushels of grain every year - all these important
developments are within the grasp of our technicians and scientists.
More agricultural research is desperately needed to control disease and pests. One million pounds of meat are
condemned every day - each year the boll weevil destroys more than $500 million worth of crops -grasshoppers, cattle
worms, and other insects account for another $100 million damage. This enormous destruction can and must be
controlled.
But, although Mr. Benson pays lip service to this need, the fine print in his budget calls for smaller appropriations. Of
special interest to dairy farmers in this, the number one dairy state, was the failure last year - and again this year - to
provide adequate funds for the Dairy Herd Improvement and the Brucellosis programs. For instance, last year dairymen
themselves invested about $8 million of their own money in testing cows for the herd improvement service.
Yet the success of this entire program is seriously threatened by the Department of Agriculture's failure to provide
accurate reports on cow feeding, testing and management. It has been reported that hand processing of these reports can
result in making as many as thirty to forty per cent of them inaccurate. A modest investment of less than $200,000
would permit the establishment of an accurate and swift machine reporting system - a system which would provide the
data necessary if the testing program is to succeed.
Today's slow down in brucellosis control is even more critical. Only 10 years ago the livestock industry lost $100
million a year to brucellosis. Dairymen, veterinarians, and milk processors of Wisconsin have made a concentrated
attack upon this disease. They have had much success with limited resources. But brucellosis still persists. It cannot be
eliminated by local efforts alone. To eradicate it we need a full-scale national attack.
Last year, the Department of Agriculture's own program called for control over the disease by 1965 and complete
eradication by 1970. To do this the Federal Government must spend at least $20 million a year. To completely eradicate
this dread disease - which produces undulant fever in humans - state and Federal Government combined must spend
$372 million, spread over an 11 year period.
Despite the small cost of eradicating this destructive disease, last year's budget requested only $15 million - $5 million
less than our minimum need. Even though Congress succeeded in increasing the appropriation to $16-1/4 million, we
fell more than $3 million short of providing the necessary funds.
Such economizing not only jeopardizes the health of our farmers and consumers, it is wasteful. The Administration's
slow-up will postpone complete eradication for 11 more years - until 1981. And that means it will cost the taxpayers an
additional $264 million.
In short, the slow-up is not only more dangerous - it is more costly. I intend to urge the Appropriations Committees of
the Congress to restore the brucellosis program to its full vigor. Both farmers and consumers need this program to
protect their investment and their health.
Some say that the outlook for American agriculture is dark. But I firmly believe that if we can but encourage farm
research sufficiently, the achievements of the future can be spectacular. It is an issue upon which all Wisconsin voters -
farmers and consumers alike - should make their views known. They can speak in the April primary and in the
November election.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Dartmouth

College, Hanover, New Hampshire, March 6, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A press release and reading
copy of the speech exist in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F.
Kennedy Library. The two texts are identical.
THE PRESIDENT’S SOUTH AMERICAN TOUR

No area of the world has received greater American attention in the last few weeks than the area which President
Eisenhower has just visited on a goodwill tour - the continent of South America. I know that all Americans were pleased
and warmed by the acclaim - the applause - and the friendly demonstrations - which the President received - and which
are a tribute not only to his personal popularity but their respect for this nation as the hope of freedom.
But let us not be misled by this display. For behind those cheers - behind the handshakes and the smiles - lurk the same
unsolved problems - the same bitter resentments - the same disappointed hopes - which resulted in the violent attacks on
Vice President Nixon when he went to South America as the representative of the United States.
These attacks shocked and alarmed all Americans. They were the outbreak of powerful and growing anti-American
feelings in countries which we had long considered our faithful friends - our steadfast allies - our good neighbors. They
illuminated the blindness, the half-heartedness and the failures of our policies toward nations whose past friendship we
had taken for granted - and whose continued friendship is essential to our security and strength. And, above all, these
attacks taught us that if we did not act soon and decisively - to help Latin America emerge from the poverty, the hunger,
the disease and the economic distress which now blanket so much of that vast continent - then the democratic
institutions of the entire hemisphere would be in danger.
The President has visited four South American countries - Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay. Each of these countries
is different - each has a different history, different resources and different needs. But in many important respects all four
are alike - and they share the problems of all of South America.
All four are democracies - some with long democratic traditions, others struggling to establish democratic institutions.
All four are trying to achieve rapid economic growth and a higher standard of living. All four are facing serious political
problems - with the stability of the government depending on economic success. And all four are evidence of the
inadequacy of our present policies in Latin America - and the need for new creative and dynamic policies if we are to
meet the needs of the sixties.
The first country which the President visited was Brazil. It is Brazil’s destiny to become the other great power of the
Western Hemisphere. And why not? Brazil is larger than the continental United States - rich in natural resources - with a
vigorous and rapidly expanding population of more than seventy-five million. In many ways Brazil is like the United
States of 100 years ago. Her population is concentrated in a narrow strip of land along the coast - her vast western lands
lie unexplored and unexploited. The young man in Brazil - like the American pioneer of old - looks westward for his
own future, and for the future of his country. And - also like the American pioneer - to the Brazilian of today nothing is
impossible. He thinks of Brazil as Thomas Jefferson thought of the United States: "A rising nation spread over a wide
and fruitful land…advancing rapidly to destinies beyond the reach of mortal eye." The Brazilians intend to struggle and
dare to make that destiny a reality.
But the Brazilians also have problems which the young America did not have to face, They are trying to compress the
history of the last hundred years into a few decades - to propel Brazil’s economy and standard of living into the modern
world faster than her present resources permit. They are confronted with a political situation in which the ideals and
institutions of modern democracy have not yet been completely accepted by all the people. And, finally, the Brazilians
are developing their nation at a time when international Communism is on the prowl - waiting to take advantage of any
weaknesses in the democratic system - waiting to take advantage of whatever discontent and difficulties rapid economic
progress might bring.
To meet these problems and avoid these dangers - Brazil - like the other developing nations of South America - needs
investment capital - capital to help her develop the transportation, the power and the basic industries which her economy
needs if it is to meet the rising demands of her people. And to help supply that capital the efforts of American business
and the American government are needed.
Private American enterprise has not yet seen the great potential of Brazil - they have not yet fully grasped the chance to
invest in an economy which is soon to be one of the largest and most productive in the world. For example, a
representative of one major American steel company has said that his company is not interested in Brazil. "Brazil," he
said, "is not yet ready for a steel industry."
But the facts of the matter are that both Japanese and German companies have recently decided to build steel plants in
Brazil. And her expanding economy will soon be desperate for even more steel. We need to encourage our private
business - to alert them to the great opportunities in Brazil - to help them meet the great unfilled needs of the Brazilians -
if we are to help build Brazil’s strength and at the same time our own.
But private capital is not enough - we must expand our own program of aid and investment. In 1952 the United States
helped the Brazilians to establish a National Development Bank and agreed to make available $500 million for Brazilian
economic development. The people of that nation hailed this move as a symbol of America’s friendship - a long and
important stride toward building a healthy economy in Brazil. But - little more than a year later - without warning -
President Eisenhower announced that the program was over - that we would give no more money to the bank. Even our
strongest friends in Brazil rose up in protest - there were anti-American demonstrations - the Brazilians felt defrauded,
cheated - they saw their dreams of productivity - of a better life - being bitterly frustrated.
Today, eight years later, we must renew the flow of capital to Brazil - this time in connection with a program of help to
all South America. By helping the newly established Inter-American Development Loan Bank and making possible
long-range cooperative economic planning for all of South America - we can begin to recapture the friendship of the
Brazilians, and build the economic strength which will revitalize the entire hemisphere.
The President - while in Brazil - spoke of the need for such economic development. However, there were no concrete
proposals - no firm offers of aid. Let us hope that the eloquence of the President’s words will soon be matched by
positive, substantial action.
The second country the President visited was Argentina. This is not, as you know, a country with a consistent tradition
of freedom. It is a land where democracy is struggling for existence, after the long years of a dictatorship which wasted
the nation’s resources - which almost destroyed its economy - and which left seeds of unrest and discontent which will
trouble the development of Argentina for generations to come. It is also a graphic illustration of how American support
of dictators has harmed the cause of freedom and bred hostility among the people.
I do not say that we should have tried to tell the Argentines what form of government to have - but neither should we
have embarked on such an open and friendly support of the brutal and repressive Peron dictatorship. During the Peron
regime we praised his conduct of the government. We helped him with programs which outraged the national
sensibilities of the Argentine people, because of the drastic concessions these programs made to private American oil
companies. And - in the closing days of Peron rule - our Secretary of the Navy visited Argentina and compared this
ruthless ruler to Abraham Lincoln. It is these policies which have left seeds of distrust in Argentina. They have, in fact,
created anti-American feeling and harmed the cause of freedom throughout all Latin America.
Peron is gone. But the unhappy heritage of his wasteful and unhealthy rule remains: the decline of Argentine capital -
the deterioration of railroads - the scarcity of agricultural equipment - the run-down highway system - the outdated
factories with their obsolete equipment. To meet this crisis President Frondizi has embarked upon a vigorous and
politically unpopular course - he has asked the people to accept a program which denies them badly needed wage
increases and consumer goods until he can stabilize the peso, increase local capital and get the economy back on its feet.
But he cannot do it alone. Peron made no such demands - he kept their attention diverted - and the voters do not realize
that Peron’s chickens have now come home to roost. If we do not help Argentina soon - with capital from the Inter-
American Development Loan fund - with technical assistance - and with an increased flow of private investment - this
already shaky democracy may falter - and once more succumb to totalitarian rule.
The third country which the President visited was Chile. There he has seen a nation devoted to democracy - a country
which has gone through a series of political and economic crises which would have brought dictatorship to almost any
other country in Latin America - but a country which, through every emergency, has clung to its democratic way of life
as the only true solution to its pressing problems.
Chile shares the economic problems of most of Latin America. It lacks capital to develop diversified industry - to
decrease its dependence on copper mining which alone accounts for more than half of the Government’s budget. Its
agricultural development has lagged far behind the growth of the rest of its economy. The result is that Chile - once
blessed with agricultural abundance - now must import much of her food. And running through all these problems and
greatly accentuating them has been a disastrous inflation - which in 1955 resulted in a 90 per cent rise in the cost of
living in a single year.
The new government of Chile - under President Jorge Alessandri - has begun a bold, ambitious and so far successful
program to meet these problems. In the last few years prices have leveled off, the budget has been balanced and foreign
capital has begun to return. Yet Chile needs help if it is to make its dream of a growing and diversified and stable
economy a reality. Of especial urgency is the problem of agriculture - American loans and aid are needed for road
construction in rural areas - for the importation of agricultural machinery. And Chileans need technical assistance to
introduce those modern methods of agriculture which the United States has perfected - and to teach them how to use
them.
The last country the President visited was Uruguay. Uruguay too has a durable democratic tradition - since 1904 its
government has been devoted to political and personal freedom - and under that democracy - a democracy long the
object of the hostility of surrounding dictators -the Uruguayans have built a highly diversified economy.
Yet today Uruguay is in the midst of an economic crisis. An overproduction of wheat - and a deterioration of capital
equipment - coupled with a decline in Uruguayan trade - have caused a rapidly growing inflation and a decline in the
value of the peso. A new and serious unrest and discontent now trouble this historic democracy.
Yet we in this country have offered very little in the way of help. Uruguay needs capital - and - even more important
than capital - technical assistance and training - to help her to solve her growing agricultural problems - and to develop
her lone natural resource - hydroelectric power. By increasing our program of technical assistance - by helping to train
Uruguayan youth in modern methods of power development and soil cultivation - we can do much to strengthen
freedom in a land devoted to freedom.
In these four democracies the President has seen - at first hand - the magnitude of Latin America’s challenge to
American policy - and American vision. He has seen four countries intensely determined to press forward in their quest
for increased productivity - greater human welfare - and higher standards of living. He has seen four countries which
have embraced democracy - but in which democracy must meet the challenges of the sixties if it is to survive. He has
seen four nations in which anti-American feeling - inflamed by our failures of policy, our support of dictators, our
neglect of Latin American needs for capital - is becoming daily more intensive and more dangerous. He has seen four
nations which represent a vast continent in the midst of a vast revolution - the worldwide revolution of hope and
expectation. He has seen a continent at the crossroads - a continent which must choose. As Chester Bowles has said:
"The real choice in Latin America, as in Asia and Africa, is citizenship or serfdom, hope or despair, orderly political
growth or economic upheaval. Our failure to understand this choice would be catastrophic."
Let us welcome the President back from his trip. And let us hope that he has brought back with him, to convey to all
Americans, this vital understanding of a vital continent to the south.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at University of
New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, March 7,
1960
INDIA AND CHINA

Whatever battles may be in the headlines, no struggle in the world deserves more time and attention from this
Administration - and the next - than that which now grips the attention of all Asia - the battle between India and China.
The real battle is not the flare-up over Chinese troop movements around disputed boundaries - or the projected
conferences between Chou-en Lai and Premier Nehru. Nor is it the war of words over China's annihilation of Tibet. The
real India-China struggle is equally fierce but less obvious - less in the headlines but far more significant in the long run.
And that is the struggle between India and China for the economic and political leadership of the East, for the respect of
all Asia, for the opportunity to demonstrate whose way of life is the better.
For it is these two countries that have the greatest magnetic attraction to the uncommitted and underdeveloped world. It
is these two countries which offer a potential route of transition from economic stagnation to economic growth. India
follows a route in keeping with human dignity and individual freedom. Red China represents the route of regimented
controls and ruthless denial of human rights.
It should be obvious that the outcome of this competition will vitally affect the future of all Asia - the comparative
strength of Red and Free nations - and inevitably the security and standing of our own country. India's population
represents 40 per cent of the uncommitted world. It is larger than the total populations of the continents of Africa and
South America combined. Unless India can compete equally with China, unless she can show that her way works as
well or better than dictatorship, unless she can make the transition from economic stagnation to economic growth, so
that it can get ahead of its exploding population, the entire Free World will suffer a serious reverse. India herself will be
gripped by frustration and political instability - its role as a counter to the Red Chinese in Asia would be lost - India
herself and then most of Asia would later - and Communism would have won its greatest bloodless victory.
But do we fully realize how this contest is coming out? The harsh facts of the matter are that in the last decade China has
surged ahead of India economically. Its gross national output has expanded about three times as fast. Its food production
has nearly doubled, while India's has increased by less than 50 per cent. In steel production, China has moved from a
position of inferiority to marked superiority. In terms of industrial capacity, education and even household consumption,
China has slowly pulled up and now moved ahead.
Within the last two years, the Chinese have produced their first automobile. Within the next year they may have
launched their first earth satellite. Within a few years they may have exploded their first nuclear weapon. And perhaps
equally significant for the future is the fact that China has become a major trading nation - not only in Southeast Asia,
where she is gradually supplanting Japan, but also in the growing trade movements to Europe and Africa. And Indian
products are suffering accordingly.
But the struggle is not over - and the potentialities for gain in India are still great. In the Chinese language, the word
"crisis" is composed of two characters - one representing danger, and one representing opportunity. The danger now is
clear. But this crisis also presents an opportunity - not only for India but for all the West. But if these opportunities are
lost now, they may never come again.
It is not enough that we participate on a crash basis, for temporary relief. We must be willing to join with other Western
nations in a serious long-range program of long-term loans, backed up by technical and agricultural assistance -
designed to enable India to overtake the challenge of Communist China. The tool for this program can well be the
Development Loan Fund and such a joint effort by several Western nations, may be spearheaded by the Franks
International Economic Mission - which was set up in a Congressional Resolution sponsored by Senator Cooper of
Kentucky and myself, and by Representative Chester Bowles in the House.
This kind of careful, coordinated, long-range aid could make the difference. Our assistance thus far has been limited to
emergency aid - to meet immediate crises and existing shortages. We have not met the requirements essential for
economic growth - nor have we alleviated the harsh realities which India faced a year ago. Her population continues
nearly to out-pace her economic development - her shortage of foreign exchange continues to increase - and a general
loss of hope and morale continues to spread.
This is the critical year for India. This is the year when India's third Five-Year Plan beginning in 1961 will be designed.
This is the year, in short, when India must appraise her future and her relations with the rest of the world.
I do not say that India could not tread water for a few more years before going under. But this is the year the Indians
need confidence that they can plan major efforts for long-range progress with some assurance of substantial, long-term
assistance from the Western world.
Our aid should, of course, be based upon sound criteria and productive investment. But let us remember economies need
time to mature. Our own nation, in the days of its youth, sold railroad bonds to the British and other Europeans - and
these were long 40 or 50 year debentures. With the growth of our productive capacity, we gradually became a creditor
nation with the ability to repay these foreign investments. There is no question that the Indians, given proper assurance
and assistance, could do the same.
Many of the other governments in Asia and the Middle East are now balanced precariously on the wall of indecision
between the East and the West. Of course an adequate program of aid to India is no magic persuader - nor is it a panacea
for all of India's difficulties. There is no such solution for these tough problems. The barriers are great. The political and
ideological dilemmas are many.
But I am confident that we can recover the initiative, that we can give a doubting world the realization that we - and not
Russia and China - can help them achieve stability and growth.
But it is not enough merely to provide sufficient money. Equally important is our attitude and our understanding. For if
we undertake this effort in the wrong spirit, or for the wrong reasons, or in the wrong way, then any and all financial
measures will be in vain.
We want India to win that race with Red China. We want India to be a free and thriving leader of a free and thriving
Asia. But if our interest appears to be purely selfish, anti-Communist and part of the Cold War - if it appears to the
Indian people that our motives are purely political - then we shall play into the hands of Communists and neutralist
propagandists, cruelly distort America's image abroad, and undo much of the psychological effect that we expect from
our generosity.
Let us instead return to the generous spirit in which the original Point Four Program was conceived; stress our positive
interest in, and moral responsibility for, relieving misery and poverty, and acknowledge to ourselves and the world that,
communism or no communism, we cannot be an island unto ourselves.
In short, it is our job to prove that we can devote as much energy, intelligence, idealism and sacrifice to the survival and
triumph of the open society as the Russian despots can extort by compulsion in defense of their closed system of
tyranny.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Luncheon

Meeting, Mauston, Wisconsin, March 9, 1960
the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. Some minor
typographical errors in the original text have been silently emended.
Winston Churchill said: "We arm - to parley." We prepare for war - in order to deter war. We depend on the strength of
armaments - to enable us to bargain for disarmament. We compare our military strength with the Soviets - not to
determine whether we should use it - but to determine whether we can persuade them that to use theirs would be futile
and disastrous - and to determine whether we can back up our own pledges in Berlin, Formosa and around the world.
In short, peace, not politics, is at the heart of the current debate - peace, not war is the objective of our military policy.
But peace would have no meaning if the Soviet Union ever achieved the power to destroy most of our retaliatory
capacity in a single blow. It would then be irrelevant as to whether the Soviets achieved our demise through massive
attack, through the threat of such attack, or through nibbling away gradually at our security.
Will such a time come?
The current discussions of defense have too often centered on how our retaliatory capacity compares today with that of
the Soviets. But the real issue is not how we stand today but tomorrow - not in 1960 but in 1961, 1962 and particularly
1963 and thereafter. 1960 is critical because this is the year that the money must be appropriated - by this session of this
Congress - if we are to obtain even initial results in subsequent years.
It is true that we cannot be certain that the Soviets will have, during the term of the next Administration, the tremendous
lead in missile striking power which they give every evidence of building - and we cannot be certain that they will use
that lead to threaten or launch an attack upon the United States. Consequently those of us who call for a higher defense
budget are taking a chance on spending money unnecessarily. But those who oppose these expenditures are taking a
chance on our very survival as a nation.
The only real question is - which chance, which gamble, do we take - our money or our survival? The money must be
appropriated now - the survival will not, we hope, be at stake for a few more years.
I am convinced that every American who can be fully informed as to the facts today will agree to an additional
investment in our national security now rather than risk his survival, and his children’s survival in the years ahead - in
particular, an investment effort designed
(1) to make possible an emergency stop-gap air alert program, to deter an attack before the missile gap is close,
(2) to step up our ultimate missile program that will close the gap when completed: Polaris, Minuteman and long-range
air-to-ground missiles - meanwhile stepping up our production of Atlas missiles to cover the current gap as best we can;
and
(3) to rebuild and modernize our Army and Marine Corps conventional forces, to prevent the brush-fire wars that our
capacity for nuclear retaliation is unable to deter.
These additional efforts do not involve a small sum, to be spent carelessly. There are other uses - schools, hospitals,
parks and dams - to which we would rather devote it. But the total amount, I am convinced, would be less than one per
cent of our Gross National Product. It would be less than the estimated budget surplus.
It is, I am convinced, an investment in peace that we can afford -and cannot avoid.
We cannot avoid taking these measures any more than the average American can avoid taking out fire insurance on his
home. We cannot be absolutely certain of the danger. But neither can we risk our future on our estimates of a hostile
power’s strength and intentions, particularly when secrecy is that power’s dominant characteristic - and particularly in
the light of our consistent history of underestimating Soviet strength and scientific progress. The chance that our military
improvidence will invite a national catastrophe is substantially greater - many, many times greater if you work out the
odds on an actuarial basis - than the chance that your house or my house will burn down this year or next. But as
individuals we are willing to pay for fire insurance - and, although we hope we never need it, we are surely equally
prepared as a nation to pay every dollar necessary to take out this kind of additional insurance against a national
catastrophe.
I am calling, in short, for an investment in peace. Like any investment it will be a gamble with our money. But the
alternative is to gamble with our lives.
Some say that it is deplorable that the facts of our defense weaknesses are discussed in an election campaign. I agree. It
is not the discussion that is deplorable, however, but the facts. The Russians already know these facts. The American
people do not. The debate itself is not deplorable - it is deplorable that the situation deteriorated to this point where it
became a matter for debate. In matters of this kind, the only wise and safe course is leave a margin so large as to
preclude any doubt or debate.
For when we are in doubt, our allies are in doubt - and our enemy is in doubt - and such doubts are tempting to him.
While those doubts persist, he will want to push, to probe and possibly to attack. He will not want to talk disarmament.
He will not want to talk peace at the Summit.
I urge that this Congress, before the President departs for the Summit, demonstrate conclusively that we are removing
those doubts - and that we are prepared to pay the full costs necessary to insure peace. Let us remember what Gibbon
said of the Romans:
They kept the peace - by a constant preparation for war; and by making clear to their neighbors that they were as
little disposed to offer as to endure injury.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Stevens Point,
Wisconsin, March 10, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. One draft of the speech exists
in the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library.
Of critical importance to the farmer - particularly during a time of declining income - is his ability to obtain credit. Yet it
is when his income is most severely reduced that his credit is most impaired. He has the greatest difficulty getting a loan
just when he needs it most.
The technological revolution has made the American farm the most productive unit in the world. But this has taken and
still takes a lot of capital. It has made the farmer a major borrower. It has also made the farmer a major victim of the
high interest rate, tight money policy. He now uses a total of over $20 billion in borrowed money to finance his
activities.
Tight money has little effect upon the large industrial corporation. It can always get the money it needs or, if necessary,
finance itself through its earnings. These companies can both applaud the Puritan virtues of tight money and enjoy a
free-spending life. But the family farm, like the small business, does not have these resources. When the banks start
rationing loans the family farmer finds himself in a battle for survival. When the interest rate climbs and loans become
harder to get the productive machine must grind to a halt. During the past two years the combination of reduced income
and tight money has forced 50,000 Wisconsin farmers - one out of thirteen - to look elsewhere for a livelihood. Unless
the trend is reversed, additional hundreds face the same dismal prospect.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt recognized this problem - and did something about it. Twenty-three years ago - when we
were suffering from another farm depression - he recommended - and the Congress established - a federal agency to
provide the credit the farmer needed. It permitted the farmer to participate in and promote the economic growth of our
nation.
It was always possible - under the Democratic Administration - to get a loan from the Farm Security Administration or
its successor - the Farmers Home Administration - at a reasonable interest rate when all others turned you down. And
the interest rate on direct loans was set at 3%. The faith of the nation was justified by the extraordinarily low proportion
of loans that failed - less than 3%. And if we exclude loans made to farmers suffering from droughts, floods and other
national disasters the rate of failure drops to only 1%.
The need today is as great as it was in 1937. The proven record still shows it is sound business. The challenge of future
technological advances requires more than ever an expanded loan program. But the response from the Benson
Department of Agriculture has been completely inadequate.
The Benson program for farm credit contains three features:
First, increased interest rates. The 3% rate has already been raised to 5%. And a further increase is recommended. The
more the farmer has to pay to borrow money the more his costs, which have already squeezed profits down to their
lowest point in eighteen years, will have increased still further.
Secondly, Mr. Benson is asking for reduced lending authority. Last year Mr. Benson requested $185 million. This was
obviously insufficient. Congress responded by adding an additional $81 million. Yet even this addition has proved
inadequate. The Farmers Home Administration has already exhausted its authorization - at a time when the need is
especially critical for farmers who need to put in their Spring crops.
Every state in the Union used up its allotment for soil and water loans before the end of November. Most of the states
used up their allotments for home loans by the end of December. And there are thirteen states which are already without
funds for feed and seed.
Here in Wisconsin a study has shown you need at least $2 million more for farm ownership loans. Already the backlog
is four times the amount of the annual allotment to the state. In spite of this clear proof of desperate need, Mr. Benson is
not asking for an increase in next year's loan appropriation - he is actually asking for a reduction of $44 million.
The third point in the Benson Program calls for tightened eligibility requirements. As a result, instead of helping those
who need it most, only one out of three applicants is even accepted. And ironically enough, one of the grounds for
rejection is reduced farm income - due to Mr. Benson's own programs.
In place of this cruel and negative farm credit policy, permit me to suggest four points:
First, we should maintain a ceiling on interest rates under this program which will keep them below their present levels.
Higher interest rates would only add one more repressive measure to the long list of Benson efforts to stifle farm
growth.
Secondly, we should expand, not contract Farmers Home Administration loan authority until it accomplishes its
purpose.
Third, the lending program should be placed on a revolving fund basis. This would not only permit long-range planning
- it would reduce this annual pressure for trimming the program in order to manufacture a budget surplus.
Fourth, the $20 million reserve fund appropriated by Congress last year should be freed from Budget Bureau control.
That control prevents its use. I cannot subscribe to the belief that to keep this fund intact is more important than a
healthy farm economy - or more important than a farmer who needs capital now to plant his spring crop.
If we can get men in government who understand the farmer's problems - who recognize his need for inexpensive credit
- who know he's a good credit risk - who treat him as a first class citizen, not a pauper looking for a hand-out - then our
farm economy can grow and flourish. And the whole country will grow and flourish with it.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Appleton,

Of the many critical domestic problems which will face this nation in the next decade, few are as important to the people
of Wisconsin as the conservation and development of our natural resources.
Large and productive forests cover one-half the area of your state. Your rivers - your lakes - your trees - and your soil
are Wisconsin's most important assets.
This great natural abundance and beauty has made Wisconsin one of the great farm and dairy states - the center of
America's paper industry - and a land of unparalleled opportunity for recreation. From all over the nation, Americans
come to Wisconsin for rest - for hunting - for fishing - and for recreation on your many lakes and rivers. In so doing they
have made the tourist business your third most important industry and contributed millions of dollars to your economy.
Thus the conservation of our great natural resources - those resources on which much of your economy depends - is a
matter of vital interest to all the people of Wisconsin. But the problem of resource development is not merely restricted
to Wisconsin - or even to the West and Midwest - it is a vital national problem. "The conservation of our natural
resources, and their proper use," said President Theodore Roosevelt, "constitute the fundamental problem which
underlies almost every other problem of our national life." Thus, it is appropriate that it was two great Easterners -
Franklin Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt - who saw in the great untapped abundance of our natural resources the true
source of American greatness.
Yet - despite the historic importance of these resources - despite the growing need of a growing America for more food,
more water, more timber, more space for recreation, and more minerals - despite the critical challenge to our economic
strength from our enemies abroad - over the past eight years we have compiled a record of timidity and neglect in the
development of our natural resources - an inexcusable record - a record which the next Administration - a Democratic
Administration - must - and will - reverse.
And one of the most important and flagrant examples of this neglect has been the steady erosion of our priceless heritage
of natural beauty: a source of enjoyment for millions - and a source of income for millions more. Already 30 million
American families - more than 50% of all our families - take at least one vacation trip each year. In the sixties - as our
population expands to new highs - as our cities become even more crowded - millions more will search for opportunities
for recreation, and pleasure, and relief from urban living. Only by acting now to preserve our forests, our lakes, our
rivers, our fish and our wildlife - can we assure the families of the sixties of their chance to enjoy the recreation and the
beauty which has been the historic heritage of every American.
Yet - despite this pressing need for immediate action - despite this growing deterioration of our natural resources -
despite the pressures of population growth - we have - in the past several years - consistently failed to support the
research programs - the forestry programs - and the pollution control programs - which are absolutely essential to the
vitality of a tourist industry which contributes 20 billion dollars a year to the nation's economy - and incalculable sums
to our continued health as a people. We must reverse these policies in the years to come.
First, we need a greatly increased effort to preserve and replenish the fish which inhabit our inland lakes and rivers - to
halt the steady deterioration of our fishing reserves - which are a source of pleasure to millions of Americans and which
support a large and prosperous industry. The Department of Interior - in a letter discussing the problems of fish
management in Wisconsin's Burnett County - recently pointed out that we lacked the basic techniques for the control of
harmful rough fish - such as carp and stunted blue-gills - techniques which are absolutely essential if the fishing
problems in Burnett County - and in much of the country - are to be properly dealt with - techniques which modern
science has the capacity to perfect. The Federal Government has recently recognized its responsibility to develop
modern, scientific techniques of fish management by opening a small Fish Control Laboratory in LaCrosse. But this
effort comes years after the need for new research and development became apparent - years after the fishing in many
lakes and streams has been destroyed - and it comes as a disappointingly small part of the total effort which is needed if
we are to preserve and develop our great inland fishing resource.
Secondly, we need to halt the growing deterioration of our national forests. These huge forests - blanketing much of the
Western United States - are one of our most important sources of recreation - of hunting - of fishing - of camping - and
of the enjoyment of natural beauty. The Secretary of Agriculture has outlined a minimum program for preserving this
great natural resource - and yet his own Administration has refused to ask for more than fifty per cent of this absolute
minimum. Your own Forest Products Research Laboratory at Madison - the laboratory which produced the plywood for
World War II gliders - whose research has established a wood plastics industry that supports 18 factories - and which
has returned $70 to the government in taxes for every dollar it has spent - that vital laboratory is being operated at only
50% of capacity. Its vital work is being starved for lack of funds, and lack of vision, and lack of leadership. We need to
renew our research - and expand our forest program - if we are to halt the misuse - the waste - and the growing decline
of our vast and abundant national forests.
We must also act now to stop the destructive filthying of our lakes and rivers - a growing contamination which is
destroying vitally needed recreational areas. Last year the beaches of Milwaukee were closed because the water was
polluted and unsafe. Wisconsin alone has 50,000 vacation cottages representing $50 million in vacation income to your
economy. Yet many of these cottages and summer houses are located along lakes and rivers threatened by water
pollution - pollution which will destroy their beauty - kill their fish - make them unsafe for swimming - and destroy
vitally needed water supplies as effectively as drought. Despite this growing crisis in water the Administration has
vetoed Congress' efforts to deal with this problem - it has rejected the important water pollution control program which
was our one real hope of solving the pollution problem. Our next administration must support and encourage - not
destroy - this program - if we are to halt the destructive and dangerous contamination of our water supply.
These failures - and many like them - in the preservation of our great recreational abundance - are only a small part of
our recent failures to develop the resources of the nation. They have been produced by policies of little vision - policies
of false economy - policies which view a dollar saved now as more important than an investment in our future strength -
our future needs - our future health - and our future greatness. As a result, we have piled up an enormous deficit in
wasted resources - lost recreational areas - destroyed natural beauty - contaminated water - and diminished stocks of
wildlife and fish.
The elimination of this deficit is one of the great challenges of the sixties. To meet this challenge we must have vision
and strength - we must summon all our resources - the resources of mind and will - and the resources which lie beneath
the earth, and in our forests, and in our great rivers and lakes - those resources on which we have built a great nation –
those resources on which our continued greatness depends.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Shawano,

This is a redaction of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. One draft of the speech exists in
the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library.
Dairymen today are more fortunate than most farmers. Their surpluses have been reduced to the vanishing point - and
supply and demand are better balanced.
But there is reason to be concerned about the months ahead. Milk production was down last year. But now cheaper feed
means higher milk production for next year. Corn prices, already at a 15-year low, are sinking further. Wheat is being
subjected to pressures to join in the competition with feed grains - driving prices still lower. And already the proportion
of heifers to cows is the highest on record, indicating still higher production next year. I can find no basis for
complacency in the projections of milk and dairy prices in the months ahead.
If we are to prevent disintegration of the price structure - if we are to avoid disastrous over-production of milk - we must
adopt a dairy program now to avoid these consequences. Basic to that program must be machinery run by the farmers
themselves to keep supply and demand in balance. Our economy cannot afford the recurring fear that our abundance
will produce hardship.
When the steel companies found - two years ago - that the economy could only absorb half their capacity, they reduced
production. Instead of lowering prices, they raised them. When automobile manufacturers learn that the demand for cars
is low, they schedule less production. The machine tool industry, for similar reasons, intentionally keeps a large unused
capacity.
These lessons can be applied to the dairy industry. But it will take group action. The Government cannot legislate a
balance between supply and demand. But it can - and should - make possible the organization of dairymen to achieve
this balance.
The bill pending in the Wisconsin Legislature to give farmers and their marketing organizations the power to overcome
merchandising and selling handicaps by organizing together is helpful. But an effective program needs Federal action.
As the University of Wisconsin committee appointed by Governor Nelson pointed out, an improvement in dairy prices
and income requires the development of "some positive and effective mechanism…to gear the growth of production of
milk to the growth of demand. This is a national problem which must be dealt with on a national basis." I fully subscribe
to that view.
The aim should be to establish national production goals at present levels, so that no farmer would suffer any reduction
in output. Each individual dairy farmer would receive a quota based on his history in the dairy business.
It is a relatively simple matter to do this. As you know, the history on more than half the dairymen in the United States
is already a matter of record under our Federal milk orders. This can easily be extended to all dairy farmers.
Such a system has these major advantages:
It would reduce the need for costly Government price support operations. Although price supports might still be
necessary until supplies are brought into balance, they could be discarded thereafter - or merely kept on a standby basis.
The dairy farmer would be able to assume responsibility for the management of the dairy program. No other group is so
well qualified to undertake this responsibility. Most dairy farmers already participate in the management of cooperatives
with large-scaled operations involving millions of dollars.
It would give farmers a fair share of the national income. In 1952, the average dairy farmer in Wisconsin received 56
percent as much for his labor as his urban cousin who worked in the city. Today it is only a little more than half that
figure.
I should like to emphasize that this is the ideal time to undertake this program. Supply and demand are now in rough
balance. But our wheat and corn surpluses hang over the dairy industry like the sword of Damocles. Relatively little
adjustment would be necessary at the present time. But if we delay - if we persist in the present course - the damage may
be irreparable - to the farmer - to the urban worker - and to the Nation.
A sound Dairy Self-Help program will not be easy to achieve - nor will it solve all of our problems. But it represents a
fundamental goal in 1960 - for every farmer, consumer and public official concerned about one of our nation’s most
vital industries - the dairy industry - and the stable, adequate, safe supply of its most important product: milk.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Sixth Annual

National Legislative Conference Building and
Construction Trades, Washington, D.C., March 14, 1960
This is a redaction of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. One draft and a carbon copy of
the speech exists in the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. It is evident that
these are speaking notes for Candidate Kennedy's speech; a more complete version of the text has not been found.
1. Pay tribute to outgoing President Richard Gray.

2. Tribute to incoming President Neil Haggerty (I would like to know his secret for success in Presidential elections).
3. Refer to previous appearances before the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO - its
Legislative Conference last March and its 50th Convention last September. . . This is my first appearance as a
Presidential candidate - and perhaps next year we can meet again at the Rose Garden behind the White House. . . There
are some people who say that, now that I am a candidate, I should not appear at union meetings - that I should confine
my appearances to the Olympics, the Rose Bowl, Sports Writers Associations and similar events . . . But I think if a
candidate is going to win and represent the people, he has to get out of the locker room - - and onto the streets where
people live and work.
4. This meeting is held at what should be a time of great prosperity for the building and construction trades and industry.
This should be a period of greater building and construction activity than any time in our history. Employment in your
industry should be expanding rapidly to meet the unprecedented needs of our nation.
5. Need for new housing. Our cities are tragically short of homes, schools, hospitals, airports, recreation centers and
other community facilities. Our slums are actually increasing faster than our efforts to clear them - there are 100,000
more slum dwellings in New York City today, for example than there were in 1950 -and no other city has a slum
clearance program as large as New York's. An estimated 22 million Americans live in slum dwellings today - in disease,
squalor and filth, in poverty and degradation. At least four million homes in American cities lack any plumbing of any
kind. At least 7 million homes are unfit for human occupation.
6. Expanded housing needs. The demand for new housing - as great as it is today—is going to be even greater. During
the next ten years our population will continue to grow at a rate of three million a year - three million more people every
year requiring a million new homes - decent homes in a suitable environment. And in addition, even if all our housing
needs today were met and the population were not increasing, homes now in use will be deteriorating and need
replacement at the rate of 300,000 a year.
In short, we need and will need more homes than ever before - homes which people of all incomes can afford. But the
fact is that today we are building fewer homes than we did in 1950. We have adopted financial policies deliberately
designed to discourage building. We have strangled already inadequate government programs. And we have failed to
fulfill our hopes and heritage.
7. Other building needs unmet.What is true in the field of housing is also true in other areas of construction activity. We
have simply not had the federal leadership necessary to give us the schools we need to prevent overcrowding and part-
time or double shift operation. We have failed in repeated efforts to obtain federal assistance for the construction of new
dormitories, laboratories and classrooms for our colleges which will soon feel the impact of the postwar "baby boom"
now filling our schools. There have been no new starts on federal dams - no bold airport programs for the jet age - no
effort to modernize or replace our older and more shabby hospitals - and no real effort to rescue the new federal
highway program from being bogged down in red tape and inadequate planning.
8. Construction decline instead of prosperity. As a result, in this day of shortages and pressures - when the building and
construction industry should be at a peak and expanding still further - the housing industry is in a recession - the only
major industry in America which has not grown with a growing nation. It is estimated that building and construction
activity this year will not expand - or even hold its own - but decline substantially. This is of concern to you and your
unions and your families - but it is also of concern to every American who wants a decent home - or who wants his
children to grow up in a decent neighborhood - or who wants his country to grow in strength and prosperity as we move
into a most critical period in our history.
9. Next President's Agenda. I think it is imperative that the next President of the United States develop with the
Congress a building and construction program in every area which will meet the needs and pressures of the 60's. At our
present rate of urban renewal it will take anywhere from fifty to one hundred years to eliminate the substandard
dwellings already in existence today - and at the end of that time there will be even more substandard dwellings than we
now have. We must step up this program - and, in addition, make a new start on cooperative housing and public housing
- modernize the mortgage insurance provisions of the FHA - and reverse the disastrous high interest rate, tight money
policies have made it impossible for millions of Americans to buy a home. A new President and a new Congress can
inaugurate one of the greatest periods of building expansion this country has ever known - improving our cities -
expanding our schools and colleges - filling the nation's needs for new dams, new highways, new airports, new hospitals
and all the rest.
10. Rights of workers. It will not be enough merely to expand our building and construction effort. We must also make
certain that every employee in this industry shares in the benefits of this expansion. Wage scales must be set at a fair
level. No one should receive less than a decent minimum. Everyone should be compensated adequately for overtime. No
union member should be denied the right to picket sites that require him to work side by side with non-union member.
Those thrown out of work - and those forced to retire - should receive benefits that will help replace, in a meaningful
way, the wages they can no longer draw. Unless these basic measures of protection are afforded to the workers in your
industry, there is a real danger that prosperity in the building industry will be prosperity for some, but not for all.
11. Legislative action now. The enactment of these basic safeguards does not need to await the election of a new
President and Congress. This Congress contains many members of both parties who insisted that they were pushing
repressive anti-union legislation last year out of their friendship for the working men and women of this country. They
will have a chance to demonstrate that friendship - and I hope they will exhibit the same determination and speed - in
passing upon the measures necessary to provide the safeguards of which I have spoken. At your Convention last
September I outlined the history of the Labor Management Act of 1959 - what happened and why it happened - what
was wrong with the final version, what we were able to keep out it and what we were able to put back in it - particularly
from the building trades point of view. But if this Congress is really sincere in its desire to protect the rights of working
men and women, it can take action now - this year, not some other year - on the bills I have mentioned:
a. a new minimum wage law - increasing the minimum to $1.25 and expanding coverage to many groups not now
covered - including the building trades, who will benefit not so much from the wage base as they will the guarantees of
time and a half for overtime.
b. Increased unemployment compensation through federal standards - and provide higher Social Security benefits and a
medical care program for our retired workers.
c. Modernize and broaden the scope of the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage act - to make sure it applies to all current
federally financed or federally assisted construction programs. There is no reason why any of these programs should
benefit those contractors who undercut legitimate wages scales and hiring practices.
d. Finally, this Congress must make good on its pledge to permit situs picketing. The Congress never intended, I am
certain, that the Taft-Hartley law should require union members to work side by side on a building with non-union men
under unfair employers simply because more than one contractor or subcontractor was involved on the same site. Since
the Denver building trades case, it is up to the Congress to pass such an amendment as a matter of equity - to restore the
traditional rights and protections that the building trades have always enjoyed. After the House of Representatives
eliminated this provision last year, we fought hard to get it restored in Conference. And when that proved impossible,
Congressman Thompson introduced in the House - and I introduce in the Senate, with Senators Kuchel and McNamara
as co-sponsors, a separate bill to take care of this problem. I did not give up the right in Conference until I had been
given personal assurance by the Speaker of the House, Mr. Rayburn, the Minority Leader of the House, Mr. Halleck, the
Majority Leader of the Senate, Mr. Johnson, and Minority Leader of the Senate, Mr. Dirksen - that my bill would be
brought to an early vote in both houses early in this session of the Congress . . . and I intend to see that this commitment
is kept.
12. Conclusion. In short, whatever may be our problems abroad, we stand on the threshold today of a critical period in
the American economy - a period of great growth and prosperity, or a period of stagnation and retreat. Which way will
America go? The answer, in part, is up to you . . . Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Madison,

Early this week, ten nations began negotiations on the most complex and important problem facing the world today - the
problem of disarmament.
But despite the fact that these critical negotiations have already begun - despite our nation's basic desire to channel the
immense sums now being spent on arms into peaceful activity - despite the absolute necessity of ending today's
disastrous arms race if we are to reduce world tensions and move toward a lasting peace - despite these things, the
United States has put forward a hurriedly prepared disarmament plan - compounded of old proposals and a lack of new,
creative thinking.
If we are to develop new ideas - if we are to take the initiative in planning for peace - we must act quickly. For as each
year passes, the need for disarmament becomes more pressing - the possibilities of disarmament become more remote.
Modern science has created weapons of fantastic destructive power. A single nuclear weapon today can release more
destructive energy than all the explosives used in all the wars throughout history - the radioactive fallout from that single
bomb can destroy all higher forms of life in an area of 10,000 square miles. And the powerful new gasses and deadly
bacteria which are now being developed for war promise suffering and devastation in many ways more horrible than
even the threat of nuclear destruction.
But if modern science has made arms control essential - it has also made arms control more difficult.
The development of underground missile launching sites - the growth of nuclear stockpiles - the evolution of new
techniques for launching surprise attacks from beneath the earth, or under the seas or from the air - have all multiplied
the difficulties of achieving arms control - of developing an effective inspection system.
Yet, despite these difficulties, I believe that today's international climate, more than ever before, holds out the possibility
for an effective start on arms control. For the Russians realize, as we ourselves realize, that the spread of nuclear
weapons to other nations may upset the balance of power and increase the danger of accidental war - that a war of
mutual destruction would benefit no one nation or ideology - that funds devoted to weapons of destruction cannot be
used to raise the living standards of their own people or to help the economies of underdeveloped nations.
Of course I do not want to minimize the Russian threat. The Soviet Union still believes in the victory of world
communism. They still want to "bury us" economically, politically, culturally and in every other sphere of interest. Nor
do I believe that we can rely for disarmament on merely trusting the word of the Soviet leaders - we must have an
inspection system as reliable and as thorough as modern science can devise. But I do believe that under what appears to
be a more fluid and rational atmosphere since the death of Stalin, the Soviet leaders may realize that the path of Russian
self-interest permits - and perhaps compels - them to agree to some steps toward comprehensive arms control.
And if that opportunity comes we must be ready for it - and we are not ready now. The harsh facts of the matter are that
today - during the Geneva negotiations - we have less than 100 full-time men, scattered through a dozen agencies,
engaged in arms control research and planning. Less than 100 men to deal with the most complex problem of our time.
Less than one hundred men to plan for what must be the core, the central purpose, and the ultimate object of America's
foreign policy.
And the inadequacy of this effort has left us unprepared for the many disarmament negotiations of the past. We were
unable to respond to the Soviet disarmament proposals of 1955. Our delegates to the Conference on Surprise Attack in
1958 were ill-staffed and ill-advised. And we failed several times during the Conference on Nuclear Testing to develop
the technical data necessary to reach agreement.
We must not allow these failures to recur in the future. The world's hopes for peace rest on the effort for effective arms
control - we cannot disappoint those hopes.
Plans for disarmament - specific, workable, effective plans - must be formulated with care, with precision, and above all
with effective research. Of course, we need much more than research. We need constructive leadership, and clear vision,
and careful planning. But research can give us the vitally important knowledge which we must have if we are to lay the
groundwork for effective control of today's vast and complex weapons systems.
To provide us with this essential information, I have introduced a bill to establish an Arms Control Research Institute.
This Institute - under the immediate direction of the President - will carry on and coordinate all the research,
development and policy planning needed for a workable disarmament program. Essential studies in new techniques of
aerial reconnaissance, radar surveillance, and atmospheric sampling - techniques necessary to the development of the
expensive and complex monitoring and inspection systems which alone can control modern arms - will be carried on by
the Institute.
The Institute will also make plans to facilitate the conversion from a war economy to a peace economy. And it will
engage in positive programs for peace - programs of international cooperation in research, in eliminating such world-
wide scourges as hunger, illiteracy and poverty.
Here, in one responsible organization, would be centered our hopes for peace. It would be tangible evidence of our
dedication to this ideal.
But a new agency alone is not enough. It must be supported by all the agencies of our Government - and above all by the
President himself. For only the President has the authority and the prestige to overcome resistance - to weld the diverse
thinking of the Pentagon, the AEC, the State Department and many others into one Harmonious program - one united
objective - the pursuit of world peace.
I do not say that a greater national effort - or strong leadership - or an Arms Control Institute can halt the arms race.
Perhaps nothing can. But we owe it to all mankind to make the effort. "Give me a fulcrum and a place to stand,"
Archimedes is reported to have said, "and I will move the world."
Today we stand at a decisive point in history. Let us hope that a renewed effort and renewed vision will provide the
fulcrum - and perhaps we, too, can move the world - on the road to world peace.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Androy Hotel

Reception, Superior, Wisconsin, March 18, 1960
There are three groups in our population - at the bottom of what FDR called the economic pyramid - who have - along
with our farmers - suffered the greatest economic hardship from lack of constructive, dynamic leadership in
Washington. Those three groups are the unemployed, the underpaid, and our older citizens.
In an age of unparalleled American prosperity - at a time when many Americans are enjoying the greatest material
abundance in history - when we have more automobiles and larger television screens than ever before - these three
groups form an island of economic distress, of personal hardship, and of government neglect - in the great sea of
American plenty.
The first of these groups is the unemployed. Today more than four million men - more than five percent of our entire
working force - are jobless. These unemployed workers must struggle to support themselves and their families under an
outmoded system of unemployment insurance which has failed dismally to keep pace with the rising cost of living.
When first devised, unemployment benefits were large enough for workers to pay their rent, their grocery and doctor
bills, until a new job could be found. But that was 22 years ago. And the benefits that were adequate 22 years ago do not
begin to meet the essential needs of today. Today’s unemployed worker must try to make ends meet on a meager
average payment of $31 a month - payments which are, in many States, completely exhausted in anywhere from 4
weeks to 4 months - forcing the worker to rely entirely on the generosity of relatives and friends or on public assistance.
This is not a situation which can be permitted to prevail in the richest country on earth.
Last year I introduced in the Senate a bill to modernize our unemployment insurance system - to bring it into line with
the realities of today’s high prices and prolonged periods of unemployment. This bill would have given all workers at
least half their pay for thirty-nine weeks. I have reintroduced the bill this year, and I intend to keep fighting for its
passage. For I believe - and I think the Congress will agree - that our unemployed workers are entitled to a decent and
dignified living, while they search for the jobs which will allow them to contribute their productive skill to America’s
growing economy.
The second of these groups is the underpaid. Since the $1 an hour minimum wage was established four years ago, prices
have risen, the productivity of our workers has risen, and wage rates have risen. And today - four years later -
Department of Labor statistics show clearly that the average single worker - much less the family man - cannot survive
decently on a wage of $1 an hour.
Last year I introduced a bill to raise the national minimum wage to $1.25 an hour. I believe that this bill is an important
first step toward a decent wage for all Americans - I believe that it is a necessary step - and I believe that it will be
passed, regardless of any opposition from those who say we cannot afford it.
For we cannot afford to oppose this increase in the minimum wage. Substandard wages inevitably take their toll in poor
health, low efficiency, and great personal tragedy. This is a price we cannot afford to pay. Our greatest asset in the
worldwide struggle for industrial supremacy - and in our own fight for a decent way of life for all Americans - is a
strong, healthy and vital labor force. To secure such a labor force, Congress must provide our workers with the
important protection of a decent minimum wage.
The last of these groups is our older citizens. Today sixteen million Americans are over the age of 65 - 400,000 of them
live in Wisconsin. And as our population grows during the turbulent, expanding sixties, the number of our older citizens
will also grow. Here in Wisconsin you have already experienced some of this growth - in Milwaukee County alone the
number of people past the age of 65 has risen 30% in the last ten years.
And most of this growing group of older citizens must try to make their later years bearable on social security benefits
which have not kept up with the rising cost of living—benefits which average a meager $72 a month. Three out of every
five of our older citizens struggle for subsistence on an income of less than one thousand dollars a year - four out of ever
five receive less than two thousand dollars a year.
These figures make plain that no matter how they retrench - how many accustomed comforts they learn to do without—
the later years of many of our older citizens are attended by cruel hardships. And this hardship becomes heartbreak and
despair when illness threatens.
For this is the time of life when the need for medical care rises sharply. And this is also the time when income drops,
and the soaring costs of medical attention become the most burdensome. Thousands of our older citizens - living on
small fixed incomes - are unable to afford the medical care they desperately need.
I am convinced that the only solution is an extension of our social security system to provide hospital and medical care
for our older citizens. That is why I offered a medical care bill early this year to provide for such a program - completely
self-financing and based on sound insurance principles. That bill, I know, will be debated at length. But there is no
debate as to the need. There is no debate as to the harsh facts of life which our older citizens face. And there should be
no debate about the fact that this bill must be passed if we are to make even a beginning in solving this critical problem.
"The test of our progress," said Franklin Roosevelt, "is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have
too much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." It is by that great test that we must measure
our progress in the years ahead. We have the economic strength - the goods and the wealth - that are needed. We must
also have the will and the vision and the courage which the task demands.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Young

Democrats State Convention Banquet, Racine,
The greatest domestic challenge facing the next President will be the challenge of agriculture. The greatest challenge he
faces abroad will be, of course, the challenge of peace - of strengthening the underdeveloped world against the
instabilities that lead to either communism or war.
These two great challenges merge into a single challenge - at one point at least - summed up in three powerful words:
Food for Peace.
Two-thirds of the people of the world are underfed and undernourished - hundreds of millions know the pangs of
unsatisfied hunger each and every day of their life - millions perish from diseases produced by malnutrition - and
thousands actually starve to death every year.
And yet, at the same time, America's great storehouses are overflowing with the great abundance of our land - with nine
billion dollars worth of surplus foods - wheat and corn, rice and oils and cotton - food which we cannot consume here at
home. Only America has too much food in a hungry world.
This vast world-wide shortage of food is one of the major obstacles to world peace. Hunger, and the disease it produces,
create disillusionment and discontent among the underdeveloped nations of Africa, Asia and the Near East -
disillusionment and discontent which provide a fertile breeding ground for communist revolution. And this same
shortage of food also slows down the economic development of much of the free world. Limited resources which are
badly needed for industrial development - for schools, and power and roads - or for raising living standards in other
ways - must be used to buy food from abroad.
Faced with this paradox of American surpluses in the face of world hunger, Congress in 1954 passed the famous Public
Law 480 - an imaginative and badly needed piece of legislation which permits the United States to donate, barter or sell
its agricultural surpluses abroad for foreign currencies.
Under this law we have sold more than five billion dollars in surplus foods. Tens of millions of people who would have
gone hungry have been fed. And, in addition, much of the foreign currency which we received for our food has been
reinvested in vitally needed economic development projects abroad. Public Law 480, India's Prime Minister Nehru has
said, has been America's greatest single contribution to Asian Strength and Asian freedom.
But as beneficial as this law has been - as much as it has accomplished - it is not enough. Our surpluses are still piling up
- we still look upon our great agricultural productivity as a curse and a burden - millions are still hungry abroad - and the
threat of communism is still growing.
It is time, therefore, for this nation to try a bold new expansion of our food for peace program - with new goals, and new
steps forward, to relieve our farm surpluses, and to turn our great agricultural abundance into a blessing - for ourselves,
and for all the world. I shall propose three steps for such a program - three steps by which we can truly use our food for
peace.
First, we should store one-half of our grain surplus abroad - in food banks in the underdeveloped countries. These food
banks would serve as visible, tangible believable insurance against disease and famine, and would symbolize America's
determination that no man shall starve while we have food to spare.
The food would be stored at the expense of the recipient countries, in warehouses built with foreign currencies. And this
country, as a result, would soon begin to save the taxpayers a large part of the one billion dollars a year which it now
costs us to store our surplus. For example, it now costs twenty cents a year to store a bushel of grain. It would cost 38
cents to ship that same bushel of wheat to India. Thus, after two years of storage abroad, we would have made up the
full cost of shipment - and started saving money compared to our present costly storage program.
No matter how it is viewed - financially, politically or morally - the idea of food storage banks abroad - subject to
mutually agreed upon controls - makes sense. They would form a reservoir of food in time of famine - an assured supply
of food for purchase in time of shortage or rising prices - and a source of confidence and hope to the people of the free
world that hunger would never halt their efforts to build a modern, strong and free economy.
Secondly, we must remove P.L. 480's outmoded restrictions on the use we can make of foreign currencies. We must be
free to take advantage of the tremendous opportunities which await us. For example, most of the free world faces a
critical shortage of schools and teachers. By using these currencies to help supply badly needed educational facilities,
we can help provide the resources of thought and skill essential to successful economic development.
Third, we must take advantage of the fact that we are not the only country with a large agricultural capacity - that other
countries too may have "food for peace." We must begin to work with these other nations - nations such as Canada and
Australia - to join hands in a great international effort to use our agricultural abundance for the economic and social
development of the free world.
There are some of the ways in which we can begin to use more effectively our abundant food for peace. Norman
Cousins has written that "when I enter my home I enter with the awareness that my table is only half set, for half the
men on this earth know the emptiness of want." Tonight all the tables in America are only half set in this sense - and
they will remain half set until we can begin to use our richness, our abundance and our great resources to drive want
away from the tables of all men everywhere.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Reception,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, March 20, 1960
For the past several weeks the United States Senate has been engaged in a momentous debate - a debate which has
received the attention of the entire world - a debate on one of the most important and emotion-packed issues of our time
- the issue of civil rights.
And of all the many problems, the many issues, which make up this many-sided debate - none is more significant than
the fight to secure the right to vote to all Americans. For the right to vote is the precondition of all other rights. It is only
through the exercise of political power that men ensure that government will protect their right to equal treatment before
the law - in every aspect of human endeavor. That is what democratic government is all about. And if the right to vote is
being denied - as it is being denied - if men are not allowed to choose their elected officials - then no person's place in
society is secure.
We thought that we had secured this fundamental right with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 - an Act which
permitted the Attorney General to get a court order requiring that individual Negroes - who had been discriminated
against - be allowed to vote. But the inevitable delays of lawsuits - the futility of trying to solve a problem involving
many thousands of people by helping one, or a few, at a time-and the reluctance of the Attorney General, who has only
brought four suits since the bill was enacted, to use the powers Congress had granted him - all these combined to
demonstrate clearly that the Civil Rights bill of 1957 was an eloquent but inadequate Act.
To remedy this deficiency - to enforce the rights of the large numbers of Negroes who are being deprived to their
Constitutional right to vote - the Civil Rights Commission proposed a system of voting registrars. These registrars
would be sent to districts where discrimination had been found - and would register all those who had been kept from
voting merely because of their race or their color. Following this recommendation of the Civil Rights Commission, the
Attorney General submitted a bill calling for federal voting referees - having similar powers and to be appointed by the
Courts.
Such a system - of either federal registrars or referees - would not be a precedent-shattering move of doubtful
constitutionality, as some have said. On the contrary, it would be a direct response to the mandate of the Constitution
which grants to Congress alone the power to enforce the unmistakable direction of the Fifteenth Amendment that "the
right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State" on
account of race or color.
In deciding whether to support registrars or referees - or one of the many variants of these proposals - we cannot afford
to be concerned with the origin of the idea - or which party will get the credit. Our single touchstone must be
effectiveness - which will work most successfully -how best do we ensure the right to vote. And, in my opinion, any
action - to be effective - must meet the follow three conditions:
First, we must provide for the enforcement of the right to vote both in both federal and state elections. The federal
Constitution gives a Federal guarantee of the right to vote in all elections - federal and state. It does not distinguish - it
does not discriminate - and neither can the Congress if it is to be true to its obligation to enforce this right.
Secondly, we must be sure that no interminable legal roadblocks are placed in the path of those seeking to vindicate
their right to vote. The process leading to the appointment of federal voting officers must be swift - as must the process
of registration itself. It cannot be allowed to degenerate into a series of individual and lengthy lawsuits, with impossible
burdens of proof.
Third, we must be sure that federal registration will be honored at the polling place - that state voting officers will allow
federally registered citizens to actually cast their ballot. This means an effective enforcement system - not individual
prosecutions or civil suits long after the election is over.
These are the three essential conditions of any congressional action to protect voting rights. And I intend to support all
measures which best meet these objectives.
The debate may be long. But I am confident that this Congress will live up to its responsibility to ensure that all
Americans - regardless of race - are allowed to participate in the most fundamental process of our democracy - the
selection of the officers of government. For today in Washington - on the floor of Congress - we are exercising our trust
to the concept of free government by free men -a concept as old as the nation itself. I hope that we will discharge that
duty with vision and with courage. For a noted American has reminded us: "The founders of the Republic knew, as did
Pericles, that if the secret of happiness is freedom, 'the secret of freedom is a brave heart.'"
We must be worthy of that trust.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Marinette,

Of critical importance to the farmer - particularly during a time of declining income - is his ability to obtain credit. Yet it
is when his income is most severely reduced that his credit is most impaired. He has the greatest difficulty getting a loan
just when he needs it most.
The technological revolution has made the American farm the most productive unit in the world. But this has taken and
still takes a lot of capital. It has made the farmer a major borrower. It has also made the farmer a major victim of the
high interest rate, tight money policy. He now uses a total of over $20 billion in borrowed money to finance his
activities.
Tight money has little effect upon the large industrial corporation. It can always get the money it needs or, if necessary,
finance itself through its earnings. These companies can both applaud the Puritan virtues of tight money and enjoy a
free-spending life. But the family farm, like the small business, does not have these resources. When the banks start
rationing loans the family farmer finds himself in a battle for survival. When the interest rate climbs and loans become
harder to get, the productive machine must grind to a halt. During the past two years the combination of reduced income
and tight money has forced 50,000 Wisconsin farmers - one out of thirteen - to look elsewhere for a livelihood. Unless
the trend is reversed, additional hundreds face the same dismal prospect.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt recognized this problem - and did something about it. Twenty-three years ago - when we
were suffering from another farm depression - he recommended - and the Congress established - a federal agency to
provide the credit the farmer needed. It permitted the farmer to participate in and promote the economic growth of our
nation.
It was always possible - under the Democratic Administration - to get a loan from the Farm Security Administration or
its successor - the Farmers Home Administration - at a reasonable interest rate when all others turned you down. And
the interest rate on direct loans was set at 3%. The faith of the nation was justified by the extraordinarily low proportion
of loans that failed - less than 3%. And if we exclude loans made to farmers suffering from droughts, floods and other
national disasters the rate of failure drops to only 1%.
The need today is as great as it was in 1937. The proven record still shows it is sound business. The challenge of future
technological advances requires more than ever an expanded loan program. But the response from the Benson
Department of Agriculture has been completely inadequate.
The Benson program for farm credit contains three features:
First, increased rates. The 3% rate has already been raised to 5%. And a further increase is recommended. The more the
farmer has to pay to borrow money the more his costs, which have already squeezed profits down to their lowest point in
eighteen years, will have increased still further.
Secondly, Mr. Benson is asking for reduced lending authority. Last year Mr. Benson requested $185 million. This was
obviously insufficient. Congress responded by adding an additional $81 million. Yet even this addition has proved
inadequate. The Farmers Home Administration has already exhausted its authorization - at a time when the need is
especially critical for farmers who need to put in their Spring crops.
Every state in the Union used up its allotment for soil and water loans before the end of November. Most of the states
used up their allotments for home loans by the end of December. And there are thirteen states which are already without
funds for feed and seed.
Here in Wisconsin a study has shown you need at least $2 million more for farm ownership loans. Already the backlog
is four times the amount of the annual allotment to the state. In spite of this clear proof of desperate need, Mr. Benson is
not asking for an increase in next year’s loan appropriation - he is actually asking for a reduction of $44 million.
The third point in the Benson Program calls for tightened eligibility requirements. As a result, instead of helping those
who need it most, only one out of three applicants is even accepted. And, ironically enough, one of the grounds for
rejection is reduced farm income - due to Mr. Benson’s own programs.
In place of this cruel and negative farm credit policy, permit me to suggest four points:
First, we should maintain a ceiling on interest rates under this program which will keep them below their present levels.
Higher interest rates would only add one more repressive measure to the long list of Benson efforts to stifle farm
growth.
Secondly, we should expand, not contract Farmers Home Administration loan authority until it accomplishes its
purpose.
Third, the lending program should be placed on a revolving fund basis. This would not only permit long-range planning
- it would reduce this annual pressure for trimming the program in order to manufacture a budget surplus.
Fourth, the $20 million reserve fund appropriated by Congress last year should be freed from Budget Bureau control.
That control prevents its use. I cannot subscribe to the belief that to keep this fund intact is more important than a
healthy farm economy - or more important than a farmer who needs capital now to plant his Spring crop.
If we can get men in government who understand the farmer’s problems - who recognize his need for inexpensive credit
- who know he’s a good credit risk - who treat him as a first class citizen, not a pauper looking for a hand-out - then our
farm economy can grow and flourish. And the whole country will grow and flourish with it.

Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, March 24, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A copy of the speech exists
in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library.
I want to talk with you today about Berlin. This same subject is under constant study in Washington. It will be the
principal subject at the summit meeting in May. It is the chief reason for Chancellor Adenauer’s visit to this country.
Why is Berlin so important? Why should it be distinguished from hundreds of other cities on the outskirts of the Iron
Curtain?
I might begin by taking you to the Kolhaas Bridge spanning the waters of West Berlin. Michael Kolhaas was a poor
horse trader in 16th century Berlin. When a wealthy nobleman robbed him of his horses, he was unable to obtain justice
in the courts of law which - in those days - were the tools of the wealthy and the powerful. And so Michael Kolhaas
became an outlaw - a sort of German Robin Hood - taking the wealth of his oppressors and giving or throwing it all
away. His greatest gesture of defiance to oppression was to fling a wagon-load of stolen gold into the river. At that very
point, the Kolhaas Bridge today symbolizes Berlin’s defiance to oppression and zeal for justice.
Throughout its history Berlin has reflected the spirit of Michael Kolhaas - in the 1840’s when the city revolted in the
cause of freedom, and demanded a Constitution and a Parliament - in the 1940’s, when Hitler admitted that in this one
city he never felt safe - and in 1960, where tens of thousands of young people have responded to Mr. Khrushchev’s
threats with anti-communist demonstrations carried on under the very shadow of Soviet guns.
Thornton Wilder has written that "every good and excellent thing … stands moment by moment on the razor edge of
danger." For the past fifteen years the City of Berlin has stood "on the razor edge of danger." Berlin is a small island of
free men in the midst of communist territory. A hundred manned and fortified miles separate it from the western frontier
- from the source of its food and vital supplies. Its only protection against aggression is a small garrison of NATO troops
constantly menaced by vast Russian land forces. It has been the object of vicious threats - of hostile moves - and of a
campaign mingling promises and intimidation. But despite all dangers and hardships, Berlin has sustained its freedom
and rebuilt its economy. Its assets have been the courage and vitality of its people, reinforced by our own determination
that Berlin shall - and must - remain free.
But these very successes - the prosperity and continued freedom of West Berlin - have excited the increased hostility of
the communists. This hostility is not actually based on any real fear of the pitifully small armed garrison which the
Western powers maintain in Berlin - or on the fear of any Western propaganda or subversion attacks that could be
launched from that city. It stems from a deeper fear - fear of the spirit of Michael Kolhaas - the spirit of a free city in the
midst of despotism and alien rule - constantly reminding the people of East Germany of their subjection to the Soviets,
reminding them of what it is to be free - serving as a beacon to inspire all the enslaved countries of Eastern Europe with
the hope of eventual freedom.
And Berlin is more than a symbol of personal liberty. It is a living contradiction of the Soviet dogma that only a
communist society can bring material prosperity. For the people of East Berlin, and East Germany, and all of Eastern
Europe, can look up from their bare, drab, toilsome existence and see in their midst the buoyant, vital, expanding
economy of West Berlin - the new construction, the new goods, and the new surge of energy which has rebuilt a war-
torn city and restored prosperity to its people.
Probably no other city in the world represents a greater challenge to Russian dogma. And the Russians know it. In 1948,
they made their first attempt to remove this thorn from their side, and shut off all access to Berlin from the West. But the
quick, determined response of the Western allies - and the courage of the Berliners themselves - led to the vast airlift
operations. Berlin and the West stuck together - the highways and railroads reopened - and the Russians knew that West
Berlin would not be an easy prize.
It was ten years before the Soviets felt strong enough to try again. In November 1958, the second Russian drive on
Berlin began. Premier Khrushchev gave us six months to begin negotiating with the East German government, with a
view toward withdrawing our troops from Berlin. Behind this ultimatum was the scarcely veiled threat that, if we did not
agree, the Soviet Union would sign a separate peace treaty with East Germany - East Germany might again shut off
access to West Berlin - and, if they did, their decision would be backed with Soviet armed might.
This new drive was based on several Russian premises - that an airlift today could never be sufficient to sustain Berlin’s
booming economy and population - that we would therefore back down rather than enter Berlin by force, precipitating a
World War for which we were not prepared - and that they would, consequently, take over all of Berlin and strengthen
their hold on all of Eastern Europe.
But - to Mr. Khrushchev’s dismay - we did not back down - we did not retreat - we remained firm in our determination
to protect Berlin at all costs. As a result, the ultimatum was withdrawn - the deadline was lifted - and, today, we
approach a summit meeting at which the problems of Berlin and Germany will be at the top of the agenda.
These summit negotiations will be extremely important - and extremely delicate. And in these negotiations - as in the
entire conduct of our foreign affairs - as the Supreme Court said in 1936 - "the President alone has the power to speak or
listen as the representative of the nation." I do not want the President’s position to be jeopardized or undermined in any
way by the pronouncements of public figures concerning the details of negotiation - or by public judgments by other
officers of government on the issues and questions which he alone must decide, and on which he alone is fully informed.
But I would like to remind you of something about which there can be no disagreement - something on which the
President and the Congress, our allies and even our enemies, can agree: the enormity of our stake in Berlin.
First, there is the fate and freedom of the Berliners themselves. I have spoken of the spirit of the people of Berlin - "that
daredevil race" - as Goethe called them - many of whom bear the names of French or Polish or Czech or Danish or even
English ancestors who fled to Berlin to escape persecution and tyranny. That indomitable spirit inhabits a city of two
and one half million people. Berlin is not a rocky, barren offshore island, or a strip of desolate and deserted border land -
it is a living city with a population equal to a third of Sweden, or all of Ireland. It is unthinkable that we would abandon
these free millions to communist masters - that we would ever remove our protection without some definite assurance of
their security and self-determination. To do so would be a betrayal not only of Berlin, but of our own tradition of
freedom.
Secondly, Berlin is important as a symbol - as perhaps the chief symbol of the free world’s determination not to yield to
Russian threats and Russian pressure. Thomas Paine wrote that "every man must finally see the necessity of protecting
the rights of others as the most effectual security of his own." The protection of the freedom of Berlin is the surest
protection of our own freedom.
In 1948 - just before the first Berlin crisis - an American journalist wrote that "if Berlin is abandoned, half of Europe
will be in the communist camp tomorrow." But we did not abandon Berlin then - the airlift and the courage of the
Berliners saved the city - and indeed they may have saved all of Europe. Should we yield now - should we be unfaithful
to the people of Berlin and to our own example of determination - we would be showing the entire world that we lacked
the will and the strength and the courage to come to the defense of threatened freedom.
Free nations throughout the world - not only in Europe but in Asia, Africa and the Near East - would feel less certain of
our assurances, less convinced of our determination. To much of the world Berlin is the touchstone of American
determination - the measure of our dedication to freedom. It is this belief which makes the cause of Berlin the cause of
free men everywhere.
Thus our stake in Berlin is very great - and the dangers of maintaining that stake are very great. The harsh fact of the
matter is that we have let our ground forces deteriorate to the point where - if confronted with Soviet force - we may be
required to either yield Berlin or use nuclear weapons to force an entrance. Only by rebuilding the conventional forces
of NATO will we be able to avoid this cruel dilemma in the future.
Our task in Berlin is difficult - the dangers are great - and the stakes are high. But we should not despair. For, as Francis
Bacon said, many years ago, "there is hope enough and to spare, not only to make a bold man try, but also to make a
sober-minded and wise man believe."
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at REA County

Meeting, Wisconsin, March 25, 1960
Twenty-five years ago, the vision and determination of a small group of men brought into being the Rural Electrification
Administration. It was born in a land where less than 10 percent of the farms had any electric lights - where there were
no telephones on the farms - where power equipment for farming was almost unknown - and where every farm task was
a back-breaking manual operation.
Today, as we celebrate the Silver Jubilee of the REA, we have considerable cause for satisfaction. Ninety-seven percent
of all of the farms in America enjoy electric service. Rural telephone lines span the nation. The man who once could
milk 8 to 12 cows a day can handle five times that many in an electrified dairy barn. For the whole farm family, the
burdens have been lightened - the darkness and drudgery have been lessened - the recreational opportunities have been
expanded.
There are those who say that now the fight for rural electrification is over - that the battles of the twenties and thirties
have been won - that it is time to be content with the progress that has been made.
But I do not agree with these sentiments. And I am sure none of you do. From the record of the past 25 years, we know
that we have only been in an age of consolidation - now the age of change and challenge are upon us. In the last 15 years
we have seen the farmer’s consumption of power nearly quadrupled - from 90 kilowatt hours monthly to 350 kilowatt
hours monthly. The next 15 years should see it doubled again. This means more efficient farming - higher farm income -
and better living standards.
Moreover, there are still vast unserved areas. There are still homes without telephones. There are still farms without the
benefits of electric power. Much more needs to be done.
For 25 years we have successfully repelled every attack upon the REA program. But it is an ironic fact that its very
success now places it in jeopardy.
It is said that private utilities can now do the job. But private utilities will not run an electric line where there are only
two consumers to the mile. Private utilities want the cream, not the skim-milk areas. Private utilities are necessarily
more interested in serving their stockholders than in serving the nation’s farms.
The critics of REA continue their attack with a call for the use of "private sources" for REA funds. The greatest threat to
REA is no longer represented by those who cry "socialism" at every mention of public power and REA. The more
subtle, more dangerous attack is launched by those who profess to be its friends - those who praise its success and
conclude that now it should be financed by private investment bankers.
But this argument completely misunderstands the nature and the purpose of the REA program. Congress did not pass
this program to implement any banking theory. Their primary concern was with the farms of America - the economic
health of our rural communities - and the modernization of our farm homes.
Finally, and of most critical importance today, there is the effort to saddle REA with high interest costs. The current
drive to raise the 2 percent rate of interest on REA loans is not an isolated operation. For over a year now, we have been
urged to remove the ceiling on government bond interest rates, to encourage higher rates on commercial loans, and to
reduce the supply of money. A whole new emphasis on tight money and high interest has stifled our economic growth,
retarded construction of our schools, promoted small business failures, and weakened our economy. The effort to raise
REA interest rates is part and parcel of this same tight money, high interest rate policy - a policy which is already
hurting REA co-ops and their members by forcing up the price they must pay for their homes, for their farm machinery,
and for every other item they buy - particularly those they buy on the installment plan.
The REA co-ops of this country cannot fight the battle only to hold down their own interest rates. They must join the
fight against high interest and tight money all along the line.
The proposal to charge REA co-ops 5 percent for their loans is only one phase of that fight. But it is an important one. If
we can hold the line on REA interest rates, we can hold it elsewhere - and reverse these tight money policies that are
robbing both farmers and consumers alike.
A 5 percent interest rate on REA loans would more than double the present rate. It would make expansion more difficult
just when the new demands for power are at a peak. It would increase costs to the farmer at a time when existing costs
have already squeezed rural income to an 18-year low.
A typical loan at the increased rate would add over one and one-half mills a kilowatt hour to the cost of power. It would
add about $20 million to the cost of wholesale power purchased by rural electric co-ops. It would virtually destroy the
feasibility of many loan applications.
Higher interest rates would prevent telephone and electric service to many areas - when no other method for providing
this service exists. Private companies will not - quite understandably - service uneconomical areas. The current 2 percent
interest charge makes it possible for the co-ops to service all areas - not just those that permit profitable private
operation.
Finally, and perhaps more important, an increase in the interest rate on REA loans would virtually destroy REA’s
generation and transmission program. Often the only way to get power to a co-op is to build new transmission lines and
new generating capacity. If this cannot be done, the co-op must accept whatever terms the private power suppliers offer
- and that usually means higher power costs and less dependable power sources.
The 2 percent rate was not considered too high when the Treasury was selling notes at one and one-half percent. Nor is
the two and one-half percent interest rate the Treasury now pays upon civil service retirement funds considered too low -
or the three percent the Treasury pays upon GI insurance trust funds.
The REA loan is not just another banking transaction. It is an investment in expanded energy resources - it is a step
toward full equality between urban and rural America - it is assistance toward labor parity between the various segments
of the economy. It benefits both the farmer who receives the loan and the industries from which he buys. There is a
tendency to forget that the farmer is also a consumer.
Careful studies have shown that every dollar loaned to REA causes purchases of home electrical equipment of over $4.
The average farm served by REA spends over $2500 for electrical appliances and electrical equipment. The demand
generated by REA has been the source of industry and employment - not only in Wisconsin, but in Massachusetts and
all parts of the country.
Even the private power companies find REA co-ops are among their best customers. In the past 10 years, the co-ops
have purchased some 500 million dollars worth of power from private companies, and in the next few years, their
purchases will increase to an annual rate of 100 million dollars a year. The private power lobby ought to think twice
about destroying the efficiency of these costumers.
In short, the role of REA is as vital now, and will be in the years to come, as it has ever been in the past. We must resist
every effort made to raise the interest rates, reduce government lending power or restrict operations. We must not be
deceived by misleading propaganda or irrelevant theories.
For now, more than ever before, we need the leadership and vision of men like George Norris and Franklin Roosevelt.
The challenges of the sixties - the challenges of REA in the nuclear age - demand more than just a consolidation of past
gains. We need to be re-dedicated to the philosophy of growth - to the spirit of public responsibility for developing
electric energy - and to the benefits conferred upon the entire nation by one of the greatest programs ever formulated in
the thirties - the program of REA.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Dodgeville,
Wisconsin, April 1, 1960
The testimony given before the McClellan Rackets Committee, of which I was a member, has convinced me that there is
a highly organized criminal syndicate operating in America today. It is powerful. It is dangerous. And, worst of all, it
seems to be growing. This criminal conspiracy has operated for many years, but only rarely has it been subjected to the
bright glare of publicity. Usually it operates at a level well below the mainstream of American life.
In order to destroy it, we need more knowledge - better organization of law enforcement efforts - and greater
cooperation between state and federal officials. Ten years ago, a special committee of the Senate studied this problem
and came to a similar conclusion. It is time we did something about it.
Certainly the brazen meeting of 58 top hoodlums in November 1957 at Apalachin, New York, points to the urgent need
for action. It was only by a series of fortuitous circumstances that this meeting was even detected. It should not be
necessary for us to rely upon chance to break up these gatherings.
The task of investigating and disseminating information about these racketeers is a key law enforcement problem. Since
the network of criminals is nationwide, it is a federal responsibility. I believe we should have an organization in the
Federal Government whose sole duty would be to investigate and gather information about underworld activities - and
then disseminate it to appropriate local authorities. It would be a permanent National Crime Commission, with full
power of subpoena and investigation. It would not have law enforcement powers. This is a job for local police. But it
would serve a valuable function in gathering intelligence about criminal syndicates, furnishing this information to local
jurisdictions, and coordinating the efforts of the various states in this direction.
I know that the establishment of an agency like this raises problems with regard to its relationship to other federal law
enforcement activities, but the Department of Justice and the other federal law enforcement agencies direct their efforts
toward apprehending persons guilty of federal crimes. The new agency would begin its work before the crime was
committed. It would inquire into the relationships between known criminals and maintain a watch over attempted
operations by a syndicate of criminals.
Of course, we must guard against any infringement of personal and private rights by any governmental authority, no
matter how meritorious the purpose. But I am sure that we can so frame the legislation that the Commission will not
invade any personal rights.
Because we are dealing with a clandestine group - because they are well organized and highly disciplined - because they
have vast resources - they present a formidable problem. But I am sure that the cooperative effort of the federal and state
governments can stamp them out. Our law enforcement agencies need only the information and the tools.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Wisconsin
Association of Student Councils, Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
April 2, 1960
We have been talking about change and challenge, about leadership and vision. No change in the world about us
presents a greater challenge - no problem calls for greater leadership and vision - than the radioactive pollution of our
atmosphere by the testing of nuclear weapons.
It is not a simple problem with simple answers. The experts disagree - the evidence is in conflict - the obstacles to an
international solution are large and many. But the issue of nuclear tests and their effects is one which should be
discussed in the coming months - not as a purely partisan matter, but as one of the great issues on the American scene.
I was glad, therefore, that this issue was raised last Sunday in a constructive and thoughtful way by the Governor of
New York. His statement contributed to the dialogue on this basic issue - it represented the position of a leading figure
in the Republican Party - and it neither hedged nor equivocated. So I commend Governor Rockefeller for his comments,
and hope they will be considered and debated by interested citizens everywhere.
But I must also express my own emphatic disagreement with his statement, which called for this country to resume
nuclear test explosions. Such a proposal, it seems to me, is unwise when it is suggested just prior to the reopening of
negotiations with the British and Russians at Geneva on this very question. It is damaging to the American image abroad
at a time when the Russians have unilaterally suspended their testing. And, while Mr. Rockefeller did suggest that the
testing take place underground to prevent fall-out, he discounted the harmful effects of fall-out - which I am unwilling to
do.
It is true that the amount of radiation created by bomb tests so far offers no serious threat to the well-being or existence
of mankind as a whole. But it is also true that there is no amount of radiation so small that it has no ill effects at all on
anybody. There is actually no such thing as a minimum permissible dose. Perhaps we are talking about only a very small
number of individual tragedies - the number of atomic age children with cancer, the new victims of leukemia, the
damage to skin tissues here and reproductive systems there - perhaps these are too small to measure with statistics. But
they nevertheless loom very large indeed in human and moral terms.
Radiation, in its simplest terms - figuratively, literally and chemically - is poison. Nuclear explosions in the atmosphere
are slowly but progressively poisoning our air, our earth, our water and our food. And it falls, let us remember, on both
sides of the Iron Curtain, on all peoples of all lands, regardless of their political ideology, their way of life, their religion
or the color of their skin. Beneath this bombardment of radiation which man has created, all men are indeed equal.
Perhaps the ill effects and the dangers of fall-out from bomb tests can be regarded today, in statistical terms, as minimal.
But let us remember that there is still much that we do not know - and that too often in the past we have minimized the
perils and shrugged aside these dangers, only to find that our estimates were faulty and that new knowledge inevitably
increased our appreciation of these dangers. Let us remember also that our resumption of tests would bring Russian
resumption of tests - it would make negotiations even more strained- it would spur other nations seeking entry into the
"atomic club", with their own tests polluting the atmosphere - and, in short, it could precede the kind of long, feverish
testing period which all scientists agree would threaten the very existence of man himself.
The arguments advanced in favor of a test resumption are not unreasonable. The emphasis is on the weapons
development - the necessity to move ahead "in the advanced techniques of the use of nuclear material." This reason is
not to be dismissed lightly. Because this country cannot hope to match the Soviets in raw numbers of ground forces, we
rely on technical military superiority. We need to develop small nuclear weapons and so-called "clean" nuclear
weapons, in order to deter their use or other forms of limited aggression by the enemy. This is not, I might add,
justification for cutting back our ground forces and our ability to wage conventional warfare - but it is nevertheless
important.
But let us remember that our present test suspension - while unilateral - is implicitly conditional on a Russian test
suspension. If we are not developing new weapons in the absence of tests, neither are they. If we will make progress
militarily through the resumption of tests, so, in all probability, will they. And the facts of the matter are that, generally
speaking, we are ahead of the Russians in the development of atomic warheads but behind in the development of
delivery systems. Until this lag can be overcome, there is a lesser value for us in testing and developing further
"techniques in the use of nuclear material." In short, for both sides to resume atomic tests today might well turn out to be
more of a disadvantage to the west militarily than a help.
I would suggest, therefore, the following alternative position:
1. First, that the United States announce that it will continue its unilateral suspension of nuclear tests as long as the
Russians continue theirs, and as long as serious negotiations for a permanent ban with enforceable inspection are
proceeding in good faith. Our present extension of the ban expires on December 31st.
2. Secondly, the United States must redouble its efforts to achieve a comprehensive and effective test suspension
agreement - and develop a single, clear-cut, well defined and realistic policy for an inspection system and for the other
conditions such an agreement must meet. We do not have such a policy today.
3. Third, should it be necessary for our tests to resume, they should be confined to underground and outer-space
explosions, and testing of only certain small weapons in the upper atmosphere in order to prevent a further increase in
the fall-out menace - and in the hope, moreover, that the Russians and others will be forced by world opinion to follow
our example.
4. Fourth and finally, we must step up our studies of the impact of radioactive fall-out and how to control it, through the
Public Health Service here at home and a special United Nations monitoring commission abroad. Let us not discover the
precise point of danger after we have passed it. Let us not again reject these warnings of peril as "catastrophic nonsense"
(to quote Mr. Nixon), as they were rejected in 1956 when put forward by a great Democratic standard-bearer, Adlai E.
Stevenson.
These four policy positions are no magic solution - nor can they be achieved overnight without effort. But the new and
terrible dangers which man has created can only be controlled by man. And if we can master this danger and meet this
challenge, we will have earned the deep and lasting gratitude, not only of all men, but of all yet to be born - even to the
farthest generation.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Lafayette,
Indiana, April 7, 1960
"Governments can err," President Roosevelt once said, "Presidents do make mistakes; but the immortal Dante tells us
that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted in different scales. Better the
occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen
in the ice of its own indifference."
The American people today are very nearly confronted in their Executive Branch with the very danger of which Franklin
Roosevelt warned - "a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."
The Vice President of the United States says that Americans are "living better today than ever before - and they are
going to vote that way."
But the facts are that 17 million Americans go to bed hungry every night - 15 million families live in substandard
housing - 7 million families are struggling to survive on incomes of less than $2000 a year.
We have more than four million unemployed workers, with jobless benefits averaging less than $31 a week.
Millions of American workers are being paid less than $1 an hour, to say nothing of $1.25.
Our economy has declined to a growth rate which is only half the record increases of the Roosevelt-Truman era. The
Soviet Union is expanding its economy three times as fast as the United States.
And our unfinished agenda is even longer in the area of national security. Whatever the exact facts may be about the size
of the missile gap, it is clear that we shall need more missiles, more ships, planes and men, more atomic submarines and
airlift mobility.
Mr. Nixon has repeatedly stated that he intends to carry on the policies of this Administration. Let us hold him to that -
because I predict on November 8th the American people are going to reject that tradition.
After eight years of this Administration, this nation needs a strong creative Democrat in the White House.
Today our very survival depends on that man in the White House - on his strength, his wisdom and his creative
imagination.
Only a creative national party can provide a strong, creative President. The Republican Party is not a national party. It
does not represent all sections, all interest groups, all voters. And that is why - historically and inevitably - the forces of
inertia and reaction in the Republican Party oppose any powerful voice in the White House, Republican or Democratic
that tries to speak for the nation as a whole.
But to send that Democrat to the White House we have to win. And I don't believe this talk that we cannot win. I think
we will win.
interest rates instead of production - by substituting pageants for policy in world affairs.
So I repeat: When Mr. Nixon says that he wants to carry on the policies of the last eight years, let us hold him to that
statement. For I cannot believe that the voters of this country will accept four more years of the same tired policies…
I firmly believe that the American people next November will respect that candidate and that political party which have
the courage to speak the truth - to tell the people the grim facts about what has happened to America during the past
eight years and what we must do to survive.
President with new ideas and real courage.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Convocation of

Marshall County Junior and Senior High School,
Plymouth, Indiana, April 8, 1960
I am delighted to appear today before this assembly of junior high and high school students. This group - I know - will
not consider me too young to run for President. And I do not consider this group too young to begin thinking of your
responsibilities of public leadership in the years ahead.
Many of you, I know, plan to go on to college. I hope you will consider very carefully the selection of a college - the
courses you will take at that college - and the career you will pursue upon graduation. I am assuming, of course, that you
will not look upon your university as Dean Swift regarded Oxford. Oxford, he said, was truly a great seat of learning; for
all freshmen who entered were required to bring some learning with them in order to meet the standards of admission -
but no senior, when he left the university, ever took any learning away; and thus it steadily accumulated.
And I also hope that those of you who do not go on to universities, will not consider that high school is an end to your
education. The opportunities for learning and for fruitful experience outside of school are many and varied - as are the
opportunities to make an important and meaningful contribution to your community and your country.
Making the most of your education, whether in or out of college - is not only important to you as students - it is of
primary importance to the rest of the country. One-third of the students of German universities, Prince Bismarck once
stated, broke down from overwork; another third broke down from dissipation; and the other third ruled Germany. (I
leave it to each of you to decide in which category you will fall.)
But if you are to be among the rulers of our land, from precinct captain to President, if you are willing to enter the
abused and neglected profession of politics, then let me tell you - as one who is familiar with the political world - that
we stand in serious need of the fruits of your education. We do not need scholars whose education has been so
specialized as to exclude them from participation in current events - men like Lord John Russell, of whom Queen
Victoria once remarked that he would be a better man if he knew a third subject - but he was interested in nothing but
the Constitution of 1688 and himself. No, what we need are men who can ride easily over broad fields of knowledge -
who have had varied experience - men like Thomas Jefferson, whom a contemporary described as "A gentleman of 32,
who could calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice, try a cause, break a horse, dance a minuet,
John Quincy Adams, after being summarily dismissed from the Senate for a notable display of independence, could
become Boylston Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory at Harvard and then become a great Secretary of State. (Those were
the happy days when Harvard professors had no difficulty getting Senate confirmation.) Daniel Webster could throw
thunderbolts at Hayne on the Senate Floor and then stroll a few steps down the corridor and dominate the Supreme
Court as the foremost lawyer of his time. A little more than one hundred years ago, in the Presidential campaign of
1856, the Republicans sent three brilliant orators around the campaign circuit: William Cullen Bryant, Henry
Wadsworth Longfellow and Ralph Waldo Emerson. (In those times, apparently, the "egg-heads" were all Republicans.)
I do not say that our political and public life should be turned over to educated experts who ignore public opinion. Nor
would I give colleges a seat in the Congress as William and Mary was once represented in the Virginia House of
Burgesses. Nor would I adopt from the Belgian Constitution of 1893 the provision giving three votes instead of one to
college graduates (at least not until more Democrats go to college).
But I do hope that our most talented young people will also contribute to our political and public life. I realize that most
Americans are not concerned about the education of politicians. No education is considered necessary for political
success, except how to find your way around a smoke-filled room. Mothers may still want their favorite sons to grow up
to be President, but, according to a famous Gallup poll of some years ago, some 73% do not want them to become
politicians in the process.
Successful politicians, according to Walter Lippmann, are "insecure and intimidated men," who "advance politically
only as they placate, appease, bribe, seduce, bamboozle, or otherwise manage to manipulate" the views and votes of the
people who elect them. It was considered a great joke years ago when the humorist Artemas Ward declared: "I am not a
politician, and my other habits are good, also."
But society has helped to develop your talents - and it is going to need all the help you can give in return. I urge upon
you participation on the political scene - not as a path to glory or fame or fortune - but as a means of solving the great
problems of our time - recurring business cycles - growing agricultural surpluses - the trend toward bigger government,
bigger business, bigger labor and a bigger squeeze on the individual - the growing gap in our standard of living
compared to the rest of the world - and, above all, the knotty complex problems of war and peace, of preventing man’s
destruction of man.
We want from you not the sneers of the cynics or the despair of the faint-hearted. We ask of you enlightenment, vision,
illumination.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at District
Democratic Committee Dinner, South Bend, Indiana,
April 8, 1960
Forty-seven years ago last month, the leaders of the Democratic Party gathered jubilantly in Washington. For the first
time in the 20th century, the victory was theirs - the Presidency was theirs - the power was theirs. But in his Inaugural
Address, President Woodrow Wilson sounded a more somber note: "The success of a party means little," he said,
"except when the Nation is using that party for a large and definite purpose."
Now, 47 years later, we, too, are talking of our party's coming success. But success for what? What "large and definite
purpose" will the people find in our party?
We are - first and foremost - the heirs of the New Deal and the Fair Deal. We are proud of that heritage. We want to
maintain our legacy - extend and carry on its programs - strengthen it against decay and attack. But that means we all
have work to do.
For we have not yet achieved a decent home in a decent neighborhood for every American family.
We have not yet made retirement a period of health and dignity and freedom from economic want for every aging or
disabled worker.
Our minimum wage laws are out-of-date. Our unemployment insurance is outmoded. Our anti-trust laws are ineffective.
Our tax structure is unfair.
Too many streams are still polluted. Too many rivers are still not harnessed. Too many parks and forests are still
neglected.
If we are to remain true to our party heritage - if we are to carry on the dreams of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman
- then it is clear that there is much to be done - that our work is cut out. And we must never fail that trust.
But let us also face the facts frankly. These were all great programs. They were the product of great eras. But we live
now in another era. And the Democratic Party cannot live forever off its New Deal-Fair Deal heritage.
There are new problems, new challenges, new dangers - problems Franklin Roosevelt never heard of - dangers Harry
Truman never had to face - challenges our old Democratic platforms never covered.
Permit me to cite five tough, new questions of our time - five challenges the next President of the United States cannot
ignore or avoid - five challenges which will require bold, new Democratic programs if they are to be met:
First, can the wonders of automation be harnessed to serve all America - to increase its productivity - to fulfill its public
needs - to expand its private leisure - without bringing in its wake unemployment, hardship and bitterness? Assailing
Republican claims of prosperity is not enough - nor do the old, Democratic programs supply the answer - we must meet
the problem head-on.
Secondly, can the revolution in farm technology be harnessed for peace and plenty - without sacrificing the family farm
to corporate ownership - without wasting $9 billion of foodstuffs, rotting in storage at the very time millions go to bed
hungry or undernourished? Assailing Mr. Benson is not enough - we must come up with a solid, workable farm program
of our own.
Third, can we devise adequate systems of inspection and control to end the fearful arms race - to end at least the
pollution of our air and water and soil by continued nuclear testing? Trying to staff our entire disarmament effort with
less than 100 full-time employees scattered through several agencies is not enough - it is time that we made good on our
claim of leadership for peace - and seized the initiative on disarmament.
Fourth, can we join with our allies in channeling enough aid to the less-developed nations of the world to launch their
economies into orbit - closing the ever-widening gap between our living standards and theirs - encouraging their
economies to grow faster than their population - and stabilizing their infant governments against the chaos on which
Communism feasts and fattens? Assailing the Republican record of substituting empty pageants for policy is not enough
- we must initiate a program that will win back our "good neighbors" all over the world.
Fifth and finally, can our free society - our free education and free economy - compete with the Russian monolith - in
the allocation of resources - in scientific achievement - in arms and aid and economic growth? Assailing budget ceilings
is not enough - we must, without dissipating our gains in inflation, stimulate our economy to a level of expansion far
higher than even the pre-Eisenhower years.
We in the Democratic Party have not yet shown - in hard, realistic terms - how we can meet this challenge.
These are among the new questions of the sixties - questions that, on the whole, did not confront the New Deal and the
Fair Deal. These are new issues, new problems - our problems, to solve on our own, without borrowing on the legacies
of the past.
I think we can do it. I think the American people know we can do it. I think that this is the "large and definite purpose"
for which they will use us in 1960.
I know these problems are tough. I know their solution will involve risks and hardships. But I remember F.D.R.'s First
Inaugural some 27 years ago this month. He compared our plight in those dark days with the perils once facing our
forefathers - perils they conquered, he said, "because they believed - and were not afraid."
That was Franklin Roosevelt's message in 1933. And that is our message today. And let it be said of this generation, as it
was said of his, and as he said it of generations before - that they conquered their perils and met their challenges
"because they believed - and were not afraid."

Luncheon, Tucson, Arizona, April 9, 1960
I am here today to apologize for the speech delivered on the Senate Floor by one of my predecessors from
Massachusetts. He was talking about a mail route from the Missouri to the Columbia Rivers and he was, as always,
eloquent: "What do we want", he said, "with this vast worthless area? This region of savages and wild beasts, of . . .
shifting sands, dust, cactus and prairie dogs? To what use could we ever put these great deserts, or those endless
mountain ranges . . . ? What can we ever hope to do with the western coast, a coast of three thousand miles, rock-bound,
cheerless, uninviting and not a harbor on it? What use have we for this country?"
Those were not the words of a modern Republican but an ancient Whig: Daniel Webster. And the answer to his question
lies all about us - in the great deserts reclaimed, in the mountains of natural resources, in the great ports and mines and
power projects. It is still vast, but not worthless - still rock-bound but not cheerless. And yet the miraculous changes
transforming this region in the last century are not enough. The Western frontier is still to be explored - its needs are still
to be met.
But I am not here to talk to you about western needs or the needs of the Southwest. I do not propose to offer solutions to
western problems, or tell you how the next President must answer western demands. Nor do I think that you want to
hear such a speech. For I am confident that you share my faith in the vision of two great easterners - Teddy Roosevelt
and Franklin Roosevelt - to whom the great resources of the west were a source of American greatness - to whom the
growth of the West was a key to American growth - to whom the untapped abundance of the West was the basis of
American abundance - to whom the future of the West was America's future.
Today - under an Administration headed not by Easterners like the two Roosevelts but by a Kansan and a Californian -
we are in the midst of a depression - a depression in the handling of our natural resources. This is not a depression of
scarcity - it is not caused by a lack of water or power or land. It is due to despoilment, underdevelopment and neglect - it
is due to a lack of vision and a lack of faith - it is due to a reluctance to make the effort needed to transform our
untapped abundance into the raw materials required for today's needs and tomorrow's goals. Every day in which we lack
leadership - every day in which no plans are drawn or efforts made - plunges us deeper into this depression.
In the next fifteen years our population will continue to expand. By 1975 there will be 230 million Americans - and your
own state of Arizona is growing four times as fast as the rest of the country, with thousands of new citizens arriving
every month attracted by your expanding economy and fine climate. And for this growing America we will need a
growing supply of resources. By 1975 we will need twice as much water - water for our growing cities, our farms and
our industry. We will consume twice as much food, and we will need 3½ million more acres on which to grow this food
- acres which must be reclaimed now if they are to feed a nation in the future. We will need three times as much power
to drive the machinery and light the homes of our expanding economy.
We will need millions of acres more of land for wildlife and recreation. We will need increased efforts to stop the
devastating floods, which cause over a billion dollars worth of damage each year and take an incalculable toll in human
life and human welfare. We will need vigorous action to halt the destructive and dangerous contamination of our rivers,
and lakes, and of the air we breathe. We will need increased research and development, to find new sources of water in
the ocean and new uses for our vast mineral resources in the earth - resources which Americans alone have consumed, in
the last fifty years, in quantities greater than all mankind consumed in the entire course of recorded history.
These are the challenges of the future - challenges which we must meet in the Sixties, if we are to meet the needs of this
generation, and preserve the heritage of future generations.
But these challenges have not been met. The past eight years have compiled a record of timidity - of failure. Any
administration which has forgotten the West is an administration which has neglected the nation. And this
Administration's record of failure and neglect is not only set down in statistics and reports - it is burned into the land
around us - in the parched and arid acres of much of the southwest - in the millions of acre-feet of water which flow
filthy and unused to the sea - in the rotting timber of our national forests. This is their monument of failure - a visible,
tangible, shameful monument.
Let us look at this record of failure - a record which the next - Democratic - Administration - must reverse.
1. First: Despite our growing needs - our expanding population - we have actually been spending less on our natural
resources in the past eight years than we did under Harry Truman and we have spent less in a period when inflation has
cut the value of each resource dollar by one-third. While the administration's own conservative Department of
Commerce has been saying that we must spend at least 3½ billion dollars per year to meet our minimum resource needs
- the Administration's budget has asked for less than half that amount.
2. Secondly: With the exception of one project - the Colorado River Storage Project - the product of the imagination and
planning of Oscar Chapman - there has not been one single multipurpose, basinwide project by the United States in the
past eight years - projects which might transform the Columbia or Connecticut River basins, or the Rampart Canyon
area in Alaska. We must return to the concept of Teddy Roosevelt who realized that "a river was a unit from its source
to the sea," and that only by planning for all the needs of and entire basin could we effectively conserve and develop the
potentialities of our great rivers.
3. Third: The administration has requested less than fifty per cent of the amount needed to maintain and make useful one
of our most important national assets - the great national forests. Last spring we heard - from the Secretary of
Agriculture - the heroic words of the pioneer - promising a bold new program for our forests. But January brought
instead the cold phrases of the budgeteer - cutting the heart out of the administration's own program - requesting less
that fifty per cent of the needed funds. Our forests are one of our most vital assets - they contain more than one-half the
commercial timber of the West - they provide recreation for millions - they are the major source of water for more than
1600 cities and towns - they drive more than 600 hydro-electric projects - they are necessary to the control of destruction
floods - their proper management would provide jobs for six million Americans and repay every dollar of investment.
We must reverse this failure - we must restore our great woodlands as a source of strength for the nation's future.
4. Fourth: Until this year - and the coming of an election - the whole nation, not only the West, was the victim of one of
the most shortsighted and destructive policies in the history of our natural resources - the policy of no new starts. This
policy was misnamed - it should have been called the policy of no more progress - no more progress toward utilizing the
90 million wasted kilowatts contained in our flowing rivers - no more progress toward supplying land, industry and
people with some of the 675 million acre-feet of water which is now unused. We must, and shall, resume the march
forward.
5. Fifth: All Congressional efforts to meet the problem of water pollution - to halt the wasteful and dangerous
contamination of our lakes and rivers - to provide healthy and usable water for our homes and industries - have met with
Administration delay and opposition. The expanded federal water pollution program - the product of a Democratic
Congress - has been vetoed. This program helped build water pollution control projects in 16 communities in Arizona
alone. It must not be allowed to fail for lack of vision and lack of leadership - and a new Democratic Administration will
not permit it to fail.
6. Sixth and Finally: Efforts to use science and technology to find new sources of water and new uses for mineral
resources have been frustrated by Administration policy - and starved by lack of leadership. Only the untiring efforts of
a few Democratic Senators brought about the beginning of a saline water conversion program - a program which may
hold the key to our future - and possibly the world's. Efforts to control local weather conditions to produce rain - efforts
in which scientists at the University of Arizona are playing a key role - are being undermined by lack of interest and lack
of support. New and better coal research has been vetoed - mineral development has been forgotten but in an age of
science, the newest of man's tools must be applied to the oldest of man's problems - the development of his natural
resources.
These failures and many more like them have been produced by policies of little vision and less action - policies which
are unsound by the very standards used to create them - in terms of dollars and cents. For every dollar spend on flood
control, on reclamation, on power, on increasing water supplies, not only contributes immeasurably to national welfare
but returns manyfold to the Federal treasury. Western reclamation projects have produced more tax revenue since 1940
than the cost of all reclamation projects in our history.
We in the Democratic Party are not spenders but investors - and we are willing to show our faith in America by
investing in her future. In the past eight years, we have heard much about budgets and deficits - but the facts are that in
the past eight years we have incurred the greatest deficit in the history of this country - an enormous debt in wasted
resources - in polluted and untapped water - in unused power - in decaying forests - in parched and useless land -
contaminated air - and destroyed natural beauty. This is a deficit in faith - a deficit in vision - and a deficit in leadership.
A Senator from South Carolina said in 1843 that "to talk about constructing a railroad to the western shore of this
continent manifests a wild spirit of adventure which I never expected to hear broached in the Senate of the United
States." Today we must again call upon that "wild spirit of adventure" - for we are confronted with dangers and
challenges greater than any man has ever known. To meet these challenges we must be strong - we must summon all our
resources - resources of mind and spirit, and the resources which lie beneath our earth, and in our mountains, and in our
rivers - those resources on which we have built a great nation - those resources on which her continued greatness
depends. And for these resources, we must look as Americans have always looked - westward.
I am reminded of Winston Churchill's radio broadcast in April of 1941 -when to the East, Europe crumbled before the
Nazi onslaught - and Churchill, looking westward to America for support, quoted the words of the poet Arthur Clough:
"And not by Eastern windows only,
When daylight comes, comes in the night;
In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly -
But westward, look, the land is bright."
Today, back East in Washington, as we view a leadership of indecision and drift - of confusion and pettiness - the
prospects often look dark. But as we Democrats gather strength for the leadership which will soon be ours - as we begin
the task of preparing America for her time for greatness - we, too, can say - "But westward, look, the land is bright."
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Phoenix,

Arizona, April 9, 1960
A good politician, I am told, should follow three basic principles: glorify the past - avoid the present - and talk endlessly
about the future (except, they should add, when you're on television).
But here in Arizona, past-present-and-future are all tied up together - all connected and mingled in the fast-changing,
fast-moving period this state is now going through. "What is past is prologue," reads the inscription on the National
Archives Building in Washington. And "the future," says the poet Rilke, "enters into us - long before it happens."
Certainly that is the situation here in Arizona. The last 20 years - when your population more than doubled - have been
only the prologue of what is to come. The thousands of new citizens pouring in every month make this state one of the
fastest-growing states in the country. We can already see the future in Arizona - it is golden with opportunity - but it is
also fraught with problems.
For growth is good - it is healthy - it can help everyone. But the next President of the United States must recognize what
happens when this country adds - during the next 15 years - an additional population equal to the entire population of
France.
To feed and sustain some 230 million Americans in 1975 will take twice as much water as we now have, twice as much
food, and three times as much power. We will need an estimated 3½ million more acres on which to grow food - we will
need millions more for cities and suburbs, parks and preserves, airports and highways. We will need wise counsel - and
we will need determined, progressive leadership.
But we need that leadership now, not in 1975. We need it now to help states like Arizona grow, and help its citizens get
through these "growing pains." Specifically what we need - to make certain we get the right kind of growth, in the right
direction at the right time - is Presidential leadership aimed at making better use of our American resources -
-- our natural resources --
-- our financial resources --
-- and our human resources.
As long as these resources are not being properly used or protected - as long as our national assets are squandered or
neglected - as long as our nation is living off its accumulated capital, so to speak, with no investment in the future - as
long as these conditions prevail, we have no right to boast about efficiency and economy in government.
Ignoring the problems of growth that are staring us in the face is not efficiency. Destroying the hopes of tomorrow by
short-sighted restrictions today is not economical.
There is no real savings, for example, in cutting in half the funds needed to preserve and renew our great national forests
- forests which, properly managed, would provide jobs for 6 million Americans, provide a source of water supply for
1,600 cities and towns, and more than repay through timber sales and otherwise every penny invested.
There is no real savings in permitting more streams to be polluted, more mines to close, more farms to be sold, more
small businesses to fail, more children to receive an inadequate education. That is not real efficiency. That is not real
economy. What we need, I repeat, is Presidential leadership aimed at making better use of our American resources -
-- our natural resources --
-- our financial resources --
-- and our human resources.
Natural resources are particularly precious here in the West - and no natural resource is more precious than water - not
gold or silver or uranium, but water - water for new homes and families - water for new industries - water to expand the
irrigation systems you depend on to grow cotton, citrus and vegetable crops.
Water - we take it for granted sometimes. No blessing is more widely distributed. But it is not equally distributed - and
that is your problem here in Arizona. For 20% of the surface area in the Western states originates 80% of the water
yield. The people living on the other 80% of the land have - as a fact of nature - only 20% of the water.
To give them more water - to increase the total supply and get it to them - to act before it is too late, before the supply is
exhausted, before water rationing and dry faucets and dust storms cover half the West - will require a new and different
kind of vigor in Washington. And November 1960 will be your chance to vote for that kind of leadership.
Today we are using, it is estimated, only 1/5 of what we might use of the water already available to us. We need more
research on the loss of ground water through evaporation. We need more vigor, not vetoes, in attacking water pollution,
the contaminated streams that plague our cities, threaten our health, spoil our recreation and drive away new industries.
There are pollution control projects underway in 16 communities in this state, helped by $2 million in Federal matching
funds. This is not socialism - there is no Federal control of local sanitation. This is a joint effort of Federal, state and
local governments to attack a national menace in a national fashion - and it deserves to be stepped up and expanded, not
vetoed.
There is one other approach to utilizing more of the water that is available - and that is better management of our small
watersheds. With the assistance of federal funds, Arizona a few years ago inaugurated under Governor Ernest
McFarland and chairman Lewis Douglas the Arizona Watershed Program - the first such statewide study-and-action
program in the nation, and destined to provide more water, timber, grass, recreation, and other benefits for all the people
of Arizona.
But it is not enough merely to increase the amount of useable water from existing sources. We will have to increase the
supply of water itself. That will take work. It will take vision. It will take research.
But it can be done. For virtually unlimited supplies of water are literally all around us, if we can only tap them - in the
sky and the sea. The first requires that we learn more about controlling local weather conditions in limited areas - and
scientists at the University of Arizona and elsewhere may be approaching the answer on this. To use ocean depths - to
find an economical way of obtaining fresh water from salt water - is a dream several centuries old that is now within our
reach. If we can score this dramatic breakthrough, we shall not only immeasurably enrich our own land, make our desert
bloom, and end forever California's quarrel with her sister states - we shall also have won the undying gratitude of every
parched desert land along the Mediterranean, African, Indian and other oceans. It will do more for American prestige
than Sputnik ever did for the Russians.
But unfortunately - although we have a federal research and testing program - it has been starved and neglected in
Washington. I do not say all these jobs should be left to Washington alone. I do say that these are national problems that
require national action - and that means not only matching funds but matching faith by the Federal Government. That
faith - faith in the future of our country, faith in our growth, in the new and untried - is a Democratic trademark. And we
are returning it to the White House in November 1960.
But natural resource development is not enough. A shortage of financial resources is just as crippling to the West and its
growth. Let me read to you an Associated Press dispatch of March 25, datelined Washington. It cites a Labor
Department report showing that "mortgage rates have risen persistently for 18 months (and are now) ... about 8% higher
than a year ago, with increases reported particularly heavy in Western states."
It is the Western home-buyer or businessman who has to pay the highest interest rates of the country. It is the West -
because its rapid expansion requires great and flexible financial resources - that has been hit hardest by the artificial
scarcity of money.
Tight money sounds like a far-off abstraction. But you know what it means if you bought a car on the installment plan.
You know what it means if your child goes to an over-crowded school, because the high interest rates are using up
money that should go into classrooms. And you certainly know what it means if you went to buy a twenty thousand
dollar home on a 30-year mortgage, and learned you will have to pay an additional $23,000 - more than the cost of the
home itself - in interest charges. Some $9,000 of this interest payment is the direct result of the high interest rate policies
of this administration - $9,000 for which your family gets nothing, not a window, not a brick, not a blade of grass.
Here in the West where you desperately need to grow - where you need new homes and factories and office buildings,
new schools and parks and hospitals - tight money is a real disaster. It is the worst possible policy for our financial
resources. They are harder to find. They are more expensive to use. The large corporation has plenty of its own capital,
and is a preferred customer at the bank besides. But the small businessman or homeowner or farmer - the man who has
to borrow before he can expand, and already finds every cost is at a record high - is caught in the squeeze: dollars are
harder and more expensive to get, and go a lot less further once you get them.
We need to liberate those financial resources. We need to live up to our potential. We need to get started on a building
and expansion boom here in the West during the next decade that will make the last decade's growth seem paltry by
comparison. The homes, the dams, the schools, the cities and hospitals and private buildings of every kind that will
spring up all over this area will help build a better America - showing the world what can be done with a vigorous
Democratic Administration "back in the saddle."
Finally, what about our human resources? Can we build this material prosperity without making sure our abundance is
shared with all groups in our society? Do the fabulous sixties require efforts only on behalf of our natural and financial
resources?
The facts we need to answer these questions are shocking. We have still not met the needs of the 17 million Americans
who go to bed hungry every night - the 15 million families living in substandard housing - the 7 million families
struggling to survive on incomes less than $2,000 a year. We have more than 3 million unemployed workers, with
jobless benefits averaging less than $31 a week. We have 16 million Americans aged 65 and over - and 80 percent are
living out their lives without a decent income. Five million homes in American cities lack any plumbing of any kind;
seven million are unfit and ought to be replaced. One hundred and nineteen labor markets are still classified as distressed
areas, with one out of eight workers unemployed. Six million American children live in the overcrowded hovels that
breed delinquency, crime and disease. Millions of American workers are being paid less than $1 an hour, to say nothing
of $1.25.
It is no answer to say that there is no poverty in your own community - that there are no slums in your neighborhood.
For this is one nation of one people. The poorly educated may be voting for your President. The unemployed and needy
may be using your tax dollars. The ill and the delinquent may be moving into your area.
Our prosperity must be prosperity for all. Our growth should leave no group behind. And that includes our older
citizens, who have earned a decent and healthful retirement. Today 16 million Americans are past the age of 65 - and
this number increases by more than 1,000 each and every day in the year. Three out of every five of these Americans -
more than 9.5 million people - must struggle to survive on an income of under $1,000 a year. And the average social
security check is a pitiful $72 a month.
These inadequate funds are hopelessly small to pay for medicines and drugs that are more expensive than ever before.
Hospital rates have more than doubled - doctor bills have skyrocketed - and almost 20 percent of all those on social
security must use one-quarter to one-half of their meager annual incomes for medical expenses alone. Their needs must
be met by this Congress - or else by a new and sympathetic President.
Another challenge we must not forget in our "gold-rush" to prosperity is that of providing for a better and more
productive life for our reservation Indians. Far too little has been done in this field, despite the untiring efforts of
Congressman Udall. Reservation lands should and can be made self-sufficient - through a broader and more enlightened
program of education, industrialization and irrigation. Such a program must of necessity be gradual - but it must be
pursued with more determination - and with more compassion - than has been shown in Washington in recent years.
There are other groups and other problems - problems of growth - of sharing abundance - of using to the utmost our
natural, financial and human resources. These are not simply matters of the budget. What nation's budget is balanced if
its forests go to run, if its water becomes contaminated, if its mines lie idle, if its rich soil blows away as dust, if its older
people and its native Indians suffer indefensible privation, if its homeowners and small businessmen are caught in the
frustrating squeeze of a high-interest and tight-money economy? This is bad business and bad budgeting and bad for the
country.
All of this will be in the lap of the next President. He can postpone - he can consult - he can study and implore and
deplore - but sooner or later, for better or worse, he must act. He must act if we are to realize the American dream. He
must act if the West is to be a real frontier of opportunity. He must act if he is to follow in the path of a great President
elected just 100 years ago.
I am thinking of Abraham Lincoln summoning his war-time Cabinet to a meeting on the Emancipation Proclamation.
That Cabinet had been carefully chosen to please and reflect many elements in the country. But "I have gathered you
together, Lincoln said, "to hear what I have written down. I do not wish your advice about the main matter - that I have
determined for myself."
And later, when he went to sign it after several hours of exhausting hand-shaking that had left his arm weak, he said to
I sign this Proclamation, all who examine the document hereafter will say: 'He hesitated'."
States.
It is in this spirit that we must go forth in the coming months and years.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Reception,

Beckley, West Virginia, April 11, 1960
Twenty-seven years ago today, the 73rd Congress was meeting - the famous Congress of the "FIRST HUNDRED
DAYS" - the FIRST hundred days with Franklin Roosevelt at the helm.
That Congress, under FDR's leadership, accomplished more in 100 days than has been accomplished in 8 full years
under the Eisenhower-Nixon administration.
Franklin Roosevelt gave the American people a New Deal - social security, unemployment compensation, REA,
minimum wages, protection to unions and farmers and child labor and all the rest.
And now it is time for another "New Deal" - a New Deal for West Virginia.
This Administration in Washington is talking about prosperity - but they haven't been to West Virginia. They are talking
about Americans living better than ever before - but they haven't been to West Virginia. They are talking about
employment reaching record levels - but they haven't been to West Virginia.
This state has been forgotten in the White House. Republican prosperity has passed it by. Republican give-aways have
gone somewhere else. And that is why I say it is time for a “New Deal” for West Virginia.
Why should there be hungry people in this state while $9 billion worth of surplus food is rotting in warehouses? Why
should West Virginians who want to work be out of work - why should great mines and mills lie idle - why should vast
resources stay in the ground untapped - at a time when this nation needs all of its powers and energies to match the
growing menace of the Soviet Union?
Why should one state of the nation suffer while another prospers? Why should thousands of young people be required to
leave a state with such great natural beauty and potential wealth?
This is one nation, under God. Depression in one area hurts all areas. Depression in one industry hurts all industries.
And that is why West Virginia's problems are not local but national - that is why the next president must come forth
with a New Deal for West Virginia.
I am asking for you help in seeking the Presidency. And I am pledging to you - on the basis of my record of 14 years in
Congress, helping the distressed areas of Massachusetts and the Nation - on the basis of my deep convictions, after
touring this state, its plants and its mines - I am pledging to you a New Deal for West Virginia.
- a fair share of defense contracts, which ought to go more to areas of unemployment
- Federal loans to build new plants for new industries
- Higher and longer unemployment insurance, to tide a man over until he can find work
- Federal grants to rebuild decaying towns, giving them roads and water and more facilities needed to attract new
industry
- a fair share of Federal highway funds for states like West Virginia
- Federal programs to help build new schools and retrain workers for new jobs
- a better distribution of surplus foods to hungry people
- a better break for the elderly, the disabled and sick
- better minimum standards of both pay and safety for those who work in our mills and mines
These are some of the features of what must be included in a "New Deal" for West Virginia. Any nation that can afford
to rebuild the economies of Western Europe and Japan can afford to help its own people.
When Winston Churchill called at the start of World War II for our arms and destroyers, he pleaded: "Give us the tools -
and we will finish the job." The people of West Virginia do not want the Federal government to do everything for them.
They do not want charity and handouts. They are saying instead, with one voice, "Give us the tools - and we will finish
the job."
I promise you that voice will be heard.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Morgantown,

West Virginia, April 18, 1960
If new vision, and new leadership, and new understanding can restore prosperity to the coal industry - and I believe it
can - then I am here to tell you that prosperity is on the way. For just as no industry has suffered more from government
neglect in the last eight years than the coal industry - no industry holds greater promise for the future. And a new
Democratic Administration in the White House - and Administration in the great human welfare tradition of Franklin
Roosevelt - an Administration which understands the great contribution which coal can make to America's strength -
will make next year the beginning of coal's march toward prosperity.
The people of Morgantown have witnessed the suffering and despair of the coal industry. You have seen the disastrous
decline in coal employment, from 127,000 in 1948 to less than 50,000 today. You have seen what this decline in
employment has meant in the stark, tragic terms of human suffering and hardship - deprivation and hunger. You have
seen your once prosperous state transformed into an island of poverty and distress in a vast sea of American plenty. And
you have seen how every effort to help West Virginians help themselves has been hampered, opposed and destroyed by
Republican leadership in Washington.
But this is the grim side of the coal picture - there is also a brighter side, the side of the future. America has a rapidly
expanding population and a growing economy - more Americans and more industry will need ever-increasing supplies
of fuel and power - and coal is our most abundant and economical source of energy for the future. Over a trillion tons of
coal - 40% of the world's supply - is scattered throughout 33 of our 50 states - and West Virginia is Number One in the
nation. The reserves of other fuels are insignificant compared with these vast deposits.
Perhaps even more important is the increasing productivity of the coal industry - and the important new markets, new
uses, and new applications for coal which are within the reach of our science and our technology. Our experts tell us that
coal consumption can be doubled and tripled within the next twenty years - but this is a challenge, not a guarantee. And
we must act now to meet this challenge if coal is to be in the future - as it has been in the past - the foundation of
American strength and the source of American plenty.
There is much which can and must be done. We must establish a national fuels policy, greatly increase our coal
research, and stimulate industrial development. But perhaps the most visionary, and yet the most promising and the most
fruitful prospect for the future of coal lies in the development of new steam plants - in the increased use of what can be
called "coal by wire."
Great steam plants, located near the coal reserves which will drive them, can profitably use ton after ton of coal every
day of the week in manufacturing electricity to serve the ever-increasing needs of the four great metropolitan areas
which lie within a 500 mile radius of central West Virginia - Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia and New York - four of the
five largest metropolitan areas in the United States. If, with Federal help, West Virginia can make the most of her
strategic location and your abundant coal reserves, the future of coal and the future of West Virginia can both be bright.
Today the ancient power of coal - burned at the mines, and transmitted over huge cables - can re-enter the homes of
America in the most modern of forms - as electric power. And this electricity can be produced on a completely
competitive basis with other fuels - it can bring coal back to the American home - not by trucks and a shovel, but by
wires and a switch.
Not only can "coal by wire" help supply the electricity needs of today - it can help to create vast new markets in the
future. Today the average homeowner uses 3300 kilowatt hours of electricity each year, the equivalent of one and one-
half tons of coal. With the installation of electric heating - and coal by wire can make such heating economical and
desirable - electricity consumption can jump to 22,000 kilowatt hours, the equivalent of eleven tons of coal. It is easy to
see what this can and will mean in terms of increased jobs, increased income and increased prosperity for West Virginia.
But something must be done to get this great movement underway - to make "coal by wire" a reality instead of a dream
and a hope. It cannot and should not be done by handouts and doles from Washington. But it can and must be done
through a sound program of economic assistance - a program which will return its cost many times over in terms of
increased production, cheaper and better power, and a healthier and more prosperous people.
First, we must immediately begin a program of long-term development loans to encourage the construction of steam
plants - to attract the necessary private capital. This is what we do for Europe and Asia - we can do the same for our own
people.
Secondly, we must provide a sound logical program of tax and financial incentives which will stimulate investors to take
the risks which any new industry involves. And at least we must eliminate the present harmful discriminations against
the coal industry.
With such action - carried out with vision and vigorous leadership - with Democratic leadership - we can envision the
day when vast steam plants will be found near every vital and abundant coal reserve - supplying power to a growing
America - and bringing prosperity to a vital West Virginia.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Clarksburg,

We talk about new industries and new products for the future - and we must. We talk about reopening mines and
increasing employment - and we must. But we must also do something right now, before those new industries and jobs
are here, about those who are unemployed now, who can't find a job and who can't get by on an average unemployment
check of $23 a week.
"The greatest confession of the failure of civilization," said Robert Louis Stevenson, "is the man who can work, and
wants to work, and is not allowed to work." There are more than 60,000 of those men in West Virginia today; and only
half of them are drawing unemployment compensation. It is a double failure of our civilization if we cannot permit them
to pay their bills and feed their families while looking for another job.
And even this small amount runs out before long. No one can draw unemployment benefits here in West Virginia for
more than 24 weeks. And 30,000 workers have exhausted their claims - run over their time period without finding a new
job. What then are they supposed to do? How then can they pay their bills - their landlord and grocer and doctor - the
heat and water and light bills that come month after month, whether they are working or not?
I have introduced continually in the Senate, going all the way back to 1954, a bill to provide nationwide standards for
unemployment compensation - to make sure that every worker received a weekly check equal to at least one-half of his
weekly wages; and to make sure he can draw that check for 39 weeks, or roughly 8 months, so as to really tide him over
until he can find work. If we can have nationwide standards for this kind of program, no state - such as West Virginia -
will feel its heavy unemployment will put it at a tax disadvantage with other states.
The facts of the matter are that the state legislatures, on their own, simply will not pass this kind of program. It will take
Congressional action and Presidential leadership. And so far we haven't had either one.
Each time I have offered this amendment, the two Democratic Senators from West Virginia have voted with me - most
liberal Democrats have voted with me - but most Republicans have not. And the Eisenhower-Nixon Administration has
opposed this bill.
That is why we need a new President and a new administration - one that will sponsor this bill, not oppose - and it's up
to you to elect that kind of administration in 1960.
But let us never forget those who will never go back to work - those who are too old, too sick or disabled. There is a
song about them:
Who will take care of you, how'll you get by
When you're too old to work and you're too young to die?
This Republican Administration doesn't know - and it apparently doesn't care. They offer our retired workers no hope,
no help with their hospital bills, no freedom to take a meaningful part-time job - only a social security check averaging
$72 a month.
That is hardly a decent living in this, the richest country on earth. That is hardly the way to treat those who have spent
their lives making this country what it is today. The Democrats do care. We are the party that started social security.
And we are going to finish the job - and finish it right - with a new President in 1961.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Fairmont, West

Virginia, April 18, 1960
One industry ranks at the top of every West Virginia agenda - the coal industry. Without doubt, this nation's vast coal
reserves are among our most important assets. And without doubt, no resource has been subjected to more government
indifference, short-sightedness and even hostility than these same coal reserves.
It was coal - much of which came from West Virginia, the nation's largest coal producer - which supplied the energy and
the power to transform America into the most powerful industrial nation in the history of the world. It was coal which
built the factories, drove the railroads, and powered the machinery of a growing, expanding America. It was coal and the
miners of coal which provided the motive power of America's rise to greatness. And it is our limitless coal reserves of
today - almost one trillion tons, 1000 years supply - which holds out the brightest promise of an everlasting and
economical fuel supply for America's expanding future.
And yet - at a time when America is engaged in a critical world-wide struggle for industrial supremacy - when the
Soviet Union has already surpassed American coal production and is pressing on to even greater heights - when America
desperately needs all the power and all the production it can obtain - our vital, promising coal industry is being allowed
to suffer and decline by an Administration whose lack of vision and lack of leadership is slowly undermining this great
source of American strength.
Mr. Nixon has said that "Americans are living better today than ever before and they are going to vote that way."
But he hasn't been to West Virginia. He hasn't seen the thousands of miners who want to work and can't find work - he
hasn't seen the thousands of undernourished women and children forced to subsist on a starvation diet of "mollygrub" -
he hasn't watched the steady decline in coal employment from 125,000 in 1948 to less than 50,000 today.
This is the voice of an Administration which hasn't seen what has happened in West Virginia - hasn't wanted to see - and
hasn't cared. This is the voice of an Administration to which human suffering and deprivation are simply cold statistics
in an employment table - an Administration which has blinded itself to America's present needs, and which has little
faith in America's future.
The coal industry is not a defeated industry. It does not come before the government - hat in hand - begging for favors or
asking for charity. For coal is a live, vibrant, dynamic industry. Out of the chaos of lost markets and declining
production has emerged the most modern and progressive industry in the world - an industry which has increased
productivity - an industry which contributes more than two billion dollars to the American economy each and every year
- and an industry which can compete effectively in world markets.
No - coal does not want charity, and coal does not need charity. It only seeks an equal opportunity in our free enterprise
system - a chance to reach its full potential of growth and strength - and an end to the discrimination and indifference
which is destroying it. With these things - with equality of treatment - coal will prosper - men will go back to work -
dignity and a decent living will be restored to thousands - and America itself will grow stronger.
But to achieve this we need more than words - we need more than promises - and more than theories. For, as Franklin
Roosevelt said of the depression, "we are faced with a condition, not a theory." And we must do what Roosevelt himself
did in those earlier times of darkness - we must have action - immediate, forceful, creative action. And under the next
Administration - a Democratic Administration - we will get action. For we intend to see that the mines re-open, that men
go back to work - and that prosperity returns to West Virginia and the entire coal industry - not as a favor to the mines or
the miners, but as a vital need to America.
First, we must immediately establish a National Fuels Policy - a policy which will take the vast, intricate, and often
contradictory network of laws and regulations which govern the nation's fuel industry and weld them into a sound and
logical whole - into a policy which does not discriminate against coal - which does not treat coal unfairly in the matters
of freight rates, taxes or regulation - but which gives it that equal chance to compete which is the precondition to coal
prosperity.
Secondly, we must embark on a broad program of coal research and development to establish new uses for coal -
develop new markets - expand existing uses - and reduce the cost of coal production and distribution. Such a program
was passed by Congress and vetoed by the President. And with it were vetoed the hopes of the coal industry - and the
opportunity to summon the resources of modern science and technology to the aid of coal. But this was the last such
veto. For our next Administration will not only support - it will demand - a new expanded program of research for coal's
future.
Third, we must engage in a great dramatic effort to stimulate a program that holds greater promise for the future of the
coal industry than any other plan or policy yet developed - and that is the building of new steam plants. For coal does
not need to leave here only by rail - it can go "by wire" as well. "Coal by wire" - great steam plants - here in West
Virginia, close to your rich coal deposits - can exhaust untold tons of coal every day in manufacturing power to heat the
homes and run the appliances of the many vast population areas within easy reach of your state. A program of
development loans and tax incentives can encourage the construction of this modern method of producing electricity
which will greatly increase the use of coal. The resources are there - the men are there - the courage and the
determination are there. All that is needed is a little help and a little understanding from Washington.
Fourth, we must encourage - through a program of federal loans and assistance, on a sound economic basis - the long-
term industrial development which is the key to West Virginia's future. New industry - here in West Virginia and in
surrounding states - will provide the surest and most important market for today's coal production - and it will be a
stimulus to increased coal production in the future. Surely a government which can afford to rebuild the economies of
Western Europe can afford to help its own people.
And while we carry out this great, vital program to build coal's future, we must not forget the hungry and poor of today.
Increased unemployment benefits, a broader program of food distribution, better social security - all these are essential
to alleviate present hardship. But what unemployed miners want more than anything else, in my opinion, is to go back to
digging coal. The real guide to future prosperity - to an end of relief and assistance - will only come if we can restore a
sound, productive prosperity to the coal industry.
When Winston Churchill called at the start of World War II for our arms and destroyers, he pleaded: "Send us the tools -
and we will finish the job."
I promise you that voice will be heard.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Wheeling, West

No State in the country has suffered more from the neglect of the federal government than West Virginia. And nowhere
has this neglect been more evident than in our government's unjustified unwillingness to award West Virginia a fair
share of defense contracts.
All over the country the military is spending vast amounts of money to build and maintain our enormous defense
establishment. In many areas this spending means the difference between distress and prosperity, poverty and
abundance, unemployment and fruitful labor. But West Virginia has not been allowed to share in this great national
effort. West Virginia ranks high among the states in productive capacity, natural resources, and available skilled
manpower. Yet of all the 50 states, your State is last in defense payrolls, last in defense employment and last in the
amount of money spent by the Defense Department. As a result, many of West Virginia's plants lie idle, your skilled and
vigorous men are out of work, and your resources are untapped.
Of course, West Virginians do not want charity or special treatment. The people of the City of Wheeling - the City
which produced the leader of West Virginia independence, Archibald Campbell - are not interested in giveaways and
doles. But you are interested in an even break - a fair opportunity for your industry - an equal chance to contribute to our
defense. You have a large skilled labor force, available plants, limitless natural resources, and an ideal geographic
location. You can produce for the nation, you want to produce for the nation, and I say you must and will be allowed to
produce for the nation.
There have been other times in our history when our country's security was imperiled, when we struggled to build a
strong defense. And we did not forget West Virginia then. It was West Virginians who led the American forces to
France in World War I. Thousands of your citizens fought and bled on the far-flung battlefields of World War II,
including one of my closest buddies in the South Pacific. And West Virginia again led the nation in Korea, where a
higher proportion of West Virginians shed their blood in the fight against Communism than those from any other state.
Yes, when there were battles to be fought, when men were needed, when bravery and patriotism and strength were in
demand, the nation turned to West Virginia. But now - with money to be spent, with contracts to be awarded, with
factories to be built, the Pentagon has forgotten West Virginia. But I promise you that you will not be forgotten very
long. For this year we are going to elect a new Administration - a Democratic Administration - an Administration which
will remember what West Virginia has contributed to our country's strength in the past, and which will realize what you
are capable of contributing in the future.
Certainly the people of West Virginia need increased defense spending - and need it badly. You have thousands of men
out of work - substantial areas of poverty, hunger and distress. But our economy and our national defense also need a
strong West Virginia. Surely thousands of unemployed workers in Wheeling or Clarksburg or in other areas of the State
drawing unemployment or assistance payments and living on surplus foods are not contributing to our economic health.
Surely the many idle mines and factories are not contributing to the efficiency of our defense effort. Surely it is
inefficient and uneconomical to waste and dissipate skills and facilities and human and material resources which could
otherwise be utilized in our national production if only a fair share of our defense contracts were given to them.
West Virginia wants to contribute to our nation's defense - it has the manpower and the resources and the productive
capacity which we need - and under the next - Democratic - Administration the strength of West Virginia will once
again be summoned to the nation's service.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Bethany

College, Bethany, West Virginia, April 19, 1960
Today the United States is living better than ever before. We have more swimming pools, freezers, boats and air-
conditioners than the world has ever seen before.
But "the test of our progress," said Franklin Roosevelt, "is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have
By that test, the last several years have been years of economic failure - years of retreat from historic aims. A few
months ago, the annual economic report painted a picture of a fat and complacent nation - a nation of wealth and
abundance - a satisfied nation: satisfied with what it had and satisfies with where it was going. But the truth of the
matter is that behind this report's contented phrases are facts that give us no cause for such satisfaction. They do not
meet the Roosevelt test.
Let us look at some of the phrases and some of the facts.
1. "The increase in national output," said the economic report, "has made possible very great gains in the well-being of
American families."
Yet - in an age of record national income - we have seven million families who must struggle to survive on incomes of
less than $2000 a year. We have more than three million unemployed. We have depressed areas - many of them here in
West Virginia - where one-quarter of the workers have no job, and millions struggle for existence on government food
handouts.
These "very great gains" the report talks about do not include those drawing unemployment compensation, whose
families must get by on an average of $31 a week, or for those whose benefits have run out completely. We have seen
no "very great gains" for 80 percent of our old people, who must survive on substandard incomes - no very great gain in
well-being of seventeen million Americans who suffer from malnutrition while our farms produce ever-costlier
surpluses - no very great gain in the well-being of those who must live in the five million homes that lack plumbing, or
the five million residences which need desperately to be replaced.
2. "The American economy," said the economic report, "has sustained its long-term record of growth." But in fact we
have declined to a growth rate which is only half the record increases of the Roosevelt-Truman era. And in some states
growth has completely stopped. The Soviet Union is expanding its economy three times as fast as the United States. Yet
we have had policies which hold down purchasing power, curb small business, neglect our farms and cities, waste our
natural resources - these are the policies that need to be reversed if we are to increase national income, create national
wealth, and bring the good life to all Americans, while allowing us to meet our obligations abroad.
3. "Notable gains," said the economic report, "have been made in education and other cultural areas."
And yet today millions of young Americans are deprived of a decent education because of overcrowded classrooms - a
lack of competent and well-paid teachers - and the unwillingness of our great, rich nation to ensure that poverty will not
be a bar to higher education for any talented student. And these problems are getting worse as our population expands -
as our schools grow older - as cities and towns are priced out of the teacher market. We are failing - shamefully falling -
to make what the report calls "notable gains" - but we cannot fail education much longer without failing our future as
well.
4. "The economic security of American families," said the economic report, "has been advanced significantly."
But family security has not been advanced significantly when the props beneath that security - fashioned nearly a
generation ago - have been permitted to rust and decay: Minimum wages, social security, unemployment compensation,
aids to housing and farmers and small business. And family security has not been advanced significantly when it is still
subject to the whims of economic fluctuation. We have seen recently two serious recessions and - at the very same time
- serious price inflation, eating away a family's savings, using up wage increases, destroying the value of insurance
policies and pensions. We have seen the highest interest rates in history driving the price of money continually higher,
slowing the construction of badly needed homes, causing a record number of small business failures.
These are just a few of the facts behind the phrases - the hard facts of America's economy, stripped of the cover of
complacent and unjustified words. We are failing to provide for those who have too little. We are increasing our wealth,
but we are failing to use that great wealth to meet the urgent needs of millions of our citizens, and the demands of our
growing nation.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Mount Hope,

I want to talk with you today about the most fundamental subject in life - food.
Most of the nation takes food for granted. When I spoke recently about the millions of Americans who go to bed hungry
each night, my speech was criticized by the Wall Street Journal. Impossible, they said. Not in America. Not with all our
prosperity and all our food surpluses and all our welfare programs.
But the Wall Street Journal ought to come to West Virginia, to this county and to other counties like it. Because people
are hungry here - prosperity has passed them by - food surpluses are rotting in warehouses - and welfare programs are
not enough.
There are some surplus foods distributed by the Department of Agriculture. Some four million Americans depend on
that food - but what kind of food is it? Flour, rice and corn-meal - sometimes some butter, cheese and dry skim milk -
and more flour, rice and corn-meal. Perhaps they'll soon be receiving lard - sometimes there is a small amount of dry
egg solid or dried beans - but it is mostly flour, rice and corn-meal.
That diet is not the basis of a decent existence - a healthful home - a hopeful outlook for the child in school, the father
seeking work, the mother at home. That diet can lead only to malnutrition, chronic disease and physical handicaps. That
diet is the cause of rotten teeth and shattered hopes. That diet is a disgrace in a country that calls itself the land of
opportunity, the richest country on earth, the arsenal of the Free World.
I believe in helping our friends abroad - but I also believe we must help our own at home. In recent years Secretary
Benson has sent overseas under our surplus food disposal program, beef, chickens, turkeys, ducks, pork, sausage,
potatoes, milk, orange juice, peaches, cherries and other fruits and vegetables. He has not sent only flour, rice and corn-
meal. He has not expected our friends overseas to get by on such a subsistence diet, without variety. And he should not
expect our people here at home to get by on such a diet either.
Yet Secretary Benson refuses to put into practice the food stamp program passed by the Democratic Congress as a way
of getting more and better food to those unemployed or otherwise in need. He refuses to recognize that any serious
problem exists. Your Congressmen and Senators have tried to tell him - your school health nurses could tell him - we
have all tried to tell him. But he won't listen. The entire Republican Administration won't listen. Because I don't think
they care.
But Democrats do care. So long as there is one hungry child - so long as there is one family without a decent diet - so
long as any American is forced to get by on flour, rice and corn-meal - the Democrats care. And we will do something
about it.
I tried last year to take this whole program away from Mr. Benson and put it into the hands of someone who cared. That
effort failed. But a Democratic President will not fail. We will see to it that every American is fed and fed right. We will
see to it that those drawing surplus food receive a diet of real substance and variety. And we will see to it that the
Benson era in food surplus - the Republican era - the era of flour, rice and corn-meal - is banished from this land
forever.
We cannot - as a free and proud nation - afford to do any less.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Charleston,

This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. Two drafts of this speech
exist in the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. They are essentially
identical except that the place heading on one of the drafts has the location scratched out and "Huntington" written in
by hand instead.
It has been said in recent weeks that the State of West Virginia is not "typical" of the rest of America - that it is different
and somehow inferior. But I have traveled across your great state and I know that West Virginia is typical of America -
it is typical in the strength and courage and determination of its citizens - it is typical in its desire for a better life for all
men - it is typical in its belief in the great American traditions of freedom and fair play and a brotherhood of men - of all
faiths and races - under God. And it is also a typical victim of the short-sightedness, the blindness, the indifference, and
the lack of faith which have characterized the entire last eight Republican years in Washington.
We hear much in Washington about Republican prosperity and Republican abundance. And we have a President who
travels throughout the world telling of the richness of America. Let him and his Administration come to West Virginia
instead. Let them see, at first hand, the hardship, the poverty and despair which their failures of vision and leadership
have helped to create. Let them see a strong, resourceful State with a courageous and determined people - where almost
a hundred thousand able-bodied men are out of work, and 300,000 people are forced to struggle for existence on a
starvation diet of government surplus foods. Let them see a West Virginia which has contributed much to America's rise
to greatness, which wants to continue to contribute to America's strength, and which is being denied that right to
contribute.
West Virginia is a great and rich State. It has the potential for abundance. It is a state with vast deposits of natural
resources - of coal and gas. It is a state with a skilled, strong labor force. It is a state with a strategic economic location -
within 500 miles of 55% of the American population and four of our five largest metropolitan centers. And it is a state
of unparalleled beauty and recreational attractions - the "Switzerland of America" - a place to which many thousands
more tourists could be attracted.
And yet, in the midst of this great richness - unemployment continues to increase, per capita income goes down,
population declines as young people seek opportunity and jobs elsewhere, and farm income drops to almost one-third of
the national average. These are cold, impersonal figures which tell a human story - a story of hardship, of despair, of
personal tragedy, of hunger and of hopelessness. And they also tell another story - an equally grim story - the story of a
government which has the power to help, which has a duty to help, but which has refused to help - the story of a
government which apparently doesn't care.
Of course West Virginians are not asking for handouts - for charity - or for special treatment. The people of West
Virginia are a proud and independent people - typical of the best in American life. But they do want a chance to work - a
chance to earn a decent living. They do want help in rebuilding their stricken economy.
For they know that such help will repay itself a thousand fold in terms of increased production, a more prosperous
people, and a stronger America. And I can assure you that such help is on the way. For the next Democratic
Administration - an Administration in the great New Deal tradition of Franklin Roosevelt - will know that a stronger
West Virginia is one of the keys to a stronger America.
I offer you a sound program for economic development - a responsible practical program which will put men back to
work, bring new hope to your people, and rebuild your economy.
First on the list is the passage of federal legislation to meet the single, basic, fundamental need of the State of West
Virginia - more jobs for your people. And more jobs means not only helping existing industries - coal and chemical and
glass and pottery - but it also means bringing in new industry to create new jobs. That is why any program of economic
redevelopment for West Virginia - and for the many other distressed sections of this country - must concentrate on
stimulating new industries and new jobs in these hard-hit areas. We Democrats already have legislation which will do
this - which will restore hope and prosperity to West Virginia - a bill which provides long-term loans, technical
assistance, help in rebuilding roads and water supplies - and all the essential prerequisites to economic growth. A
Democratic Congress passed this bill in 1958 - but it was vetoed - vetoed without regard to the suffering and tragedy
that fills the more than 100 distressed communities of heavy unemployment - vetoed by a Republican President, Dwight
D. Eisenhower. But in 1961 - with a Democratic President in the White House - the Administration will not only support
- it will demand - this legislation.
Second, we must restore prosperity to the badly hit coal industry - an industry which is the cornerstone of West
Virginia's economy. We must establish a National Fuels Policy which will end harmful discriminations against coal
fuels. We must embark on a bold, new program of coal research which will find new uses for coal, broaden existing
uses, and decrease the cost of coal distribution. And we must stimulate the increased use of "coal by wire" - the
construction of steam plants which will transform coal power into electric power and carry it to the homes of America,
vastly increasing coal consumption.
Third, we must direct all federal agencies, especially the defense department, to give special preference in awarding
government contracts to areas of substantial unemployment. Today West Virginia, which was first in the proportion of
its men who shed their blood in Korea, is last among the states in the amount of money spent by the Pentagon. West
Virginia deserves a fair share of governmental contracts - and in 1961 it will get a fair share.
Fourth, we should establish a Youth Conservation Corps which will give jobs to young West Virginians and supply a
labor force to work to preserve your vital natural resources and seal off dangerous, abandoned mines.
Fifth, we must have a national program of water resource development, pollution control, and flood control. These were
all great Democratic programs under Roosevelt and Truman. In the past eight years these programs have been neglected
- our water resources have been dissipated - and when Congress itself acted, its efforts have been met with a Republican
veto. We must develop and preserve our great water resources if we are to avoid future disastrous floods, and keep
pollution from completely destroying the beauty and purity of our water.
Sixth, we must develop and preserve our woodlands, our parks, and our other great natural resources. This
Administration has spent less each year for the preservation of our natural resources than Franklin Roosevelt, even
though a dollar bought a lot more conservation twenty years ago than it does today. Increased resource development is
the key to increasing the tourist trade which a beautiful West Virginia should attract - and which the future West
Virginia will attract.
Seventh, we must extend our present programs to relieve present hardship. We must increase unemployment benefits
and social security, and expand our program of food distribution. These programs not only ease present distress, but they
lead to future economic development by creating a healthier people and increasing purchasing power.
With this program - a sound, constructive program - a program of dynamic leadership, of vision and of faith in West
Virginia and in the United States - we can make West Virginia in the future, as it has been in the past, not only a
"typical" state - but a leader for all America.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at South Eugene,

Oregon, April 22, 1960
A few weeks ago, ten nations began negotiations on the most complex and important problem facing the world today -
the problem of disarmament.
creative thinking.
bomb can destroy all higher forms of life in an area of ten-thousand square miles. And the powerful new gases and
deadly bacteria which are now being developed for war promise suffering and devastation in many ways more horrible
than even the threat of nuclear destruction.
But if modern science has made arms control essential - it has also made arms control more difficult. The development
of underground missile launching sites - the growth of nuclear stockpiles - the evolution of new techniques for launching
surprise attacks from beneath the earth, or under the seas or from the air - have all multiplied the difficulties of achieving
arms control - of developing an effective inspection system.
The Soviets will not, in the sixties, or as far as we can foresee, give up their ambitions for world communism. But the
historian Toynbee reminds us that the cold and hot wars waged by a fanatic Islam and crusading Christendom gradually
transformed themselves into centuries of perpetual truce, although both parties retained their universal goals.
Of course, I do not want to minimize the Russian threat. The Soviet Union still believes in the victory of world
do I believe that we can rely for disarmament on merely trusting the word of Soviet leaders - we must have an inspection
system as reliable and as thorough as modern science can devise. But I do believe that under what appears to be a more
fluid and rational atmosphere since the death of Stalin, the Soviet leaders may realize that the path of Russian self-
interest permits - and perhaps compels - them to agree to some steps toward comprehensive arms control.
And if that opportunity comes, we must be ready for it - and we are not ready now. The harsh facts of the matter are that
Less than one-hundred men to plan for what must be the core, the central purpose, and the ultimate object of America's
foreign policy.
We have had Presidential speeches, Presidential advisers, and Presidential commissions on disarmament, but no policy.
We have participated in previous conferences on disarmament, on nuclear testing and on surprise attack - but our
conferees in every instance have been ill-prepared and inadequately instructed. We invited our Western allies to
Washington in January to make joint preparations for the Geneva Conference - but we had no positive proposals of our
own to offer them.
The president has recently announced that he will try to remedy these deficiencies - that he will bring our scattered
disarmament experts together in a single division of the State Department. This is a welcome step forward. But it does
not increase the number of men working on disarmament - it does not assure us of dynamic leadership from the White
House - and it does not, by itself, take us measurably closer to the vast effort which is essential if we are to deal
effectively with the complex problems of peace.
Of course, the President is sincere when he says we want disarmament, but I am also afraid that the rest of the world is
justified in wondering whether we really do.
There are, of course, many powerful voices in the Government - both in and out of the Pentagon - who do not want
disarmament, or, professing to want it, do not really believe in it.
Disarmament to them is still merely a fuzzy ideal for fuzzy idealists. There can be no disarmament, they say, until world
tensions have ceased, or until we know for certain that the Russians will live up to their agreement, or until a foolproof
inspection system can be worked out, or until the Russians give up communism and its dreams of world domination.
There can be no disarmament, in short, according to these Pentagon and other policymakers, until - to use Mr.
Khrushchev's term - "the shrimp whistles."
But who, I ask you, are the true realists - those interested in serious efforts at arms control - or those who talk of war and
weapons as though these were the good old days, in the pre-World War II, or nuclear monopoly, or pre-missile eras?
The world of 1960, the utter folly of the present arms race, requires a new and different look at where we are headed.
We cannot - we must not allow our failures of the past to recur in the future. The world's hopes for peace rest on the
effort for effective arms control - we cannot disappoint those hopes. We must exert all our efforts, our will and our
courage to take the first steps toward arms control.
But such a beginning can lead the way, once the Russians learn that international control and inspection are not
necessarily to be feared; once Americans learn that accommodations are not necessarily appeasement; and once both
sides learn that agreements can be made, and kept.
I do not say that we should rely simply on trust in any agreement. Certainly we need an inspection system which is as
reliable and thorough as modern science and technology can devise. However, even with such a system, there will be
risks. Peace programs involve risks as do arms programs, but the risks of arms are even more dangerous. Those who talk
about the risks and dangers of any arms control proposal ought to weigh - in the scales of national security - the risks
and dangers inherent in our present course. The only alternative to pursuit of an effective disarmament agreement is
reckless pursuit of our present course -the arms race, the gap, the new weapons, the development of ever higher orders
of mutual terror, all of which not only reflect tensions but obviously aggravate them.
I do not look upon arms control negotiations as a substitute for negotiating disputes. Certainly I would never permit an
effort for disarmament to excuse any lag in our defense effort now. For it is an unfortunate fact that, while peace is our
goal, we need greater military security to prevent war - an effective deterrent to encourage talks -and to bargain at those
talks, as I have said, from a position of strength. In fact, as George Kennan has pointed out, we would facilitate the
acceptability of nuclear arms control if we were to increase the strength of our convention forces, as a means of weaning
ourselves away from total nuclear disarmament.
Finally, I would never say that disarmament is a goal easily achieved. It will take more than hard thinking and hard
bargaining - it will require, first of all, hard work.
development and policy-planning needed for a workable disarmament program. It will vastly increase the effort now
being put into disarmament. Essential studies in new techniques of aerial reconnaissance, radar surveillance, and
atmospheric sampling - techniques necessary to the development of the expensive and complex monitoring and
inspection systems which alone can control modern arms - will be carried on by the Institute.
thinking of the Pentagon, the AEC, the State Department and many others into one harmonious program - one united
Perhaps nothing can. But we owe it to all mankind to make an effort. "Give me a fulcrum and a place to stand,"
Archimedes is reported to have said, "and I will move the world." Today we stand at a decisive point in history. Let us
hope that a renewed effort and renewed vision will provide the fulcrum - and perhaps we, too, can move the world - on
the road to world peace.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Chamber of

Commerce Luncheon, North Clackamas, Oregon, April
22, 1960
No area of our economy has suffered more as a result of recent economic policies than the nation's small businesses.
In the last two years more small businesses have failed - more independent operations have gone bankrupt - than in any
two-year period since the great depression - and Oregon has had one of the highest rates of failure in the country. In
1959 alone, more than 14,000 small businesses collapsed and each of these failures represented disappointed hopes -
men out of work - destroyed incomes - and the end of economic independence for another individual businessman.
One of the great challenges of the sixties will be to put an end to this trend - to strengthen the small independent
businessman against the large business units which threaten to crowd him from the American economic scene - and to
reverse the disastrous policies which are destroying this historic cornerstone of our free enterprise system.
First, we must reverse the high interest rate and tight money policies which have cut off vital credit from small
businesses anxious to expand - and from new businesses struggling to survive. Large corporations can finance
themselves out of profits. They are the preferred borrowers of the large banks. But the small businessman must be
satisfied with whatever credit is left over - and, in a tight money economy, he is too often turned away.
Secondly, we must expand the small businessman's sources of credit. The Small Business Administration has failed to
pursue vigorously the goal of the Small Business Investment Act to make long-term credit available to the individual
businessman. This program - and the loan program of the Small Business Administration itself - must be expanded if
small businesses are to get the long-term financing essential to their survival.
Third, we must increase the small business share of our defense effort. In 1959 small businesses - the bulwark of our
economy - received only one out of every six dollars spent for procurement by the Department of Defense. It is true that
much defense work can only be done by large, well-equipped plants. But the fact of the matter is that much of the
production and services now supplied by giant firms could easily be handled by the nation's independent businessmen.
Our government spending should - and must - be directed toward preserving individual enterprise - not toward
strengthening large firms at the expense of all others.
Fourth, we must enforce our nation's anti-trust laws with more vigor. Small business is constantly threatened by the
tendency toward concentration and merger now visible in every area of our economy. Only by forceful and dynamic
anti-trust action will we be able to preserve the American tradition of free competition which the anti-trust laws were
intended to preserve.
These are a few of the necessary steps which we must take immediately if we are to preserve the independence and the
livelihood of our small businessmen in a world of increasing size and increasing concentration of economic power.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Logan, West

There is no industry which has suffered more from government neglect in the last eight years than the coal industry. And
there is no industry which holds greater promise for the future. Eight years of short-sighted policies - of drift and
indecision in Washington - have seen the gradual deterioration of a great industry which has contributed much to
America's strength in the past - and which can and will contribute much more in the future - if it is only given the
chance.
For the coal industry is not a defeated industry. Nor is it looking for charity or handouts. It only seeks an equal
opportunity in our free enterprise system - a chance to reach its full potential of growth and strength - and to put an end
to the discrimination and indifference which is destroying it. For the coal industry today is the most modern and
progressive industry in the world - it contributes two billion dollars a year to America's economy - and it's coal reserves
provide an enormous source of fuel for America's future.
No, the coal industry does not want charity - and it does not need charity. It wants and deserves equal treatment - for
with such treatment coal will prosper - men will go back to work in the mines - dignity and decent living will be restored
to thousands - and America itself will grow stronger.
But to achieve this we need more than words - we need more than promises - and more than theories. For, as Franklin
Roosevelt said of the depression, "we are faced with a condition, not a theory." And we must do what Roosevelt himself
did in those earlier times of darkness - we must have another "New Deal" - a "New Deal" for West Virginia. For
Roosevelt accomplished more in the first one-hundred days of his administration than has been accomplished in eight
full years under the Eisenhower-Nixon Administration. West Virginia - and the country - badly needs another such
period of immediate, forceful, creative action - and under the next, Democratic, Administration we are going to get it.
First, we must immediately establish a National Fuels Policy - a policy which will take the vast, intricate, and often
contradictory network of laws and regulations which govern the nation's fuel industry and weld them into a sound and
logical whole - into a policy which does not discriminate against coal - which does not treat coal unfairly in the matters
of freight rates, taxes or regulation - but which gives it that equal chance to compete which is the precondition to coal
prosperity.
Secondly, we must embark on a broad program of coal research and development to establish new uses for coal -
develop new markets - expand existing uses - and reduce the cost of coal production and distribution. Such a program
was passed by Congress and vetoed by the President. And with it were vetoed the hopes of the coal industry - and the
opportunity to summon the resources of modern science and technology to the aid of coal. But this was the last such
veto. For our next Administration will not only support - it will demand - a new expanded program of research of coal's
future.
Third, we must engage in a great dramatic effort to stimulate a program that holds greater promise for the future of the
coal industry than any other plan or policy yet developed - and that is the building of new steam plants. For coal does
not need to leave here only by rail - it can go "by wire" as well. "Coal by wire" - great steam plants - here in West
Virginia, close to your rich coal deposits - can exhaust untold tons of coal every day in manufacturing power to heat the
homes and run the appliances of the many vast population areas within easy reach of your state. The resources are there
- the men are there - the courage and the determination are there. All that is needed is a little help and a little
understanding from Washington.
Fourth, we must encourage - through a program of federal loans and assistance, on a sound economic basis - the long-
term industrial development which is the key to West Virginia's future. New industry - here in West Virginia and in
surrounding states - will provide the surest and most important market for today's coal production - and it will be a
stimulus to increased coal production in the future. Surely a government which can afford to rebuild the economies of
Western Europe can afford to help its own people.
This is a program for coal - a great, vital program to build coal's future, -- and restore coal to its traditional high place in
the American economy. And we will carry out this program not as a dole - or as a favor to the mines or miners - but as a
vital need for America's present - and as the surest guarantee of America's future.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Williamson,

This Congress and this Administration must act immediately to relieve the economic distress and despair of millions of
America's older citizens - thousands of them here in West Virginia - who are trapped with falling, sub-standard incomes
in a period of rapidly rising prices.
The income, the price and population figures tell the story. They unmistakably reveal the personal poverty and the
dismal want which many of our older citizens must face as they near retirement. Today there are 16 million Americans
over the age of 65 - and the number is growing daily. Three out of every five of these Americans - more than 9.5 million
people - must struggle to survive on an income of under $1,000 a year. Three million more receive less than $2,000 a
year from all sources combined.
We must immediately begin on a bold, creative program to modernize our social security program - to bring it into line
with the costs and the vital needs of the sixties - to ensure our older citizens a decent retirement which they can enjoy in
dignity and freedom from want.
First, we must raise our scale of benefits and we must be sure that future benefits keep pace with rises in the cost of
living - that they are adjusted to meet higher prices. Only in this way can we keep inflation from destroying the
economic welfare of our older citizens.
Second, we must provide a sound and effective program of health insurance for those over 65. This is the time of life
when the need for health care rises sharply. We must permit our older citizens to meet their basic health needs and
expenses.
Third, we must increase the lump sum payment to surviving spouses. These payments are designed to meet the cost of
final illness and funeral expenses. $250 might have been adequate for this purpose twenty years ago, but it does not
begin to meet 1960's costs.
Fourth, we must raise the limit on the amount which older people can earn and still be eligible for social security
benefits. Today if a retired person earns over $100 a month he cannot receive social security. This limit should be raised
so that our older people can supplement their meager benefits with meaningful outside employment.
With this program we can move toward a social security law which is designed for the needs of the sixties - a social
security law of which the richest country on earth can be justly proud - a social security law which will truly provide our
older citizens with a decent and a dignified and a healthy way of life.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Glenwood

Park, West Virginia, April 26, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A reading copy and a press
release of the speech exist in the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. The
texts are essentially identical.
There is no more shameful, tangible monument to the failures of the last eight, Republican years in Washington than the
Administration's failure to provide millions of Americans with an adequate supply of food - and a decent, balanced diet.
Nowhere has this failure been more evident than in West Virginia. Thousands of your citizens - almost 14,000 here in
Mercer County alone - are forced to struggle for subsistence on a diet which consists primarily of flour, rice and corn-
meal - a diet which does not permit a healthy, decent existence - a diet which is causing malnutrition, chronic diseases
and physical handicaps - a diet which is a disgrace to a country which has the most abundant and richest food supply in
the history of the world.
Of course, the people of West Virginia are not contented with handouts from the government. They would like to see the
entire food distribution program come to an end. They would like to see it come to an end because men were back at
work, earning decent wages, and producing a decent diet for themselves and for their families.
But until that day comes - and - I promise you - that day is coming - in 1961 with a Democrat in the White House - until
that day the people of West Virginia need, and must have, a diet which will permit them to live in decency and dignity -
a diet which will maintain the strength of your men - and a diet which will assure the health of your children. And those
of you who depend on surplus food distributions are not getting such a diet today.
It is not that we lack supplies of food. For America has - in great abundance - all the food which is needed to provide a
decent diet for all Americans. But that food is not going to West Virginia.
In recent years Secretary Benson has sent overseas under our surplus food disposal program, beef, chicken, turkeys,
ducks, pork, sausage, potatoes, milk, orange juice, peaches, cherries and other fruits and vegetables. He has not sent only
flour, rice and corn-meal. He has not expected our friends overseas to get by on such a subsistence diet, without variety.
And he should not expect our people here at home to get by on such a diet either. I believe in helping our friends abroad
- but I also believe we must help our own.
Yet Secretary Benson refuses to put into practice the food stamp program - which a Democratic Congress passed as a
way of getting more and better food to those unemployed or otherwise in need. He refuses to recognize that any serious
problem exists. His department refuses to recognize that any problem exists. The entire Republican Administration
won't recognize that a problem exists. Because I don't think they care.
But Democrats do care. So long as there is one hungry child - so long as there is one family without a decent diet - so
long as any American is forced to get by on flour, rice and corn-meal - the Democrats care. And we will do something
about it.
I tried last year to take this whole program away from Mr. Benson and put it in the hands of someone who cared. That
effort failed. But a Democratic President will not fail. We will see to it that every American is fed and fed right - and
that those drawing surplus food receive a diet of real substance and variety.
"Give me men to match my mountains," says an old children's song. West Virginia already has the men to match her
mountains - men of vigor and courage and determination - men who have contributed to America's strength in the past
and who will contribute again in the future. This great human resource - a vital asset for the entire nation - must be kept
strong and well if America herself is to remain strong and well.
And in 1961 - under a Democratic Administration which has banished indifference and neglect from our government
forever - all the people of America will have the varied and abundant diet on which that strength depends. A proud and a
free nation can afford to do no less.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Mullens, West

The past eight years of Republican indifference and neglect have witnessed the steady and disastrous decline of
America’s great and abundant natural resources. And one of the most flagrant and tragic examples of this neglect is to
be found here in Wyoming County: the failure to preserve and develop and protect the Guyandotte River - a stream
which is vitally important to your economy - to your land - and to the health of your people.
Thirty years ago the Guyandotte was a clear and beautiful stream - a place where men could fish - an attraction for
tourists - an invaluable source of water for homes and factories - and a stream which did not threaten your health or your
land.
Today that same Guyandotte has been virtually destroyed by filth and contamination - the fish are gone - the tourists no
longer come - and the water is almost useless. The new industry - with new jobs for your people - which might be
attracted by a clean and abundant water supply has been driven away from Wyoming County. Moreover, since the tragic
floods of 1957, it has become clear that the homes, the property and even the lives of those who live along the banks of
the Guyandotte are constantly threatened by new, and even more devastating destruction.
But this problem is not peculiar to your county or even your state. For, what is true of the Guyandotte is true throughout
the nation. Almost every major river in the country is a victim of pollution. And uncontrolled, rampaging flood waters
all over the country cause a billion dollars worth of damage each year, and take an incalculable toll in human life and
human welfare. No - the problem is not yours alone - it is a national problem.
And the failure to act has been a national failure. Every Democratic effort to encourage the development of our
country’s lakes and rivers - our vital water resources - has been met with Republican indifference, Republican
opposition and with Republican vetoes. Every Democratic effort to make a sound investment in our resources - an
investment in America’s future - has been halted by policies of little faith and less action.
Of course the people of Wyoming County, like all the people of West Virginia - are not looking for charity or for
giveaways. You do not expect or want the federal government to solve all your problems. But you do want - and deserve
- help and understanding from your government. Help and understanding which will allow you to restore and develop
your own rivers - which will help you to bring new industry and new jobs to your county - which will let men go back to
work - and which will permit you and your children to enjoy the great natural beauty which was your heritage and which
man’s blindness has taken away.
First, we must have an immediate, effective program of pollution control. This year a Democratic Congress passed a bill
which would have given you a limited supply of federal funds - to be matched with your own money and your own
determination - to help to build pollution control projects. Such a bill would have helped you to restore the purity of the
Guyandotte - providing abundant water supplies for your future economy - and repaying its small cost many times over
in terms of increased prosperity and improved health. But it was vetoed by a Republican President. I can promise you
that the next President - a Democratic President - will put such a program right at the top of his agenda.
Secondly, we must immediately embark on an extensive program of flood control. In 1957 President Eisenhower
declared your county an official disaster area. But an even worse disaster has occurred since that time - the disastrous
failure to do anything to keep those floods from coming again. We cannot have a policy which wants to save a few
dollars today at the expense of a costly future destruction of life and prosperity. In 1961 - under a Democratic President -
you will have the help you need - the help that is necessary to safeguard your homes and your families from new and
more devastating floods.
With these programs - the programs of a forward-looking, dynamic Democratic Administration - an Administration in
the great conservation tradition of Franklin Roosevelt - the Guyandotte, and all the many productive rivers of this great
land, can flow pure and uncontaminated to the sea. And the people along the banks of those rivers will live free from the
fear of floods and hopeful of the prosperity which our abundant resources can bring.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Hinton, West
The single, critical, overriding need of the people of Summers County - and the people of all of West Virginia - is the
development of new industry - industry which will bring you new jobs and increased income. And one of the brightest
hopes of meeting this need is the use of your priceless heritage of natural beauty to attract tourists from all over the
nation.
You have the resources - the streams and woods and lakes - necessary to develop a tourist industry. Your people have
the courage and determination and vigor that is needed. Your state authorities have acted with vision to the limit of their
resources. All that you lack is a little understanding and a little help from Washington.
For the Bluestone Park area and the Bluestone River are among the most beautiful and attractive vacation spots in the
nation. In fact your entire State - “the Switzerland of the Americas” should be a favored stopping place for many of the
more than thirty million Americans who take a vacation trip each year. Yet - in the past eight years - this great natural
beauty has been allowed to decay - your forests and parks have gone virtually undeveloped - and increasing pollution
has threatened the beauty and health of your rivers. Only by acting now to halt this threatened destruction - by acting to
preserve this great natural abundance - can we assure future generations of Americans of their chance to enjoy the
recreation and the beauty, which has been the historic heritage of West Virginia. And only by such action can the people
of West Virginia be sure of the new jobs and the increased income, which a booming tourist industry will bring.
First, we must act immediately to stop the destructive filthying of our lakes and rivers - a growing contamination, which
is destroying vitally, needed recreational areas. Already many of West Virginia’s most beautiful waterways have been
destroyed by contamination - and growing pollution threatens the Bluestone River itself - pollution which will, unless it
is halted, destroy its beauty - kill its fish - and make it unsafe for swimming and water skiing. And the problem of
pollution does not affect West Virginia alone - it is menacing all the major waterways of our country. But, despite this
growing crisis in water the Administration has vetoed all of Congress’ efforts to deal with this problem - it has rejected
the vital water pollution control program - which was our only real hope of solving the pollution problem. The next,
Democratic, Administration must support - not destroy - this vital program - if a tourist industry for West Virginia is to
become a reality.
Secondly, we must engage in a vastly expanded federal program to help the states in the development of vital forest and
park areas. Certainly you are ready and willing to do much of this job yourself - and your state authorities are able and
active. But you do need help and assistance from the federal government - help and assistance which only a national
effort can offer. For example, Federal Forest Research laboratories might well develop new uses for your forest products
- especially your abundant oak wood. These new uses would not only bring new prosperity to your timber industry - but
it would help provide the necessary funds for the development of camps and other badly needed recreational areas. Yet
the government has let our forest research program virtually die out from lack of funds - many of our laboratories are
operating at less than 50% of capacity. A Democratic Administration will revitalize and expand this program.
These programs - and many others - such as watershed development, flood control, and fisheries research - are
absolutely necessary to the preservation of America’s great recreational abundance. The Republican failures to carry out
these programs have been produced by policies of little vision - policies of false economy - policies which view a dollar
saved now as more important than an investment in our future strength -- our future needs - our future health - and future
greatness. As a result we have piled up an enormous deficit in wasted resources - lost recreational areas - destroyed
natural beauty - contaminated water - and diminished stock of wildlife and fish.
The elimination of this deficit is one of the great challenges to the Democratic Party. We intend to meet this challenge -
to develop our great natural resources - so that the people of Summers County and all Americans will benefit fully from
the great natural beauty with which their land has been blessed.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Concord

College, Athens, West Virginia, April 27, 1960
All of you are familiar with the motto credited to Francis Bacon, but actually traceable back to ancient scriptures, that
reads: "Knowledge is power - Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est." No doubt that slogan has appeared on many a school or
teachers' college bulletin board. But now this truism is truer than ever before, a statement that sums up volumes of prose
about the cold war. Which nation has the scientific personnel and know-how to develop the rockets which will carry
men to outer space - reconnaissance satellites - a defense against intercontinental missiles? How long will the West
retain its dwindling lead in productivity and living standards - to what extent can it export to its less wealthy friends the
capital, the technical assistance, the skills and other knowledge they need? The answers to these questions over the long
run are in the hands of our nation's teachers. We no longer complacently believe that the educational and scientific
capabilities of this country cannot be duplicated elsewhere. We recognize that the race for advantage in the Cold War is
not only a competition of armaments, production, ideology, propaganda and diplomacy but a race of education and
research as well.
The advantages which will enable the United States to win this race, however, whether they take the form of better
proximity fuses or new uses for coal will not instantly spring up in the hour they are required. There is a lag of from five
to ten years between the results of fundamental research and the practical applications of those results. Before that
research can even take place, several years of training and experience are required; and even before that, the mind of the
future scientist must be properly molded and stimulated by his elementary and secondary school teachers.
Mr. Khrushchev's boasts about Soviet science help to point up how critical this race has become. The Soviet Union
already has available for this work more engineers and scientists than we presently have in any capacity in this country,
and very nearly as many as this country and Western Europe combined. In recent years, the output of new engineers and
scientists in the U.S.S.R. has surpassed that of the total United States and Western Europe graduating classes in these
fields - their current enrollment of such students in institutions of higher education exceeds our own - and we are already
falling short of even our current needs. Their lead may become even more serious, and in the most critical areas of
technical knowledge within the next decade, according to Allen Dulles of the CIA, "unless we quickly take new
measures to increase our facilities for scientific education."
It is apparent, too, that this lead is not merely one of numbers, but of quality as well. A special study by the Joint Atomic
Energy Committee of the Congress concluded that "the training given Soviet engineers and scientists is of a high order
and compares favorably with the best in the United States and Europe."
The same study pointed up the responsibility of our public school systems in this area. The teaching of the physical
sciences and mathematics in our secondary schools has declined; about half of those with talents in these fields who
graduate from high school are either unable or uninterested in going to college; and of the half who enter college,
scarcely 40 percent graduate. The task of reversing these disturbing trends is in large measure up to our public schools
and their teachers. It is up to our teachers' colleges and their graduates.
In short, our position in the world and our hopes for survival ten, twenty or thirty years from now depend in large
measure upon the kind of education which you entering the teaching profession are able to offer your pupils today.
But we need something more than a nation of scientists and technicians - something more than an arsenal of super-
weapons and ingenious inventions. We must have men and women capable of leading the "free world," of taking the
hard and unpopular decisions necessary to preserve world peace and national security. In our concern over the education
of more scientists and engineers for the future America, we dare not neglect the education of its politicians.
I realize that most Americans, including educators, are not accustomed to thinking of us politicians as educated men. We
may be experienced, or cynical, or skillful, or shrewd or even fluent - but no more education is required for this kind of
success, it is assumed, than how to find one's way around a smoke-filled room. Successful politicians, according to
Walter Lippmann, are "insecure and intimidated men," who "advance politically only as they placate, appease, bribe,
seduce, bamboozle, or otherwise manage to manipulate" the views and votes of the people who elect them. It was
considered a great joke years ago when the humorist Artemas Ward declared: "I am not a politician, and my other habits
are also good." And, in more recent times, even the President of the United States, when asked at a news conference
early in his first term how he liked "the game of politics," replied with a frown that his questioner was using a
"derogatory" phrase. Being President, he said, is "a very fascinating experience … but the word 'politics' … I have no
great liking for that."
But under our form of government, we must put our ultimate faith in ordinary men, not machines or experts. In the
words of Thomas Jefferson: "If we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, (then) the remedy is not to take it from them - but to inform their discretion by education."
"To inform their discretion by education" - that is the task of every teacher in every city and village in America. The
students of today who may discourage their teachers, harass them, and hopefully sometimes cheer them include the
leaders and diplomats of tomorrow. Prince Bismarck once said that one-third of the students in Germany broke down
from dissipation; one-third broke down from overwork; but the other third ruled Germany. (I leave it to each of you to
decide which third becomes teachers.)
But in this country there can be no doubt that our educated and thinking citizens must of necessity be among the rulers
of our land. The only question is what kind of education they need and will receive. Permit me to offer a few
suggestions from my vantage point in the political arena.
First, I would emphasize that we need not an over-concentration upon civic and political affairs, but the development of
a broad range of talents. We do not need men like Lord John Russell, of whom Queen Victoria once said that he would
be a better man if he knew a third subject - but he was interested in nothing but the Constitution of 1688 and himself.
We do not need the kind of political education once described by Lord Bryce as "sufficient to enable them to think they
know something about the great problems of politics, but insufficient to show them how little they know." We need
instead men with the education of Thomas Jefferson, described by a contemporary as "A gentleman of 32, who could
calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice, try a cause, break a horse, dance a minuet, and play
the violin." We need men like Daniel Webster, who could throw thunderbolts at Hayne on the Senate Floor and then
stroll a few steps down the corridor and dominate the Supreme Court as the foremost lawyer of his time; like John
Quincy Adams, who, after being summarily dismissed from the Senate for a notable display of independence could
become Boylston Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory at Harvard and then become a great Secretary of State. (Those were
the happy days when Harvard professors had no difficulty getting Senate confirmation.)
discussing political issues and deploring their solutions with learned phrases. For, as George William Curtis asked a
similar body of educators a century ago, in urging their interest in the Kansas-Nebraska controversy: "Would you have
counted him a friend of ancient Greece who quietly discussed the theory of patriotism on that Greek summer day
through whose hopeless and immortal hours Leonidas and his three hundred stood at Thermopylae for Liberty? Was
John Milton to conjugate Greek verbs in his library, or talk of the liberty of the ancient Shunamites, when the liberty of
Englishmen was imperiled?"
It is not enough, therefore, that our schools merely be great centers of learning, without concerning themselves with the
uses to which that learning is put in the years that follow graduation. Indeed, care must be taken to see that it is not all
left behind upon graduation. Dean Swift, you know, always said that Oxford was truly a seat of great learning; for all
freshmen who entered were required to bring some learning with them in order to meet the standards of admission - but
no senior, when he left the University, ever took any learning away, and thus it steadily accumulated.
Third, I would emphasize the importance, in teaching students about public affairs, of avoiding the confusion of political
idealism with political fantasy or rigidity. We need idealism in our public life - we need young men and women who
will stand for the right regardless of their personal ambitions or welfare. But let us not permit them to carry that idealism
to the point of fantasy - to the point where any compromise or concession is regarded as immoral. For politics and
legislation are not matters for inflexible principles or unattainable ideals. Politics, as John Morely has acutely observed,
"is a field where action is one long second best, and where the choice constantly lies between two blunders;" and
legislation, under the democratic way of life and the Federal system of government, requires compromise between the
desires of each individual and group and those around them.
extinction. The question remains as to whether our educational system today is capable of meeting this challenge - or
whether a shortage of teachers, a shortage of classrooms, a shortage of money and a consequent lack of high quality
education will not in the long run prove to be the undoing of our nation.
That public education is in a state of crisis today is well known. There is less agreement on the cause and on the cure. I
can only hope that those who recognize the urgent need of improving public education in this country will not exhaust
their efforts in looking for a scapegoat, but will join in attacking the problem at its very roots.
The responsibility for ending this crisis, in my opinion, must be shared at three levels - Federal, State and local.
First, The Federal Government, which has far greater as well as more effective means for raising public revenues, has an
unavoidable responsibility of approving promptly a bold and imaginative program of federal assistance to the states and
local school districts for the construction of public schools, leaving all direction of academic content and standards, of
course, in local hands. Our teachers cannot be expected to fulfill their critical responsibilities when millions of boys and
girls are deprived by the classroom shortage of full-time schooling, or are held back in unwieldy classes of 40 or more.
We need this year at least 135,000 additional classrooms to meet their requirements. The valiant efforts of state and
local authorities must be supplemented by Federal action to meet this nationwide problem.
But more and better classrooms are not enough. More and better teachers are also needed, better trained, better paid,
better utilized. Here the state and local authorities share responsibility with the Federal Government. And it is not a
question of quantity alone. Many states actually have too many teachers' colleges which are, as a result, too small, too
poorly financed and staffed, and too ill-equipped in terms of physical plant, libraries, laboratories and other facilities.
Authorities on the State level could also take steps to improve teacher certification, re-examining outmoded statutory
requirements, maintaining and gradually elevating minimum standards, and providing - for those who do pass - a sense
of accomplishment and prestige, comparable to that given those who are admitted to the legal and medical professions.
Finally, a large measure of responsibility for improving the quality of teaching in our schools rests with our local school
board and school administrators. Not as a United States Senator, but as an interested citizen, I would respectfully
suggest that present methods for recruiting teachers might be re-examined - to attract the best students, to select the best
graduates, to compete in the labor market with the expertly developed recruitment methods of American business.
During this past school year, 50,000 teachers were on the job who had no adequate preparation or training for that job.
Yet still another 50,000 teachers were desperately needed to relieve over-crowded classrooms, to enable children to go
to school fulltime, or to teach the essential courses which simply were not being covered.
Once teachers are recruited and hired, more can be done to improve the methods of teacher promotion. We must find
better means for providing better rewards for our better teachers; we must make actual use of probationary periods to
retain only those with satisfactory performance records; and we must demonstrate concretely to young beginners in the
field that real opportunities for advancement await those whose contribution is of the highest caliber.
More can be done, also, in terms of better teacher utilization - removing dull and burdensome administrative details and
paperwork that might better be done by electronic computers or parent volunteers.
And finally, and perhaps most important, the Federal and State Governments - school boards, school patrons and all of
our citizens - must cooperate in the effort to achieve better teachers' salaries. No profession of such importance in the
United States today is so poorly paid. No other occupational group in the country is asked to do so much for so little. No
amount of new classrooms, television, training and recruitment techniques can attract and retain good teachers as long as
their salaries are beneath the responsibility and dignity of their position. We pay the average railway conductor nearly
twice as much as we pay the teacher who conducts our elementary classes. Plumbers, plasterers and steamfitters are paid
more for improving our homes than we pay teachers for improving the minds of our children. Here too the Federal
Government must help the states do the job with an adequate program of federal assistance to raise teachers' salaries.
Help from the Federal level for more and better classrooms and higher teachers' salaries - help from the State level for
better teachers' colleges and better teacher certification, help from the local level for better teacher recruitment, better
teacher promotion, better teacher utilization and better teacher salaries - those are the goals toward which must move all
those who recognize that in the hands of our teachers lies the fate of the nation.
"Knowledge is power," said Francis Bacon; it is also light. In the dark and despairing days ahead, our youth shall need
all the light the teaching profession can bring to bear upon the future.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Bluefield State

College, Bluefield, West Virginia, April 27, 1960
creative thinking.
bomb can destroy all higher forms of life in an area of ten thousand square miles. And the powerful new gases and
Yet, despite these difficulties, I believe that today's international climate, more than ever before, holds out the
possibilities for an effective start on arms control. For the Russians realize, as we ourselves realize, that the spread of
nuclear weapons to other nations may upset the balance of power and increase the danger of accidental war - that a war
of mutual destruction would benefit no one nation or ideology - that funds devoted to weapons of destruction cannot be
do I believe that we can rely for disarmament on merely trusting the word of the Soviet leaders - we must have an
inspection system as reliable and as thorough as modern science can devise. But I do believe that under what appears to
be a more fluid and rational atmosphere since the death of Stalin, the Soviet leaders may realize that the path of Russian
self-interest permits - and perhaps compels - them to agree to some steps toward comprehensive arms control.
foreign policy.
conferees in every instance have been ill prepared and inadequately instructed. We invited our Western allies to
Washington in January to make joint preparation for the Geneva Conference - but we had no positive proposals of our
own to offer them.
The President has recently announced that he will try to remedy these deficiencies - that he will bring our scattered
House - and it does not, in itself, take us measurably closer to the vast effort which is essential if we are to deal
There are, of course, many powerful voices in the government - both in and out of the Pentagon - who do not want
There can be no disarmament, in short, according to these Pentagon and other policymakers, until – to use Mr.
courage to take the first steps toward arms control.
But such a beginning can lead the way, once the Russians learn that international control and inspection are not
necessarily to be feared; once Americans learn that accommodations are not necessarily appeasement; and once both
sides learn that agreements can be made, and kept.
reckless pursuit of our present course - the arms race, the gap, the new weapons, the development of ever higher orders
effort for disarmament to excuse any lag in our defense effort now. For it is an unfortunate fact that, while peace is our
goal, we need greater military security to prevent war - an effective deterrent to encourage talks - and to bargain at those
development and policy planning needed for a workable disarmament program. It will vastly increase the effort now
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Earlham
College, Richmond, Indiana, April 29, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A reading copy and press
releases for the speech exist in the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. The
texts are essentially identical.
creative thinking.
bomb can destroy all higher forms of life in an area of ten-thousand square miles. And the powerful new gases and
weapons to other nations may upset the balance power and increase the danger of accidental war - that a war of mutual
destruction would benefit no one nation or ideology - that funds devoted to weapons of destruction cannot be used to
raise the living standards of their own people or to help the economies of underdeveloped nations.
today - during the Geneva negotiations - we have less than 100 full time men, scattered through a dozen agencies,
foreign policy.
Washington in January to make joint preparations for the Geneva Conference - but we had no positive proposals of our
own to offer them.
The President has recently announced that he will try to remedy these deficiencies - that he will bring our scattered
House - and it does not, by itself, take us measurably closer to the vast effort which is essential if we are to deal
disarmament, or professing to want it, do not really believe in it.
There can be no disarmament, in short, according to these Pentagon and other policymakers, until to use Mr.
Khrushchev's term - "the shrimp whistles".
weapons as though these were the good old days in the pre-World War II, or nuclear monopoly, or pre-missile eras? The
world of 1960, the utter folly of the present arms race, requires a new and different look at where we are headed.
courage to take the first halting steps toward arms control - perhaps in the form of a ban on nuclear testing.
Such a beginning - even though far removed from actual disarmament - can perhaps lead the way, once the Russians
learn that international control and inspection are not necessarily to be feared; once Americans learn that
accommodations are not necessarily appeasement; and once both sides learn that agreements can be made, and kept.
I do not say that we should rely simply on trust in any agreement. Certainly, we need an inspection system which is as
about the risks and dangers of any army control proposal ought to weigh - in the scales of national security - the risks
effort for disarmament to excuse any lag in our defense effort now. For it is an unfortunate fact that while peace is our
This institute - under the immediate direction of the President - will carry on and coordinate all the research,
inspections systems which alone can control modern arms - will be carried on by the institute.
The institute will also make plans to facilitate the conversion from a war economy to a peace economy. And it will
But a new agency alone is not enough. It must be supported by all the agencies of our government - and above all by the
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy in Indiana, April
29, 1960
We meet together on the eve of the great campaign of 1960. Next week the voters of Indiana will participate in the vital
national process of selecting a candidate for President - a process which - "after eight gray years" - to use F.D.R.'s
phrase - after eight years of drift and indecisions - will restore strong - creative - Democratic leadership to the White
House.
Never was this process of selecting a candidate more important - more meaningful - than it is today. For during the
coming year we will select not merely a party favorite, but a national leader for the fabulous, demanding sixties. We will
not merely reward party service - we will choose a man to be the center of activity and energy in our entire
governmental system. Only if the parties choose their candidates well - only then will the American people next
November be able to select a man equipped with the qualities which our country, and our age, demand. And I am
confident that in their search for such a man the people of this country will turn to the Democratic Party.
For the Democratic Party has three vital assets in this election - assets which will be decisive if we know how to use
them - if we bring them to the people. The first is the record of eight years of Republican rule - eight years in which
some of America's great strength has been dissipated. The second is the Democratic Party's tradition of a dynamic,
progressive leader in the White House - the tradition of faith in America's strength and the will to use that strength in the
interests of all the people - the great tradition of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman. And
the third is the Democratic Party's willingness to submit its choice of candidates to the people.
The Republican Party has not asked the American people for their views on who their candidate should be. Their heir to
the throne - the lone surviving heir - Mr. Nixon - has been carefully pre-selected by his party's entrenched interests - pre-
digested for the American people's consumption - and pre-packaged for sale to the American voter. And he has entered
your primary simply because he believes that a safely Republican Indiana will give him more votes than any Democrat.
But we Democrats realize that the days when Presidential candidates can be nominated in smoke-filled rooms, by
political leaders and party bosses, have forever passed from the scene. We realize that for 50 years no Republican or
Democrat has reached the White House without entering and winning at least one contested primary - that no man has
won a national election who was unwilling to test his candidacy with the people - that no man has ever occupied the
position of Chief Executive until he first occupied one of several positions on the primary ballot. It is true that
conventions have occasionally chosen a candidate who never ran in a contested primary - but such conventions have not
produced Presidents. And it is because of this faith in the people - and because of the great need for Democratic
leadership - that I believe that the people of Indiana - next Tuesday - will upset Mr. Nixon's plans and demonstrate their
overwhelming support of the Democratic Party.
I am sorry that there are some members of the Democratic Party who regard Presidential primary contests with
indifference - who have forgotten these great lessons of history - who, by refusing to enter your primary, have denied
you an open choice among the candidates - who have failed to recall the words of Thomas Jefferson that there are
always, in effect, "two parties: Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to (take) all power from them - (and)
those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, and consider them as the most honest and
safe… depositary of the public interest." We Democrats have traditionally been the second party - the party which
identifies itself with the people - the party which realizes that only those candidates with faith and confidence in the
people and their wisdom can count on receiving that faith and confidence at the polls in November.
It is appropriate that Indiana should take an important part in this vital - democratic - process of primary selection. For
the first Presidential Primary law in this state dates all the way back to 1915. And in every one of the five Presidential
election years in which Indiana has had a primary law on the books the nation has elected a President who ran in
Indiana. The road to the White House has led through Indiana. And the strength of your votes next week - the
confidence you show in the Democratic Party - will again lead the way to the White House - and lead the Democratic
Party to victory.
Next week the eyes of the entire nation will be on Indiana. Your votes - your actions - will be carefully weighed, and
analyzed, and sifted. And rightly so. For you will not merely be selecting a candidate - you will not merely be
demonstrating the great and growing strength of the Democratic Party - you will be expressing your judgment on the
great issues of our time - you will be demanding strong, creative leadership to meet the great challenges of the decade
that lies ahead - a fateful decade of decision - a decade whose course will decide the issues of peace or war - survival or
destruction.
Your votes will be the voice of the people of Indiana - a voice that will be heard across the nation - throughout the free
world - and in the hidden recesses of the Kremlin. Let there be no note of doubt - or indecision - or hesitation - in that
voice. Let Indiana next week - as it has in the past - signal the rebirth of American will - the restoration of American
vision - the beginning of America's time for greatness.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Howard

County Court House, Indiana, April 29, 1960
The greatest domestic challenge facing the next President will be the challenge of agriculture. The greatest challenge he
faces abroad will be, of course, the challenge of peace - of strengthening the underdeveloped world against the
instabilities that lead to either communism or war.
These two great challenges merge into a single challenge - at one point at least - summed up in three powerful words:
Food for Peace.
Two-thirds of the people of the world are underfed and undernourished - hundreds of millions know the pangs of
unsatisfied hunger each and every day of their life - millions perish from diseases produced by malnutrition - and
thousands actually starve to death every year.
And yet, at the same time, America's great storehouses are overflowing with the great abundance of our land - with nine
billion dollars worth of surplus foods - wheat and corn, rice and oils and cotton - food which we cannot consume here at
home. Only America has too much food in a hungry world.
This vast world-wide shortage of food is one of the major obstacles to world peace. Hunger, and the disease it produces,
create disillusionment and discontent among the underdeveloped nations of Africa, Asia, and the Near East -
disillusionment and discontent which provide a fertile breeding ground for communist revolution. And this same
shortage of food also slows down the economic development of much of the free world. Limited resources which are
badly needed for industrial development - for schools, and power and roads - or for raising living standards in other
ways - must be used to buy food from abroad.
Faced with this paradox of American surpluses in the face of world hunger, Congress in 1954 passed the famous Public
Law 480 - an imaginative and badly needed piece of legislation which permits the United States to donate, barter or sell
its agricultural surpluses abroad for foreign currencies.
Under this law we have sold more than five billion dollars in surplus foods. Tens of millions of people who would have
gone hungry have been fed. And, in addition, much of the foreign currency which we received for our food has been
reinvested in vitally needed economic development projects abroad. Public Law 480, India's Prime Minister Nehru has
said, has been America's greatest single contribution to Asian strength and Asian freedom.
But as beneficial as this law has been - as much as it has accomplished - it is not enough. Our surpluses are still piling up
- we still look upon our great agricultural productivity as a curse and a burden - millions are still hungry abroad - and the
threat of communism is still growing.
It is time, therefore, for this nation to try a bold new expansion of our food for peace program - with new goals, and new
steps forward, to relieve our farm surpluses, and to turn our great agricultural abundance into a blessing - for ourselves,
and for all the world. I shall propose three steps for such a program - three steps by which we can truly use our food for
peace.
First, we should store one-half of our grain surplus abroad - in food banks in the underdeveloped countries. These food
banks would serve as visible, tangible believable insurance against disease and famine, and would symbolize America's
determination that no man shall starve while we have food to spare.
The food would be stored at the expense of the recipient countries, in warehouses built with foreign currencies. And this
country, as a result, would soon begin to save the taxpayers a large part of the one billion dollars a year which it now
costs us to store our surplus. For example, it now costs twenty cents a year to store a bushel of grain. It would cost 38
cents to ship that same bushel of wheat to India. Thus, after two years of storage abroad, we would have made up the
full cost of shipment - and started saving money compared to our present costly storage program.
No matter how it is viewed - financially, politically or morally - the idea of food storage banks abroad - subject to
mutually agreed upon controls - makes sense. They would form a reservoir of food in time of famine - an assured supply
of food for purchase in time of shortage or rising prices - -and a source of confidence and hope to the people of the free
world that hunger would never halt their efforts to build a modern, strong and free economy.
Secondly, we must remove P.L. 480's outmoded restrictions on the use we can make of foreign currencies. We must be
free to take advantage of the tremendous opportunities which await us. For example, most of the free world faces a
critical shortage of schools and teachers. By using these currencies to help supply badly needed educational facilities,
we can help provide the resources of thought and skill essential to successful economic development.
Third, we must take advantage of the fact that we are not the only country with a large agricultural capacity - -that other
countries too may have "food for peace." We must begin to work with these other nations - nations such as Canada and
Australia - to join hands in a great international effort to use our agricultural abundance for the economic and social
development of the free world.
These are some of the ways in which we can begin to use more effectively our abundant food for peace. Norman
Cousins has written that "when I enter my home I enter with the awareness that my table is only half set, for half the
men on this earth know the emptiness of want..." Tonight all the tables in America are only half set in this sense - and
they remain half set until we can begin to use our richness, our abundance and our great resources to drive want away
from the tables of men everywhere.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at St. Albans,

One of the most shameful and shocking failures of this Administration has been its failure to provide a decent and a
dignified way of life for our older citizens. Because of this failure millions of Americans over the age of sixty-five have
been condemned to a life of personal poverty, dismal hardship and lonely want. They must struggle for survival on
meager, inadequate social security benefits which fall far short of meeting today's high cost of living. This is the failure
of an indifferent Administration - of an Administration which has failed to give full attention to America's problems - a
half-hearted, part-time Administration.
And nowhere has this Administration failure had greater impact than in . You have approximately 164,000 citizens over
the age of 65. More than 70,000 of them have an average annual income of less than $1500 - 71,000 more manage a
bare subsistence living on Federal social security benefits averaging $829 a year - and 20,000 must attempt to survive on
an average income of under $400. These incomes are a meager, pitiful reward for the richest country on earth to offer to
those who have contributed a lifetime of productive labor to that country's strength. These are shocking incomes -
incomes which cry out for action - incomes which must be raised.
This poverty and hardship turn into heartbreak and despair when illness threatens. For no costs have increased more
rapidly in the last decade than the cost of medical care. Medicines and drugs are more expensive than ever before -
hospital rates have more than doubled - doctor bills have skyrocketed.
And these rising costs have had their greatest impact on our older citizens. Almost 20 per cent of all those on social
security must use one-quarter to one-half of their meager annual incomes for medical expenses alone. Those over 65
suffer from chronic diseases at almost twice the rate of our younger population - they spend more than twice as many
days restricted to bed - and they must visit a doctor almost twice as often. And even these impressive figures do not tell
us of the uncounted thousands who suffer from a lack of needed medical care - from a lack of vital drugs - and from a
lack of hospitalization - simply because they cannot afford to pay the bills.
These rising medical costs only intensify the already severe economic distress of our older citizens - economic distress
which should and must be relieved with an extension of social security - not by forcing those over 65 to ask for public
charity. For our older citizens should not have to ask for charity. They want more than charity - they deserve more than
charity - and a Democratic Administration must see that they get more than charity.
For in the face of such appalling conditions - in the face of this breakdown of our entire social security system - in the
face of the indifference and neglect of the Republican Administration in - men naturally turn to the leadership of the
Democratic Party. It was the government of Franklin Roosevelt which gave us the first social security system - and the
first vision of an America where older people could live out their years in dignity and freedom from want. It was the
government of Harry Truman which fought to broaden this law - to bring it into line with the new conditions of a new
day. And it will be the next Democratic Administration - the Administration of the sixties - which will again assure our
older citizens of a decent and a dignified and a healthy way of life.
First, we must raise our scale of benefits - and we must make sure that these new benefits are never again allowed to fall
behind rising prices. This can be done by providing for an automatic adjustment of benefits to keep pace with rises in the
cost of living. Only in this way can we keep inflation from destroying the economic welfare of our older citizens.
Second, we must provide a sound and effective program of health insurance for those over 65. We can no longer afford
to have the life savings, the homes and the few possessions of our older citizens wiped out by the sudden onslaught of
illness. We must provide for the health and well-being of our older citizens.
Third, we must increase the lump-sum payment to surviving spouses. These payments are designed to meet the cost of
final illness and funeral expenses. Two hundred and fifty dollars might have been adequate for this purpose 20 years
ago, but it does not begin to meet 1960's costs.
Fourth, we must raise the limit on the amount which older people can earn and still be eligible for social security
benefits. Today if a retired person earns over $1200 he cannot receive social security. This limit should be raised so that
our older people can supplement their meager benefits with meaningful outside employment.
Fifty years ago, when the British Parliament first held hearings on the poverty of the aged, Winston Churchill wrote that
there were some members "appalled by what they have seen, whose only idea is to slam the door on the grim and painful
prospect which has been revealed to their eyes." But there are others, he wrote, who "are prepared to descend into the
abyss, and grapple with its evils - as sometimes you see after an explosion at a coal mine a rescue party advancing into
the smoke and steam."
Today in there are those who would shut the door of hope on our older citizens - who would deny them benefits
adequate to eliminate poverty and despair. But there are others who will not let that door be closed - who intend to fight
for the right of all men to live out their lives in dignity and in health. That rescue party is on the way - and there are
more of us - and we are stronger - and we will prevail.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at South

Charleston, West Virginia, April 30, 1960
By far the most urgent and critical need of the State of West Virginia is the need to bring new industry - new jobs and
new incomes - to your State. That one goal overshadows all others in importance. That one goal is the object of your
most determined struggles, your efforts and your hopes. And that one goal must be at the very top of the agenda of the
next - Democratic - President - the President we are going to elect this year.
Here, in South Charleston, you have one of the most demanding and important examples of the need for new industry.
Your once dynamic and expanding Naval Ordnance Plant - a plant which once employed more than 11,000 men - has
been slowly closing down as the government prepares to abandon it completely. In time of war this vital plant
contributed strategic materials - vital supplies and important armor plate - to the great American victory - your factory
was the pride of the nation. But today - in a time of unprecedented peacetime prosperity - the Administration has
decided that it has no more use for South Charleston. It offers no hope of new jobs or new business. It has condemned
thousands of workers to economic hardship, unemployment and despair. It has forgotten how much South Charleston
contributed to America in the past - and it just doesn't care what happens to you in the future.
But the Democratic Party does care. It cares what happens to South Charleston and the thousands of places like it
throughout America. It cares about men who are out of work - families who are deprived of an adequate living - children
who lack proper food and clothing and the opportunity for a decent childhood. It cares about islands of American
poverty in the midst of American plenty. And more important - the Democratic Party not only cares - we are going to do
something about it.
For we Democrats know that until something is done to restore work and economic dignity to all Americans - until we
realize, as Robert Louis Stevenson has said, that "the greatest confession of the failure of civilization is the man who can
work, and wants to work, and is not allowed to work" - only then will we be able to build a truly strong America which
has reached the great goal of a decent life for all men.
And we have a program to help us reach that goal: not a program of charity - for the people of West Virginia do not
want charity; not a program of handouts or government doles - for the people of West Virginia do not want handouts or
doles - but a sound program, a dynamic program, a program of economic development which will put depressed areas
back on their feet - attract new industries to West Virginia - and give men who want to work, a chance to work. This is
the sort of program which can reopen your Naval Ordnance Plant - not as a government factory - but as part of a new,
vital, booming private enterprise system for all of West Virginia.
This program is contained in the Area Redevelopment Bill. I led the fight for this bill as floor leader when it passed the
Senate in 1956. But it never survived Republican attacks in the House. In 1958, Area Redevelopment passed both the
Senate and the House and it looked as if help was on the way. But it was vetoed - vetoed without regard to the
unemployment, the suffering and the tragedy which has been created by factories shutting down - and men thrown out of
work - vetoed by a Republican Administration and a Republican President - Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Now, again in this session of Congress, the Senate has passed this bill. And again the Republicans are threatening a veto.
Let them veto it. It will be their last chance. For in 1961 there will be a Democratic President in the White House - a
President who does care about West Virginia - a President who will support and sign a strong, effective, workable Area
Redevelopment Bill - a bill that will reinvigorate the economy of America - a bill that will bring new jobs and more
industry to West Virginia.
To attract new industry to West Virginia your cities and towns must have adequate water, streets, schools and other
community facilities. This bill will help build them.
To attract new industry to West Virginia your workers must be retrained in the new skills which new industry will
demand. This bill will help to retrain them.
To attract new industry to West Virginia will take large-scale capital investment - and financial support. This bill will
provide long-term loans to help attract new business.
To attract new industry to West Virginia will take market surveys and economic studies, credit facilities and modern
plants. This bill helps make all these available.
Here is a program which will work - which will bring back jobs, and restore production to your factories. The
Republicans say that we cannot afford this program - that we cannot afford to restore prosperity to the economically
distressed areas of this country. But I say that we can afford it. I say that a strong America can afford - and badly needs -
a strong South Charleston and a strong West Virginia. And I say that a generous America, which can afford to rebuild
the economies of Britain and France and Germany, can also afford to rebuild your economy.
No, the Republicans do not lack money - they lack faith and understanding. We Democrats understand the problems of
West Virginia - we have faith in your great future - and we have a sound, creative, dynamic program which will make
that future a brighter one.
And in 1961 we will begin the job.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Weirton, West

Virginia, May 1, 1960
No area of our economy has suffered more as a result of recent economic policies than the nation's small businesses.
And no area of economic development is more essential to the future of West Virginia than the stimulation of small
business.
In the last two years more small businesses have failed - more independent operations have gone bankrupt - than in any
two-year period since the great depression - and West Virginia has had one of the highest rates of failure in the country.
In 1959 alone, more than 14,000 small businesses collapsed and each of these failures represented disappointed hopes -
men out of work - destroyed incomes - and the end of economic independence for another individual businessman.
One of the great challenges of the sixties will be to put an end to this trend - to strengthen the small independent
businessman against the large business units which threaten to crowd him from the American economic scene - and to
reverse the disastrous policies which are destroying this historic cornerstone of our free enterprise system.
First, we must reverse the high interest rate and tight money policies which have cut off vital credit from small
businesses anxious to expand - and from new businesses struggling to survive. Large corporations can finance
themselves out of profits. They are the preferred borrowers of the large banks. But the small businessman must be
satisfied with whatever credit is left over - and, in a tight money economy, he is too often turned away.
Secondly, we must expand the small businessman's sources of credit. The Small Business Administration has failed
badly to pursue vigorously the goal of the Small Business Investment Act to make long-term credit available to the
individual businessman. This program - and the loan program of the Small Business Administration itself - must be
expanded if small businesses are to get the long-term financing essential to their survival. And West Virginia would
greatly benefit from such expansion. For West Virginia - with perhaps the greatest need of small business financing -
ranks 45th among the states in Small Business Administration loans - we must put West Virginia at the top of the list,
where it belongs.
Third, we must increase the small business share of our defense effort. In 1959 small businesses - the bulwark of our
economy - received only one out of every six dollars spent for procurement by the Department of Defense. It is true that
much defense work can only be done by large, well-equipped plants. But the fact of the matter is that much of the
production and services now supplied by giant firms could easily be handled by the nation's independent businessmen.
Our government spending should - and must - be directed toward preserving individual enterprise - not toward
strengthening large firms at the expense of all others.
Fourth, we must enforce our nation's anti-trust laws with more vigor. Small business is constantly threatened by the
tendency toward concentration and merger now visible in every area of our economy. Only by forceful and dynamic
anti-trust action will we be able to preserve the American tradition of free competition which the anti-trust laws were
intended to preserve.
These are a few of the necessary steps which we must take immediately if we are to preserve the independence and the
livelihood of our small businessmen in a world of increasing size and increasing concentration of economic power.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy in Welch, West

This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A press release and several
reading copies of the speech exist in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the
John F. Kennedy Library. The texts of those documents do not differ.
Washington, D.C. - the nation's capital - is only a few hundred miles from McDowell County. But the Administration in
Washington has less understanding of your problems, less concern over your distress, than it displays for peoples and
lands on the other side of the globe.
Our President has traveled to Asia and Europe and South America - but never to McDowell County. He has seen the
poor and hungry of foreign lands - but he has not seen the poor and hungry of McDowell County. He has talked with the
representatives of many countries - but has never taken the time to talk with your representatives. For had he made a trip
to Welch or talked with your people - and had he seen the poverty and hunger, the destroyed health of your children - he
would never have said at his press conference, as he did last week, that he always "assumed" that your needy and
deserving people were receiving an adequate and varied diet.
Had the President come to McDowell County he would have seen a once prosperous people - the people of the largest
and most important coal-mining county in the world - who were now the victims of poverty, want and hunger. He would
have seen a county where 40% of the people were being denied the chance to work and where 50% were forced to
struggle for existence on a government surplus food diet of rice, flour, cornmeal, and - on special occasions - a little
lard, dried eggs and milk. And he would have known that there was no basis for any assumption that the people of
Welch were receiving a healthy and adequate diet.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Athens, West
No problem has grown to greater proportions in the past several years than that of our educational system. And no
problem touches all of our lives more directly. Our competition with the Soviets depends in part on the science training
in our high schools. Our stature abroad - the legend of the "Ugly American" - is affected by how many language
teachers are available in the lower grades. The wisdom of our legislators - holding in their hands the power of war and
peace, of death and taxes - is dependent upon the wisdom and the education of Americans in every remote corner and
village of the nation.
American education today is in a crisis - and the sorry prospects are that, without prompt Congressional action, that
crisis will only grow worse. During this past school year, 50,000 teachers were on the job who had no adequate
preparation or training for that job. Yet still another 50,000 teachers were desperately needed, to relieve overcrowded
classrooms, to enable children to go to school full-time, or to teach the essential courses which simply were not being
covered.
But how could we get more teachers, when salaries were so low and classrooms so crowded, while less rigorous
industries offered higher pay. And even if we had 100,000 more teachers, where would we have put them? We are, as a
nation, more than 135,000 classrooms short - and the shortage is only growing worse. Local school boards listen to
urgent appeals from scientists, admirals and orators about improving the quality of our education, giving more time to
gifted students and instituting more specialized courses at all levels. But they see children struggling to get any attention
at all in an overcrowded or make-shift classroom, with underpaid, overworked and too often untrained teachers, and
frequently going to school only on a half-day shift basis.
These conditions can only worsen if help does not come soon. In four years 4½ million more children will be clamoring
for admission to our schools. By 1969 high school enrollment will be up 50 to 70 percent. And shortly thereafter, the
wave of youngsters that followed World War II will hit our colleges - only to find a shortage of classrooms, a shortage
of faculty members and a shortage of living quarters.
"There is a time," James Truslow Adams once wrote, "for quantity and there is a time for quality." But American
education today is desperately in need of both. Our schools and our colleges at every level need a quantity of teachers, a
quantity of buildings and a quantity of money. And they need better quality teachers and better quality curricula - which
also requires money.
But despite all our luxuries, all our prosperity, all our gadgets and conveniences and progress, we are devoting less than
one out of every thirty dollars to our educational system. State and local government, without adequate tax sources, with
growing debts in other fields, cannot - despite marvelous efforts in recent years - keep up with these fast-rising
construction demands. And the Federal Government has failed to do its share.
The Federal Government did well by education in the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1785. It officially established a
federal policy designed to encourage education by making one square mile of public land out of every 36 available "for
the maintenance of public schools". It did well again in the Land Grant College Act of 1865. There the encouragement
took the tangible form of a grant of land to state colleges. But it has not done so well in the deepening education crisis of
1959.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free," Thomas Jefferson wrote, "it expects what never was and never will be."
This is still a basic truth.
We need programs of student aid, loans, fellowships and scholarships - and not limited only to the fields of science and
defense. We must start building now the classrooms and dormitories our colleges already need - building programs
which the President halted by virtue of his two Housing Bill vetoes. We need research grants for teachers and others
outside the health and science fields. We need to find ways of meeting our colleges' growing shortage of available
capital.
The issue is not one of federal control of education. No one is in favor of that. Traditionally local jurisdiction and
academic freedom must be scrupulously maintained. The unnecessary, ineffective and discriminatory loyalty oath added
to last year's Defense Education Act was a grave mistake - and I can assure you that efforts will be made again next year
to remove this handicap from the Act.
But the issue is not national control - it is national survival. The Chairman of the Soviet Academy of Science has
promised "great efforts... to beat the United States on all scientific fronts." Premier Bulganin told the Community Party
Congress that the more than 2,000 skilled technicians they have sent to 19 underdeveloped countries are the real "gold
reserve" of Russia. The Soviets have spent at least 2½ times as much of their national income on education - and within
a few years, it is estimated, they will have three times as many scientists and engineers.
But it is not merely a matter of competing with the Russians. Civilization, according to the old saying, "is a race
between education and catastrophe." Today, it is up to our government - but basically up to you, the voters - to
determine the winner of that race.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Lewisburg-White

Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, May 4, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A single copy of the speech
One of the most important single steps in developing the economy of Greenbriar County, and protecting the health of
your youth, would be the establishment of a Youth Conservation Corps.
I am now supporting in the Senate a bill to enlist a vast army of American youth - a Youth Conservation Corps - in the
service of developing our great natural resources. Under this measure 100,000 young men, between the ages of 18 and
25, would be brought into a national conservation corps. It would be the job of this corps to work to preserve our forests,
stock our lakes and rivers, clear our streams and protect America's great abundance of natural resources.
Here in West Virginia such a corps would give healthful employment to your youth - providing them with work in your
lovely hills and forests, far from the grimness and idleness of the city. And their work would greatly contribute to the
health of your economy. Such a conservation corps would help you to develop the great natural resources on which -
here in the "Switzerland of the Americas" - your tourist industry depends. They would close up the numerous and
hazardous abandoned mine shafts which are found throughout your state. And they would help construct facilities to
enable you to bring more tourists - more income and more jobs - to Greenbriar County.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Alderson, West

The most urgent and critical need of the people of Greenbriar County - and of all the people of West Virginia - is the
need to attract new industry - new jobs and new incomes - to your state.
And there is no place in West Virginia more ideally suited to industrial development than Greenbriar County. You have
some of the best and most beautiful business sites in the world. You have a strong, determined and skilled people -
people who want to work, are willing to work, and should be given the chance to work. You are situated within easy
reach of America's most important markets. And you have the resources - the human resources and the material
resources which new industry demands. All you need in order to start a vital, booming industrial development in
Greenbriar County, is a little help and a little understanding from Washington.
We Democrats have given you this help and understanding. We have proposed legislation in Congress to help stimulate
new jobs and new industry in Greenbriar County, and the many other hard-hit areas of this country - legislation which
will restore prosperity and hope to your state - a bill which provides long-term loans, technical assistance, help in
building roads and water supplies, and all the essential prerequisites of economic growth.
A Democratic Congress passed this bill in 1958 - but it was vetoed - vetoed without regard to the suffering and tragedy
that fills the more than 100 distressed communities of heavy unemployment - vetoed by a Republican President, Dwight
D. Eisenhower. But in 1961 - with a Democratic President in the White House, this legislation will become a reality -
and in 1961 Greenbriar County will begin the march back to prosperity and abundance for all its people.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Charleston, West

Today much of the United States is living better than it ever has before. We have more swimming pools, more freezers,
boats, and air conditioners than any country has ever had before.
But the "test of our progress," said Franklin Roosevelt, "is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have
By that test, the last eight years have been eight years of economic failure - eight years of retreat from historic aims. Last
month, in his annual economic message, the President painted a picture of a fat and complacent nation - a nation of
wealth and abundance - a satisfied nation: satisfied with what it had and satisfied with where it was going. But the truth
of the matter is that behind the President's contented phrases are facts that give us no cause for such satisfaction. They
do not meet the Roosevelt test.
Let us look at some of the phrases and some of the facts.
1. "The increase in national output," said the President, "has made possible very great gains in the well-being of
American families."
Yet - in an age of record national income and unprecedented national production - we have 7 million families who must
struggle to survive on incomes of less than two thousand dollars a year. We have more than 4 million unemployed. We
have hundreds of severely depressed areas where more than one quarter of the workers have no jobs and no prospects of
employment. We have states like West Virginia where hundreds of thousands of people are forced to struggle for
existence on a meager and inadequate diet of governmental surplus foods. And we have millions of families who have
not made gains, but suffered severe losses, in their "well-being" during the last eight years.
2. "The American economy," said the President, "has sustained its long-term record of growth." But in fact we have
declined to a growth rate which is only half the record increases of the Roosevelt-Truman era. The Soviet Union is
expanding its economy three times as fast as the United States. Eight years of drift and retrenchment - holding down
purchasing power, curbing small business, destroying our coal industry, neglecting our farms and cities, wasting our
natural resources - these are the policies that need to be reversed if we are to increase national income, create national
wealth, restore prosperity to states like West Virginia, and bring the good life to all Americans.
3. "Notable gains," said the President, "have been made in education and other cultural areas."
And yet today millions of young Americans are deprived of a decent education because of overcrowded classrooms - a
lack of competent and well-paid teachers - and the unwillingness of our great, rich nation to ensure that poverty will not
be a bar to higher education for any talented student. And these problems are getting worse as our population expands -
as our schools grow older - as cities and towns are priced out of the teacher market. We are failing - shamefully failing -
to make what the President calls "notable gains" - but we cannot fail education much longer without failing our future as
well.
4. "The economic security of American families," said the President "has been advanced significantly."
But the security of our families has not been advanced significantly when the props beneath that security - fashioned
nearly a generation ago by Franklin Roosevelt and a Democratic Congress - have been permitted to rust and decay:
minimum wages are no longer living wages - Social Security has failed to keep pace with the cost of living -
unemployment compensation does not provide for today's long-term, Republican, unemployment - and programs of help
to housing, farmers, and small businesses have been forgotten or discarded. Nor has family security been advanced
significantly when that security is constantly subjected to the whims of economic fluctuation. Under this Administration
we have seen 2 serious recessions and - at the very same time - serious price inflation, eating away family savings, using
up wage increases, destroying the value of insurance policies and pensions. We have seen the highest interest rates in
history, driving the price of money continually higher, slowing the construction of badly needed homes, and causing a
record number of small business failures.
These facts - the harsh, undeniable facts behind the President’s message - reveal clearly that under the last eight years of
Republican rule the United States has moved further and further away from the Roosevelt goal of an equal share in
America's abundance for all Americans.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Washington

College, Chestertown, Maryland, May 11, 1960
DISARMAMENT
creative thinking.
destructive energy than all the explosives used in all the wars throughout history - the radioactive fallout from a single
bomb can destroy all higher forms of life in an area of ten-thousand square miles. And the powerful new gasses and
Less than one-hundred men to plan for what must be the core, the central purpose, and the ultimate object of America's
foreign policy.
Washington in January to make joint preparations for the Geneva Conference - but we have no positive proposals of our
own to offer them.
The President recently announced that he will try to remedy these deficiencies - that he will bring our scattered
House - and it does not, by itself, take us measurable closer to the vast effort which is essential if we are to deal
There can be no disarmament, in short, according to these Pentagon and other policymakers, until - to use Mr.
But who, I ask you, are the true realists--those interested in serious efforts in arms control--or those who talk of war and
courage to take the first halting steps toward arms control - perhaps in the form of a ban on nuclear testing.
Such a beginning - even though far removed from actual disarmament - can perhaps lead the way, once the Russians
learn that international control and inspection are not necessarily to be feared; once Americans learn that
accommodations are [not] necessarily appeasement; and once both sides learn that agreements can be made, and kept.
effort for disarmament to excuse any lag in our defense effort now. For it is an unfortunate fact that while peace is our
ourselves away from total nuclear disarmament [sic].
Plans for disarmament - specific, workable, effective plans - must be formulated with care, with precision and above all
This Institute - under the immediate direction of the president - will carry on and coordinate all the research,
Archimedes is reported to have said, "and I will move the world.” Today we stand at a decisive point in history. Let us
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Hagerstown,

Maryland, May 13, 1960
The most urgent and critical need of the people of Washington County - and of all people of Western Maryland - is the
need to attract new industry - new jobs and new incomes - to your area. Today more than 12% of the total labor force of
Washington County - almost 5,000 men - is unemployed. The only way to put these men back to work - to restore
prosperity to Western Maryland - is through a creative and dynamic program of industrial development.
And there are few places in Maryland better suited to industrial development than Washington County. You have some
of the best located and most attractive business sites in the world. You have a strong, determined and skilled people -
people who want to work, are willing to work, and should be given the chance to work. You are situated within easy
reach of America's most important markets. And you have the resources - the human resources and the material
resources - which new industry demands. All you need in order to begin a vital, new industrial boom in Washington
County is a little help and a little understanding from Washington.
The Democratic Party has offered you this help and understanding. We have proposed and enacted legislation in
Congress to help stimulate new jobs and new industry in Washington County, and the many other hard-hit areas of this
country - legislation which will restore prosperity and hope to your county - a bill which provides long-term loans,
technical assistance, help in building roads and water supplies, and all the other essential prerequisites of economic
growth.
This bill - the Area Redevelopment Act - first passed the Senate in 1956 - when, as chairman of the Labor
Subcommittee, I was privileged to serve as its floor-leader - but it died under Republican attacks in the House. Again in
1958 the bill passed the Senate, and then passed the House, only to be vetoed - vetoed without regard to the suffering
and tragedy that fill the more than 100 distressed communities of heavy unemployment - vetoes by a Republican
President and a Republican Administration.
And this year - in 1960 - a Democratic Congress has again passed depressed areas legislation - and again it is threatened
with a veto. I hope the President will not veto this bill. He must not veto this bill. He must not again destroy the hope of
millions of Americans for a chance to work and a chance to share in America's plenty. But if the President does veto this
bill - if he again denies relief - I promise you that help will not be long in coming. For in 1961 - with a Democratic
President in the White House, this legislation will become a reality. And in 1961 Washington County will begin the
march back to prosperity and abundance for all its people.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at District Hood
College, Frederick, Maryland, May 13, 1960
in the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. The speech is provided as we have
it in the file, including certain points where there appear to be dropped words and/or typographical errors.
INDIA AND CHINA

Whatever battles may be in the headlines, no struggle in the world deserves more time and attention from this
Administration - and the next - than that which now grips the attention of all Asia - the battle between India and China.
The real battle is not the flare-up over Chinese troop movements around disputed boundaries - or even the failure of the
conferences between Chou-en Lai and Premier Nehru. Nor is it the war of words over China’s annihilation of Tibet. The
real India-China struggle is equally fierce but less obvious - less in the headlines but far more significant in the long run.
And that is the struggle between India and China for the economic and political leadership of the East, for the respect of
all Asia, for the opportunity to demonstrate whose way of life is the better.
For it is these two countries that have the greatest magnetic attraction to the uncommitted and underdeveloped world. It
is these two countries which offer a potential route of transition from economic stagnation to economic growth. India
follows a route in keeping with human dignity and individual freedom. Red China represents the route of regimented
controls and ruthless denial of human rights.
It should be obvious that the outcome of this competition will vitally affect the future of all Asia - the comparative
strength of Red and Free nations - and inevitably the security and standing of our own country. India's population
represents 40 per cent of the uncommitted world. It is larger than the total populations of the continents of Africa and
South America combined. Unless India can compete equally with China, unless she can show that her way works as
well or better than dictatorship, unless she can make the transition from economic stagnation to economic growth, so
that it can get ahead of its exploding population, the entire Free World will suffer a serious reverse. India herself will be
gripped by frustration and political instability - its role as a counter to the Red Chinese in Asia would be lost - India
herself and then most of Asia would later - and Communism would have won its greatest bloodless victory.
But do we fully realize how this contest is coming out? The harsh facts of the matter are that in the last decade China has
surged ahead of India economically. Its gross national output has expanded about three times as fast. Its food production
has nearly doubled, while India’s has increased by less than 50 per cent. In steel production, China has moved from a
position of inferiority to marked superiority. In terms of industrial capacity, education and even household consumption,
China has slowly pulled up and now moved ahead.
Within the last two years, the Chinese have produced their first automobile Within the next year they may have launched
their first earth satellite. Within a few years they may have exploded their first nuclear weapon. And perhaps equally
significant for the future is the fact that China has become a major trading nation - not only in Southeast Asia, where she
is gradually supplanting Japan, but also in the growing trade movements to Europe and Africa. And Indian products are
suffering accordingly.
But the struggle is not over - and the potentialities for gain in India are still great. In the Chinese language, the word
"crisis" is composed of two characters - one representing danger, and one representing opportunity. The danger now is
clear. But this crisis also presents an opportunity - not only for India but for all the West. But if these opportunities are
lost now, they may never come again.
It is not enough that we participate on a crash basis, for temporary relief. We must be willing to join with other Western
nations in a serious long-range program of long-term loans, backed up by technical and agricultural assistance -
designed to enable India to overtake the challenge of Communist China. The tool for this program can well be the
Development Loan Fund, and such a joint effort by several Western Nations may be spearheaded by the Franks
International Economic Mission which was set up in a Congressional Resolution sponsored by Senator Cooper of
Kentucky and myself, and by Representative Chester Bowles in the House.
This kind of careful, coordinated, long-range aid could make the difference. Our assistance thus far has been limited to
emergency aid - to meet immediate crises and existing shortages, although the recent long-term sale of surplus foods
represents a real needed step forward. But we still have not met the requirements essential for economic growth - nor
have we alleviated the harsh realities which India faced a year ago. Her population continues nearly to outpace her
economic development - her shortage of foreign exchange continues to increase - and a general loss of hope and morale
continues to spread.
This is the critical year for India. This is the year when India’s Third Five-Year Plan beginning in 1961 will be designed.
This is the year, in short, when India must appraise her future and her relations with the rest of the world.
I do not say that India could not tread water for a few more years before going under. But this is the year the Indians
need confidence that they can plan major efforts for long-range progress with some assurance of substantial, long-term
assistance from the Western world.
Our aid should, of course, be based upon sound criteria and productive investment. But let us remember economies need
time to mature. Our own nation, in the ability to repay these foreign investments. There is no question that the Indians,
given proper assurance and assistance, could do the same.
Many of the other governments in Asia and the Middle East are now balanced precariously on the wall of indecision
between the East and the West. Of course an adequate program of aid to India is no magic persuader - nor is it a panacea
for all of India's difficulties. There is no such solution for these tough problems. The barriers are great. The political and
ideological dilemmas are many.
But I am confident that we can recover the initiative, that we can give a doubting world the realization that we - and not
Russia and China - can help them achieve stability and growth.
But it is not enough merely to provide sufficient money. Equally important is our attitude and our understanding. For if
we undertake this effort in the wrong spirit, or for the wrong reasons, or in the wrong way, then any and all financial
measures will be in vain.
We want India to win that race with Red China. We want India to be a free and thriving leader of a free and thriving
Asia. But if our interest appears to be purely selfish, anti-Communist and part of the Cold War - if it appears to the
Indian people that our motives are purely political - then we shall play into the hands of Communists and neutralist
propagandists, cruelly distort America’s image abroad, and undo much of the psychological effect that we expect from
our generosity.
Let us instead return to the generous spirit in which the original Point Four Program was conceived; stress our positive
interest in, and moral responsibility for, relieving misery and poverty, and acknowledge to ourselves and the world that,
communism or no communism, we cannot be an island unto ourselves.
In short, it is our job to prove that we can devote as much energy, intelligence, idealism and sacrifice to the survival and
triumph of the open society as the Russian despots can extort by compulsion in defense of their closed system of
tyranny.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Easton,

Maryland, May 14, 1960
The growth and greatness of our Nation is rooted deep in its soil. Our farms have provided us with the abundance and
the resources we have needed to support our rise to our present position of world leadership.
But there is reason to be concerned about the future of agriculture. Farm income dropped 20 percent last year. There is
evidence that this trend will continue. In spite of unprecedented expenditures, Government-held surpluses continue to
increase. During 1959 the farmers of this country made less money than in any year since 1942. Here in Maryland, you
have seen at close range the effect of present agricultural policies upon your wheat, your corn, your tomatoes, and your
dairy products. The Administration solution is lower and still lower prices. Thus far this has resulted in higher and still
higher surpluses.
I suggest that our farm program should be based upon three fundamental principles:
First, we must provide for adjustment between supply and demand. Any effective farm program must be based upon
sufficient control over farm production to prevent it from over-reaching its possible market. But this should be done by
farmer committees elected by the farmers themselves.
Second, any national farm program should be based primarily upon the promotion and preservation of the family farm.
That is the basic unit here in Maryland - that is the way it must continue to be. We have no wish to become a nation of
giant commercial corporation farms and absentee landlords. Our whole vitality as a nation depends upon a contrary
course.
Third, farm income should not be permitted to lag behind the income of other parts of the economy. In the past eight
years, we have watched the steady decline in farm income while all other prices and almost all other wages have spurted
upward. The farmer has been steadily squeezed between declining income and mounting costs. Farming must again
offer opportunities that measure up to all other occupations. Young people must again be attracted to farming.
I am convinced that the farmers of this country themselves - particularly if they are given a major voice in shaping and
administering our agricultural program - have the vision and the will to help restore prosperity to our farms.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, at The Dalles,

Oregon, May 15, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A press release and a reading
copy of the speech exist in the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. The two
texts are essentially the same.
You all know what brings me here to this state: I am a candidate in your primary for President of the United States. And
I would like to take this opportunity to talk with you - not about my own candidacy, but about that Presidential primary,
how important it is and how important your individual vote will be. For I strongly urge every citizen of this state -
Republicans, Democrats or Independents - whomever they may support - to go to the polls this spring and cast that all-
important vote.
"In every American election," wrote James Bryce more than 80 years ago, "there are two acts of choice, two periods of
contest. The first is the selection of the candidate from within the party by the party; the other is the struggle between the
parties for the place. Frequently the former of these is the more keenly fought over - (and) the more important."
Never was this process of selecting a candidate more important - more meaningful - than today. For during the coming
year we will select not merely a party favorite, but a potential national leader for the fabulous sixties. We will not
merely reward faithful service - we will choose a man to be the center of energy and activity in our entire governmental
system. Only if the parties choose their candidates well - only then will the American people next November be able to
select a man equipped with the qualities which our country, and our age, demand.
In this all-important process of nomination the American people are entitled to a voice. The people of this state - and the
people of other states - are entitled to be heard. Fifty years ago, when New Jersey was attempting to establish a
Presidential Primary law, one well-known political boss was indignant. The Legislature, he said, as a spokesman for the
voters, "has no more right to attempt to fix by law the method of selecting delegates to a national convention than it has
to attempt to fix the method of selecting delegates to an Eagles Convention or a Rotary conclave."
But today we know that national conventions are not social gatherings. Political parties are not private clubs. They are at
the heart of the democratic process - they are the instrument of the popular will - they are the method, and the best
method yet devised, by which the people rule. When they act, they act not merely for themselves but for millions. And
their actions must be responsive to the will and needs of those they represent.
The days when Presidential candidates - unknown and untested - can be nominated in smoke-filled rooms, by political
leaders and party bosses, have forever passed from the scene. Our last experience with such a nomination resulted in the
disaster of the Harding Administration. But even Harding entered and won at least one contested primary.
For 50 years, no Republican or Democrat has reached the White House without entering and winning at least one
contested primary. No man has won a national election who was unwilling to test his candidacy with the people. No man
has occupied the post of Chief Executive until he first occupied one of several places on the primary ballot.
It is true that conventions have occasionally chosen a candidate who never ran in a contested primary - but such
conventions have never produced a President.
THE OREGON PRIMARY
In the development of this important primary process, the State of Oregon is entitled to major credit for its own
leadership. For it was here in this state that the Presidential Primary was born. It was here in this state, on April 28,
1908, that Senator Jonathan Bourne read in the Oregon Journal an editorial noting that the Alabama supporters of
William Jennings Bryan were asking that State’s Democratic Committee to put his name on the primary ballot. Perhaps,
said the Journal, this points the way to "a new method of nominating Presidents."
Senator Bourne clipped that editorial out and went to work. With the help of the People’s Power League, he developed
and championed the nation’s first Presidential Primary law. And in 1910 - not through the legislature but through
popular initiative - it became the law of the state. Within five years, 21 other states - joining the progressive reform
movement behind Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt or LaFollette - had followed Oregon’s lead.
For 50 years, the Oregon Primary has been a major influence in the nominating process of both parties. No other state of
this size has played a comparable role. Because the Oregon Primary is so historic - because it inevitably brings a real test
between the real contenders - and because, as this year, it is one of the last significant primaries to be held - the results in
Oregon have almost always been decisive. During all those 50 years, only one man was ever elected President without
winning the Oregon primary - and that man was Warren G. Harding. Every other President of the United States -
Wilson, Coolidge, Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower - won the Oregon Presidential Primary on their way to
the White House.
So this is not a primary to be bypassed or treated with indifference. It is not a primary to be abused or twisted, by
entering the names of those who will not be both serious and willing contenders in the convention. For the voters of this
state have the right to make a meaningful choice - a choice between candidates who have a real chance for the
nomination. When Charles Evans Hughes, reluctant to admit that he was willing to be a candidate, tried to have his
name removed from the ballot here in 1916, the Oregon Supreme Court refused, saying that the rights of Oregon voters
were paramount. When some Oregon delegates pledged to Teddy Roosevelt by reason of his victory in the 1912 primary
sided with President Taft on the Convention chairmanship issue, they were denounced throughout the state. When
Senator Robert Taft’s supporters in 1952 tried to avoid an Eisenhower primary victory by running a separate slate of
Taft delegates, the voters defeated the entire slate at the polls.
Oregon is proud of its primary. The whole nation recalls the Dewey-Stassen debate of 1948, and the Stevenson-
Kefauver contest of 1956. Equally important were Al Smith’s victory here in 1928, President Coolidge’s hard-pressed
triumph over Hiram Johnson in 1924 and Woodrow Wilson’s win over Champ Clark in 1912. In fact, except for
Harding and the two compromise Democratic candidates of 1920 and 1924 (Cox and Davis), no one has even been
nominated in these 50 years without his name being entered in the Oregon Primary. I know of no other state in the
nation which can boast of such a record. And this year again Oregon will have the next President on its primary ballot.
So it is no exaggeration to say that every Oregon voter on May 20th can help select the next President. And it is only by
taking part in this campaign that every voter, as well as every candidate, can help discuss and decide the vital issues that
affect the future of this state and nation:
whether we can achieve a world of peace and freedom in place of the fantastically dangerous and expensive arms race in
which we are now falling behind.
whether older and retired workers in Oregon and other states can obtain decent Social Security benefits, decent medical
care, and a decent, dignified way of life.
whether the wheat, dairy and other farmers of Oregon, neglected by Secretary Benson, can obtain some relief from the
agonizing squeeze of ever higher costs and ever lower income.
whether our food surpluses can help us build a more stable peace abroad and feed our own hungry here at home instead
of wasting in warehouses at the taxpayers’ expense.
whether the children of Oregon and the nation can obtain safe, decent, adequate public school facilities, with competent
well-paid teachers.
whether the development of more low-cost power, more economical transportation, more effective controls of
racketeering and monopoly, lower interest rates and lower utility prices can help the Oregon consumer battle the high
costs of "inflation".
EDUCATING THE CANDIDATES
These are some of the issues of importance to your state in 1960. These are some of the issues I intend to discuss. And I
regret that more candidates in both parties will not join me here in that discussion. For primary contests not only educate
the public - they educate the candidate as well.
For if a candidate wishes to understand the needs and aspirations of the people he seeks to serve - he must go among
them. He must view the cities and towns and factories and farms first hand - not merely read second-hand reports from
local supporters or look at the nation through the wrong end of a television camera. He should see the poverty of West
Virginia, the depressed dairy farms of Wisconsin, the unemployment in Maryland - if he is to deal with these problems
effectively in January. He must campaign in all sections of the country - the East, the West, and the Far West - if he is to
understand the problems of all sections - and not merely his own. He must listen as well as talk, see as well as be seen,
learn as well as teach. And the primary is the greatest instrument there is for that kind of education. For after the
nomination it is often too late - for the candidate and for the country.
I am sorry that in 1960 there are some in both parties who regard Presidential primary contests with indifference. They
have forgotten the lessons of history - that only those candidates with faith and confidence in the people and their
wisdom can count on receiving that faith and confidence at the polls in November. They have forgotten the words of
Thomas Jefferson that there are always, in effect, "two parties. Those who fear and distrust the people and wish to (take)
all power from them - (and) those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them as the most honest
and safe depository of the public interest."
Jefferson would have approved of this primary. He would have urged you to cast your ballot in it. I hope you will be
true to that heritage.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Weyerhaeuser

Lumber Company, Eugene, Oregon, May 17, 1960
I come to you today as a friend of labor.
I have worked with the leaders and members of organized labor for fourteen years as a member of the House and Senate
Labor Committees. My credentials are written in the record of that fourteen years. On the basis of that record, I hope I
can - in the words of the old-time orators - claim kinship here and have it allowed.
The cause of the friends of labor has not been an easy one in the past few years. Unfortunately the headlines, the
speeches, the attention has been largely focused on the few hoodlums and racketeers who have insinuated their way into
the labor movement - plundering its members, destroying the hard won gains of the workers, and harming the reputation
of the entire, great brotherhood of organized labor.
But these men are just the few parasites on the body of a great, vital group of men and women - a group that has
contributed more to the economic health, the well-being and the strength of this country than any other organized group,
in any other country, in any other period of human history.
And it has been this same labor movement - not Congress or its Committees - which has been the most ardent and
effective champion of clean, honest unions in America. I know of no parallel instance in American history when a large
and important part of our society so frankly recognized its own internal problems and set out to correct them - even
though it meant expelling a large portion of its dues-paying members.
I know of no business organizations which have disciplined their members the way labor has - even though some of
those members have been engaged in activities which deserve the just condemnation of a law-abiding society. And I
know of no voluntary organization which has set any higher standards of discipline than the Ethical Practices Codes
adopted by the AFL-CIO - even though our hearings showed that higher standards of ethics are often badly needed in
these other groups. Labor is cleaning its own house - let business do the same.
There are those in America today who say that labor is too big - that it has grown too strong. But I say that the size of
organized labor is a blessing - and its strength is a powerful force for the good of all America.
Throughout its history, the labor movement has used its growing strength to eliminate industrial terror, sweatshops and
inhuman working conditions, to give to the worker - for the first time - a voice in his own economic destiny.
And equally important is the way in which labor has served the entire nation.
George Meany has truly said that the record shows beyond contradiction that the trade union movement "has
consistently used whatever power it has to raise the American standard of living, to promote the interests of all the
American people, and to enhance the power and prestige of the nation as a whole."
That record can be seen in every city and town - every household and factory in America. We can see it in the thousands
of hospitals which organized labor has built. We can see it in the new schools and roads which the unremitting work of
labor - on every level of government - has helped to bring about.
Labor has also played a vital and a constructive role on the world scene - resisting Communist expansion - helping the
underdeveloped nations - encouraging the struggle for freedom wherever it is waged - and, at home as well as abroad,
constantly demonstrating its dedication to the cause for which it will continue to fight until the last oppressed group is
guaranteed that equality which is his right as a member of the human race.
But despite these great achievements of organized labor - labor has not solved all its problems or won all the battles. It
must summon all its resources of strength and mind and vision if it is to meet the new problems and the new challenges
of the sixties.
First on the agenda is a vast new program of social welfare legislation - increased minimum wage, adequate
unemployment compensation, medical care for the aged - and all the other many extensions and expansions of New
Deal programs which are no longer adequate to meet the needs of the sixties.
Second, we must end the interminable and unjustified delay in the handling of certification proceedings and unfair labor
practice charges by the National Labor Relations Board. As a result of these delays the controversy is often over, labor is
defeated, and the worker has suffered - long before the Board acts. We must have an NLRB which understands the
problems of labor and is not merely an instrument of management.
Third, we must act - and act soon - to meet the growing challenge of automation. We cannot - and we would not - halt
the steady advance of technology with its promise of economic growth and increased productivity for the future. At the
same time, government, industry and labor must collaborate in planning for the important social and economic changes
which automation is certain to bring. Workers must be retrained - factories must be relocated - and, above all, we must
be certain that the worker himself shares in the fruits of his increased productivity - in terms of greater leisure and higher
income.
Fourth, we must halt the growing deterioration of the basic natural resources on which the welfare of labor ultimately
depends - our vast resources of land, water, power and timber. Here in Eugene the prosperity of much of your industry -
and your own prosperity depends upon the development and preservation of our great natural forests. Yet valuable
timber is going uncut, reforestation has virtually come to a halt, and vital access roads are not being built. And despite
these immediate and pressing needs this administration has requested less than half of the amount which its own
Secretary of Agriculture has said is absolutely essential to the preservation of our forests. A Democratic Administration
- acting in the great conservation tradition of Franklin Roosevelt - will rebuild the resources on which the strength of
labor - and of all America - depends.
Fifth, we must work to defeat legislation designed to repress labor - to destroy its power - and render the worker helpless
to advance his own welfare. Let me make it clear once again, as I have in the past, that - whatever office I shall hold - I
shall always be unalterably opposed to so- called "right-to-work" laws at any level, Federal or State. And I shall oppose,
as I have for 14 years, any and all other such devices which are sure to spring from the fertile minds of labor’s powerful
foes.
Guided by these principles - and with a plan of action based on its magnificent heritage of the past - and its hopes for the
future - American labor can advance into the sixties unafraid, and with full confidence in its strength and in the
righteousness of its cause. For as Abraham Lincoln said of labor:
"All that serves labor serves the nation. All that harms labor is treason to America. No line can be drawn between these
two.
"If a man tells you he loves America, yet hates labor, he is a liar.
"If a man tells you he trusts America, yet fears labor, he is a fool.
"There is no America without labor, and to fleece the one is to rob the other."
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Spokane,
Washington, Friday, May 27, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. Two carbons of the reading
copy of the speech exist in the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library.
The Road to Victory

We meet together on the eve of the great campaign of 1960. That campaign will decide whether the Democratic Party is
at last to have a sufficient margin in the House of Representatives. That campaign will decide whether the Democratic
Party can increase its margin in the Senate. That campaign will decide whether those who administer our state and local
governments in the coming years will be imbued with the principles of the Democratic Party. And finally - and perhaps
most important - that campaign will determine whether a Democrat will once again lead this nation - in the most
important office in the world - in the office of President of the United States.
We have every reason to be confident as this election approaches. Less than two years ago we won tremendous victories
in the House, in the Senate and in Governors' Mansions and State Legislatures all over the country. In fact, since the
Democrats last met in a national convention in July 1956, 47 out of the 50 states - including the new states of Alaska
and Hawaii - have elected either a Democratic Governor, a Democratic Senator or a Democratic Congressman-at-large.
In 47 states, a statewide electorate has chosen the Democratic Party. In every state except New York, Illinois and New
Hampshire, the elections of the past three years have demonstrated that a Democrat can carry that state. And we are
going to carry those states - and the other three - in 1960.
For this Spring - in the Presidential primaries - we have again seen the unmistakable signs of a great Democratic march
toward the White House - the signs that tell us that the American people are ready for a change - and we Democrats are
ready to give them that change.
In New Hampshire more Democratic votes were cast than ever before in the history of that state's primary. In Wisconsin
the Democratic vote more than doubled the Republican total. In Massachusetts it was nearly double. In Pennsylvania
more Democrats took the trouble to write in a candidate's name than ever before in history. In Nebraska more
Democrats voted in the Presidential primary than at any time since 1940 and F.D.R. In Indiana and in Maryland we
broke the all-time record for a Democratic vote. In Oregon we reduced the Republicans to one of the lowest proportions
they have ever had in that state. And in West Virginia, the Democrats went to the polls in record numbers. And the
Democrats are going to go to the polls in record numbers again in November - when we will have a national victory.
These records are not the work of any one man or the result of any one issue. Nor are they merely a tribute to our Party.
They reflect instead a growing dissatisfaction with things as they are - they reflect a cry for leadership in Washington.
They reflect the dismay of Wisconsin farmers whose income has declined 20% under the Eisenhower-Nixon-Benson
Administration. They reflect the plea of one-quarter of a million West Virginians who are dependent on government
food hand-outs - $20 a year worth of surplus flour, rice and cornmeal, with some dried eggs, milk and lard for special
occasions. The steelworker in Indiana, the coal miner in Pennsylvania, the rancher in Nebraska, voters all over the
nation have demonstrated in one primary after another their desire for a change - and that change is to a Democratic
Administration.
But we cannot yet take this victory for granted. Let us recall some sobering statistics on the other side. Let us recall that
our national ticket in 1956 carried only seven states and lost 41. Let us remember that our national ticket has not carried
a single northern state since 1948. Let us remember that our national ticket has not obtained a clear majority of the
popular vote since 1944. But let us also remember that we are going to get that majority in 1960.
But let us also face frankly the advantages which the Republicans possess. They are in power nationally, controlling the
executive branch - and that means power to channel defense contracts, award patronage, purchase surplus commodities,
file criminal indictments and hold Presidential press conferences. Of course it also means - as we have recently seen -
the power to make costly and harmful blunders. The Republicans in addition have a great asset and a great campaigner
in the current President of the United States. And Mr. Nixon himself is a skillful campaigner, an experienced political
fighter, and a candidate with tremendous financial and newspaper backing. Although the Democrats - not Mr. Nixon -
will have the people's backing in November.
But the Democratic Party has two important assets of its own - assets which will be decisive if we know how to use
them. The first is the record of eight years of Republican rule - the second, the Democratic Party's tradition of a
dynamic, progressive man in the White House - a tradition which the sixties demand. And a tradition which - with your
help - the sixties will have.
For today our very survival depends on the man in the White House - on his strength, his wisdom and his creative
imagination.
We can not afford a William McKinley, whose backbone according to Teddy Roosevelt was "as firm as a chocolate
éclair."…..
We can not afford a Calvin Coolidge, who caused a White House usher with 42 years service to say: "No other President
in my time ever slept so much"…..
We can not afford a Warren G. Harding, who reportedly said he saw no real problem in the Middle East "that the Arabs
and Jews couldn't settle around a table, in the good old Christian way"…..
We can not afford a Ulysses S. Grant, complaining that he didn't want to be President - he just wanted to be the Mayor
of Galena, Illinois long enough to build a sidewalk from his house to the station….
And we can not afford a James Buchanan, whose performance caused Ohio's Senator Sherman to say: "The Constitution
provides for every accidental contingency in the Executive - except a vacancy in the mind of the President."
But the facts of the matter are that only a creative national party can provide a strong, creative President. The
Republican Party is not a national party. It does not represent all sections, all interest groups, all voters. And that is why
- historically and inevitably - the forces of inertia and reaction in the Republican Party oppose any powerful voice in the
White House, Republican or Democratic, that tries to speak for the nation as a whole.
Theodore Roosevelt discovered that. Herbert Hoover discovered that. And this year Nelson Rockefeller discovered it.
But the Democratic Party is a national party - it believes in strong leadership - and, with your help, we will give the
nation that leadership in January 1961.
But to send that Democrat to the White House we have to win. And I don't believe any talk that we cannot win. I think
we can win. I think we will win. I think the American people - after "eight gray years", to use F.D.R.'s phrase - will
know that, for their own future and their children's future, we must win.
interest rates instead of production - by substituting pageants for policy in world affairs. And we are not going to win by
dodging the real issue of this campaign - the Republican record itself.
Mr. Nixon said recently that he wants to carry on the Republican policies. Let us hold him to that statement. For I cannot
believe that the voters of this country will accept four more years of the same tired policies - four more years of Mr.
Benson's high farm surpluses and low farm income - four more years of neglected slums, overcrowded classrooms,
underpaid teachers and the highest interest rates in history - and four more years of dwindling prestige abroad,
dwindling security at home, and an inability to solve the great world problems of our time.
Mr. Nixon said he wants to carry on the Eisenhower policies. I say the country cannot afford it. Perhaps we could afford
a Coolidge following Harding. And perhaps we could afford a Pierce following Fillmore. But after Buchanan this nation
needed a Lincoln - after Taft we needed a Wilson - after Hoover we needed Franklin Roosevelt. And after eight years of
Republican leadership, this nation needs a strong, creative Democrat in the White House.
I recognize President Eisenhower's great popularity in the polls - the strength of his personal appeal - the magic of his
name. But I also firmly believe that the American people next November will respect that candidate and that political
party which have the courage to speak the truth - to tell the people the grim facts about what has happened to America,
and what we must do to survive.
The Republican "peace and prosperity" is a myth. We are not enjoying a period of peace - as we have seen so
dramatically demonstrated in Paris - but only a period of stagnation and retreat, while America becomes second in
missiles - second in space - second in education - and, if we don't act fast and effectively - second in production and
industrial might.
And they talk about their prosperity ...but it is a prosperity for some, not for all. And it is an abundance of goods, not of
courage.
We have the most gadgets and the most gimmicks in our history, the biggest TV and tail-fins - but we also have the
worst slums, the most crowded schools, and the greatest erosion of our natural resources and our national will. It may
be, for some, an age of material prosperity - but it is also an age of spiritual poverty.
President with new ideas and real courage. And I would remind them that just 100 years ago, a great Presidential
candidate achieved national fame by speaking at the Cooper Union in New York. He best demonstrated his concept of
the Presidency when he summoned his war-time Cabinet to a meeting on the Emancipation Proclamation. That Cabinet
had been carefully chosen to please and reflect the many elements in the country. But "I have gathered you together,"
Lincoln said, "to hear what I have written down. I do not wish your advice about the main matter - that I have
determined for myself."
And later, when he went to sign it after several house of exhausting handshaking that had left his arm weak, he said to
I sign this Proclamation, all who examine the document hereafter will say: 'He hesitated':
States.
Our next Chief Executive must also be the President of the United States.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the New Mexico
State Democratic Convention, New Mexico, June 4, 1960
We meet here in a period of great peril for the world. At no time since the Korean War have the voices been as angry or
as menacing. The hysterical tirade of Premier Khrushchev against President Eisenhower is but one of the signs of an
uneasiness which grips us and the rest of the world.
We also meet here at a time when our nation is again going through the process of picking a new President. You are here
today as part of that great purpose.
No one can have lived through the events of the last six weeks without realizing the tremendous power and
responsibility of the office of the Presidency. It is the center of action - in a time when action is needed.
The cobwebs of inaction over a period of seven long years which have lead us to a position when the head of a foreign
power can insult the President of the United States must be swept away by a dynamic, tough and vigorous Democratic
administration which dares to do the things which are needed to restore the lost power and prestige of the United States.
It is well to look at the record of this administration over the past seven years. The basic problems which confront us go
back seven years - not seven weeks when the current crisis began. And their correction will be many years in coming.
But at the same time I hope we do not concentrate our efforts on investigating the past - or belaboring what cannot now
be undone. There are too many crises in the future to blind our eyes weeping over the crises of the past. There are too
many things that can be done to waste our efforts on events we can no longer affect.
There will be more meetings - there must be, when either side can destroy the world - meetings at the Summit, at the UN
and at a lower level. But let us never meet again under the illusion that platitudes are a substitute for strength - or that
personal goodwill can overcome irreconcilable conflicts of interest.
If the next Summit Meeting is to be more than a showcase - if its purpose is to prove to the Soviets that negotiation is
preferable to aggression - then the road back to the Summit is a long, hard road indeed.
For whatever questions may be raised about our own mistakes, the basic question is: Why did the USSR, or some force
within it - encouraged no doubt by the Communist Chinese - believe it to be to their advantage to break up the Summit
and resume the Cold War? There can be only one answer: They apparently believed that the balance of world power was
shifting their way - that the pressures and threats of the Cold War could thus gain them more than bargaining as equals
at the Summit.
Our task, therefore, is one of rebuilding our strength, and the strength of the Free World. The hour is late - but the
agenda is long:
-- We must make invulnerable a nuclear retaliatory power second to none.
-- We must regain the ability to intervene effective and swiftly in any limited war anywhere in the world.
-- We must rebuild NATO into a viable and consolidated force capable of deterring any type of attack.
-- We must strengthen the Free World's economy, in terms of both greater Western unity, and greater joint efforts to
frustrate Communist hopes for chaos in the underdeveloped world.
-- We must encourage, not hamper, the tidal waves of nationalism sweeping Africa and Asia, so that each emerging
nation knows that America, not Russia or China, is the home of the Declaration of Independence.
-- And finally, here at home, we must strengthen our own resources - expand our economy at a faster rate - improve our
education and research - enlarge our horizons with equal opportunity for all Americans - and give our people a sense of
National purpose and National determination.
All this must be done - and more - before we return to the Summit.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Jefferson-

Jackson Dinner, Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 4, 1960
Emerson once said that "Men are conservatives when they are least vigorous. That is why they are conservatives after
dinner." But here in Minnesota - the stronghold of progressive liberalism in the Democratic Party - we need not fear
being lulled into conservatism at this dinner. Any drift toward conservative principles here will run headlong into the
fighting liberal tradition of the Democratic-Farmer Labor Party - the fighting liberal tradition of Orville Freeman and
Gene McCarthy - and, above all, the great, fighting liberal tradition of my friend and colleague, Hubert Humphrey.
I think you will all agree that there is no man in the Democratic Party who knows more about the fighting liberalism of
Hubert Humphrey than I do - and there is no man in the Democratic Party who is happier that Hubert Humphrey is a
Democrat than I am. For after seeing how Hubert Humphrey campaigns in the Spring, I know that the Republican Party
will never survive his campaigning in the Fall. This November, no matter who the Democratic candidate may be, the
high principles, the courage and the fighting spirit of Hubert Humphrey are going to lead the way to a great, national
Democratic victory.
Hubert Humphrey and I fought, and fought hard, this Spring. As he so often pointed out, we were not making love. And
I never thought we were. But throughout those long, hard arduous battles - from the farms of Wisconsin to the hills of
West Virginia - Hubert Humphrey never once retreated from those liberal principles to which he has devoted his public
life. He never once neglected the larger interests of the Democratic Party for the advantage of the moment. And he never
once stopped his ceaseless, lifelong courageous battle against the vicious forces of bigotry and intolerance.
In the larger sense, Hubert Humphrey won a great victory this Spring - a victory for his own convictions - a victory for
the Democratic Party, and a victory for the future of America. While others retreated to the sidelines - hoping for a good,
clean fight with no survivors - Hubert Humphrey brought the fight for liberalism to the people. He engaged in a great
debate on the vital issues of our times. He helped to arouse and awaken the people of America to the critical challenges
which our nation now faces. And he helped lay the groundwork for a smashing Democratic victory in November.
Hubert Humphrey knew that any party which is afraid to go to the people in the Spring - any party which tries to sell the
American people a pre-packaged, pre-digested and pre-selected candidate - that party does not deserve, and is not going
to get, the people’s confidence in November. And that is why we are going to beat Dick Nixon and the Republican
Party.
Anyone who thinks that our hard-fought primary battles have divided us doesn’t really understand good Democrats. For
Hubert Humphrey and I have been on the same side too long and too often. We were generally on the same side in the
primaries - fighting for programs to eliminate hunger and poverty and fear from the farms of Wisconsin and the hills of
West Virginia. And we are going to continue to be on the same side in the future - no matter what offices we may hold.
And it will be a source of pride and strength and gratitude to me to have Hubert Humphrey on my side.
Vice President Nixon recently told a group of businessmen that Jack Kennedy was really just as liberal as Hubert
Humphrey. Well that is the nicest thing Dick Nixon has ever said about me. And he is going to be sorry he said it. For
Hubert Humphrey’s brand of fighting liberalism is going to beat Dick Nixon this Fall.
We Democrats need Hubert Humphrey. We need his vision, his vigor, his intellect and his fighting heart. And we need
the guidance of his broad, human liberal principles if we are to recapture the White House and again govern the nation
in the great tradition of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman.
But those principles are not Hubert Humphrey's alone. They spring from one of the most vigorous and hopeful liberal
forces in America - the Democratic, Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota. A party which is producing a great, new breed of
Democrats - men of vision and courage, men of intelligence and conviction - men like Orville Freeman and Gene
McCarthy, and Hubert Humphrey and your outstanding delegation to Congress.
And the Democratic Farmer-Labor Party is producing more than great leaders. For here - in the heartland of America -
Democrats are forging the creative programs, the new ideals, and the dynamic leadership which are essential if America
is to meet and conquer the great challenges of the sixties - if we are to meet the test of survival in a world of turmoil,
danger and change. A tired nation, said Lloyd George, is always a Tory nation. And today in 1960 America cannot
afford to be either tired or Tory - or Republican.
For today we cannot afford to entrust our future to a Party which looks to the past, that puts its faith in platitudes, and
which, in the words of Justice Holmes, bases its programs on regrets rather than hope. We cannot afford eight more
years of failure to meet our needs at home and a steady decline in our power and prestige abroad. In short, the American
people cannot afford Dick Nixon and the Republican Party. And - with your help - we are not going to have them.
But a Democratic victory alone is not enough. The power and the pomp and the patronage alone are not enough. For a
party victory will be a hollow victory, unless that victory is also a triumph for the great, liberal principles for which the
DFL stands. "The success of a party," said Woodrow Wilson, "means little unless the nation is using that party for a
large and definite purpose." And the success of our party will mean little unless we too have a "large and definite
purpose" - unless we take with us, into the White House the convictions, the understanding and the deep human
compassion to which men like Hubert Humphrey and Orville Freeman have devoted their political lives.
That is why the Democratic Party must go to the people in November with a liberal candidate and a strong liberal
platform. For only a liberal Democratic Party can win. Only a liberal Democratic Party deserves to win. And only a
liberal Democratic Party can provide this country with the leadership which it so desperately needs.
This task of liberal leadership will be greatly helped by the work of liberal state parties such as your own. Here in
Minnesota - and in Michigan and California and in many other places across the nation - there has grown up a new
liberalism for the sixties - a liberalism which reaches beyond the era of the New and Fair Deals to the problems of a new
age. The principles are here, the programs are here, the ideas are here. We must now state those principles clearly and
fearlessly as Hubert Humphrey has always done. For that is what the American people want to hear - that is what they
must hear - and that is what we are going to tell them.
First, we are going to proclaim our intention to extend and modernize the great social welfare programs of Franklin
Roosevelt and Harry Truman. We are going to raise the minimum wage, extend unemployment compensation, provide
our older citizens with a decent system of medical care, feed our hungry and care for our sick. We are going to make the
vision of Franklin Roosevelt - the vision of a decent life with dignity for all men - we are going to make that vision into
a reality for the America of the sixties. And we are not going to be held back by the cries of the budget cutters - the
smears of some Republicans or the doubts of the fearful. For we know that our party’s job will not be finished until
poverty and want has been eliminated from this great, rich land of ours.
Secondly, we are going to proclaim our fight for equal opportunity for all men - regardless of race, creed, or color.
During the primary campaigns Hubert Humphrey said that if the price of political success was a betrayal of the cause of
human rights then the people could look elsewhere for a candidate. And I say that if anyone expects the Democratic
Party to betray that same cause - they can look elsewhere for a party. But I don’t believe they will. I believe the
American people are dedicated to the cause of human rights and I believe they will vote for a party which shares that
dedication. We Democrats believe that the Presidency is a place of strong moral leadership. And we intend to exercise
that leadership until every American, of every color and faith, has achieved equal access to all of American life - and
that means equal access to the voting booth, the schoolroom, the lunch counter, and the five and ten cent store.
Third, we must proclaim our readiness to end eight years of neglect, ignorance and indifference to the problems of
America’s farmers. Under this Republican Administration, the farmer has been caught in the cruel vise of rising costs
and declining prices. The small family farmer has been forced to leave the land, or seek part time employment to sustain
existence. Our surpluses have grown, and so have the numbers of hungry people. We will act to secure to the American
farmer his fair share of American abundance. For on his strength, the strength of America depends. One of Hubert
Humphrey’s chief complaints about my farm program is that I have stolen his ideas. Let me confess now to that grand
larceny. But let me also say that no robbery has ever been more in the public interest.
Fourth, we must proclaim our readiness to formulate a coherent, consistent, convincing American program for peace -
an effective program for arms control and disarmament to which our whole government and people can be dedicated.
Here again Hubert Humphrey - as Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Disarmament - has done more to develop
an understanding of these great problems than any other person on the political scene. From the studies of his
subcommittee we can begin to work toward a program to control the arms race and prevent the ultimate tragedy of world
atomic war.
But, while we work towards affirmative peace programs, we must also remember the hard lessons of the Summit: The
lesson that peace takes more than talk - the lesson that friendly words, and good-will trips, and public relations programs
are not enough to protect the free world from communist domination - the lesson that only a strong America can hope to
be a peacemaking America. And this means we must begin now to rebuild our strength - not merely our missiles and
armies, although these are important, but economic strength at home and the strength of our allies overseas, strength of
ideas, and strength of determination and strength of purpose.
These policies and these convictions are our message to the American people. This is the basis of a great, liberal
program for the sixties - a program which your party in Minnesota has helped to develop, and which your leaders will
help make a reality. I am convinced that the American people will respond to this program and these challenges. For, as
Franklin Roosevelt said in his first Inaugural, "In every dark hour of our national life, a leadership of frankness and
vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory."
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy in the Senate,

June 14, 1960
May 17, 1960, marked the end of an era - an era of illusion - the illusion that platitudes and slogans are a substitute for
strength and planning - the illusion that personal goodwill is a substitute for hard, carefully prepared bargaining on
concrete issues - the illusion that good intentions and pious principles are a substitute for strong, creative leadership.
For on May 17, 1960, the long-awaited, highly publicized Summit Conference collapsed. That collapse was the direct
result of Soviet determination to destroy the talks. The insults and distortions of Mr. Khrushchev - the violence of his
attacks - shocked all Americans and united the country in admiration for the dignity and self-control of President
Eisenhower. Regardless of party, all of us deeply resented Russian abuse of this nation and its President - and all of us
shared a common disappointment at the failure of the conference. But it is imperative, nevertheless, that we as a nation
rise above our resentment and frustration to a critical re-examination of the events at Paris and their meaning for
America.
I do not now intend to rehash the sorry story of the U-2 incident, and the image of confusion and indecision which our
government presented to the American people and the world. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has raised, in a
constructive manner, the questions which must be raised, if we are to profit from the unfortunate experience. Nor do I
wish to exaggerate the long-range importance of the U-2 incident or the Khrushchev attacks in Paris.
For the harsh facts of the matter are that the effort to eliminate world tensions and end the cold war through a summit
meeting - necessary as such an effort was to demonstrate America's willingness to seek peaceful solutions - was doomed
to failure long before the U-2 ever fell on Soviet soil. This effort was doomed to failure because we have failed for the
past eight years to build the positions of long-term strength essential to successful negotiation. It was doomed because
we were unprepared with new policies or new programs for the settlement of outstanding substantive issues. It was
doomed because the Soviet Union knew it had more to gain from the increasing deterioration of America's world
position than from any concessions that might be made in Paris. Only Mr. Khrushchev's intransigence and violent
temper saved the United States from an embarrassing exposure of our inability to make the Summit meaningful.
Trunk-loads of papers, I am told, were sent to Paris - but no new plans or positions were included. Our unwillingness to
go to the Summit had changed - but the steady decrease in our relative strength had not changed. Our allies and our own
people had been mislead into believing that there was some point to holding a Summit Conference - that we were
prepared to say more than what changes in the status quo we would not accept - that by a miracle of personal charm and
public relations the Russians could be cajoled into yielding some of their hard-won positions of strength - that we had
some conception of alternative settlements that were both acceptable to us and possibly acceptable to the Soviets.
But the truth of the matter is that we were not prepared for any such negotiations - that there was no real success which
the Summit could have achieved. For words and discussion are not a substitute for strength - they are an instrument for
the translation of strength into survival and peace.
We are, in short, fortunate that the violent manner in which the Soviets carried out their determination to wreck the
Summit made it clear to the world that the blame for the collapse of the Conference rests on Mr. Khrushchev. And we
will also be fortunate if the violence of the Paris encounters shocks American leaders and the American people into a
renewed awareness of the perils we face, the sacrifices we must make, and the urgency of our need for leadership.
This is the real issue of American foreign policy today - not the ill-considered timing of the U-2, or the inconsistent
statements of our government. The real issue - and the real lesson of Paris - is the lack of long-range preparation, the
lack of policy-planning, the lack of a coherent and purposeful national strategy backed by strength.
This is an issue worthy of a great debate - a debate by the American people through the media of their political parties -
and that debate must not be stifled or degraded by empty appeals to national unity, false cries of appeasement, or
deceptive slogans about "standing up to Khrushchev." For the issue is not who can best "stand up to Khrushchev" - who
can best swap threats and insults - the real issue is who can stand up and summon America's vast resources to the
defense of freedom against the most dangerous threat it has ever faced.
For if the 1960 campaign should degenerate into a contest of who can talk toughest to Khrushchev - or which party is
the "party of war" or the "party of appeasement" - or which candidate can tell the American voters what they want to
hear, rather than what they need to hear - or who is "soft on communism", or who can be hardest on foreign aid - then, in
my opinion, it makes very little difference who the winners are in July and in November - the American people and the
whole free world will be the losers.
For the next President of the United States - whoever he may be - will find he has considerably more to do than "stand
up" to Khrushchev, balance the budget, and mouth popular slogans, if he is to restore our nation's relative strength and
leadership.
For he will find himself with far-flung commitments without the strength to back them up. He will inherit policies
formed largely as reactions to Soviet action - their limits set by budgeteers without regard to world conditions or
America's needs - their effectiveness often undercut by overlapping or competing agencies. He will inherit membership
in alliances of uncertain stability and in international organizations of obsolete structure. He will inherit programs which
have been administered by shortsighted, unsympathetic men, opposed to the very programs they are administering,
awaiting their own return to private industry, and so lacking in compassion for our domestic needs as to be incapable of
compassion for the desperate needs of the world's peoples. He will face a world of revolution and turmoil armed with
policies which only seek to freeze the status quo and turn back the inevitable tides of change.
To be sure, we have, in 1960, most of the formal tools of foreign policy: We have a defense establishment, a foreign aid
program, a Western alliance, a disarmament committee, an information service, an intelligence operation and a National
Security Council. But (except for the brilliant legislative inquiry being conducted by the Subcommittee of the Senator
from Washington, Mr. Jackson) we have failed to appraise and re-evaluate these tools in the light of our changing world
position. We have failed to adapt these tools to the formulation of a long-range, coordinated strategy to meet the
determined Soviet program for world domination - a program which skillfully blends the weapons of military might,
political subversion, economic penetration and ideological conquest. We are forced to rely upon piecemeal programs,
obsolete policies and meaningless slogans. We have no fresh ideas to break the stalemate in Germany, the stalemate
over arms control, the stalemate in Berlin and all the rest - we have as our grand strategy only the arms race and the cold
war.
Our conferees have consistently gone to the international bargaining table ill-staffed, ill-prepared and ill-advised.
Coordinated efforts - with all agencies and all allies - have faltered without strong direction from the top; and strong
direction from the top has often faltered because the President was not kept fully informed. The fact of the matter is that
long-range problems in foreign affairs cannot be faced effectively by a party which is unwilling to face long-range
problems at home. The destinies of a fast-changing world cannot be shaped effectively by a party traditionally opposed
to change and progress. Coherent direction and purpose for the Free World cannot be provided effectively by a party
which does not provide them for our own people.
As a substitute for policy, Mr. Eisenhower has tried smiling at the Russians; our State Department has tried frowning at
them; and Mr. Nixon has tried both. None have succeeded. For we cannot conceal or overcome our lack of purpose and
our failure of planning by "talking tough"; nor can we compensate for our weaknesses by "talking nice," by assuming
that the righteousness of our principles will ensure their victory. For just as we know that "might" never makes "right",
we must also remember that "right," unfortunately, never makes "might."
Thus neither our smiles nor our frowns have ever altered Mr. Khrushchev's course, however he may alter his expression.
His real goals have remained unmoved, his interests unchanged, his determination unending. And as long as Mr.
Khrushchev is convinced that the balance of world power is shifting his way, no amount of either smiles or toughness,
neither Camp David talks nor kitchen debates, can compel him to enter fruitful negotiations.
So let us abandon the useless discussion of who can best "stand up to Khrushchev", or whether a "hard" or "soft" line is
preferable. Our task is to rebuild our strength, and the strength of the free world - to prove to the Soviets that time and
the course of history are not on their side, that the balance of world power is not shifting their way - and that therefore
peaceful settlement is essential to mutual survival. Our task is to devise a national strategy - based not on the 11th hour
responses to Soviet created crises, but a comprehensive set of carefully prepared, long-term policies designed to increase
the strength of the non-communist world. Until this task is accomplished, there is no point in returning to the Summit -
for no President of the United States must ever again be put in the position of traveling across the seas, armed only with
vague, speculative hopes, in order to provide an occasion for public humiliation. And unless this task is accomplished -
as we move into the most critical period in our nation's history since that bleak winter at Valley Forge - our national
security, our survival itself, will be in peril.
The hour is late - but the agenda is long.
First - We must make invulnerable a nuclear retaliatory power second to none - by making possible now a stop-gap air
alert and base dispersal program - and by stepping up our development and production of the ultimate missiles that can
close the gap and will not be wiped out in a surprise attack - Polaris, Minuteman, and long-range air-to-ground missiles -
meanwhile increasing our production of Atlas missiles, hardening our bases and improving our continental defense and
warning systems. As a power which will never strike first, we require a retaliatory capacity based on hidden, moving or
invulnerable weapons in such force as to deter any aggressor from threatening an attack he knows could not destroy
enough of our force to prevent his own destruction. And we must also critically re-examine the far-flung overseas base
structure on which much of our present retaliatory strength is based. We must contribute to the political and economic
stability of the nations in which our vital bases are located - and develop alternative plans for positions which may
become untenable.
Secondly - We must regain the ability to intervene effectively and swiftly in any limited war anywhere in the world -
augmenting, modernizing and providing increased mobility and versatility for the conventional forces and weapons of
the Army and Marine Corps. As long as those forces lack the necessary airlift and sealift capacity and versatility of
firepower, we cannot protect our commitments around the globe - resist non-nuclear aggressions - or be certain of
having enough time to decide on the use of our nuclear power.
Third - We must rebuild NATO into a viable and consolidated military force, capable of deterring any kind of attack,
unified in weaponry and responsibility. Aiming beyond a narrow military alliance united only by mutual fears, a return
to mutual consultation and respect - and a determined American effort to create a free world economy - can help
overcome schismatic economic rivalries between the Continent and Britain, and the Common Market and the "Outer
Seven," as well as other Western differences in military and political policy. We need a common effort to protect vital
international reserves, to adopt more consistent tariff policies on both sides of the Atlantic and to merge Western
contributions to the underdeveloped areas.
Fourth - We must, in collaboration with Western Europe and Japan, greatly increase the flow of capital to the
underdeveloped areas of Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America - frustrating the communist hopes for chaos in
those nations - enabling emerging nations to achieve economic as well as political independence - and closing the
dangerous gap that is now widening between our living standards and theirs. Above all, it is vital that we aid India to
make a success of her new five-year program - a success that will enable her to compete with Red China for economic
leadership of all Asia. And we must undertake this effort in a spirit of generosity, motivated by a desire to help our
fellow citizens of the world - not as narrow bankers or self-seeking politicians. Our present foreign aid programs have
neglected the great, visionary, partnership principles of the Marshall Plan and Point Four - they have been subordinated
to narrow, expedient ends - money has been poured into military assistance programs at the expense of vitally necessary
economic development. The next President will have to devise an entirely revamped foreign aid program - a program
which will make the long-term commitments essential to successful planning - a program whose administration will not
be hampered by waste and mismanagement, or by unsympathetic and unqualified administrators. And part of this
program must be a new and expanded effort to use our food surpluses to feed the world's hungry - storing them in "food
banks" abroad.
Fifth - We must reconstruct our relations with the Latin American democracies - bringing them into full Western
partnership - working through a strengthened Organization of American States - increasing the flow of technical
assistance, development capital, private investment, exchange students and agricultural surpluses, perhaps through the
large-scale "Operation Pan-America" which has been proposed by the President of Brazil - and pursuing practical
agreements for stabilizing commodity prices, trade routes and currency convertability. A return to the "Good Neighbor
Policy" is not enough - dollar diplomacy is not enough - a patronizing attitude taking for granted their dedication to an
anti-communist crusade is not enough. We will need a whole new set of attitudes and emphases to make the nations of
Latin America full partners in the rapid development of the Western Hemisphere.
Sixth - We must formulate, with both imagination and restraint, a new approach to the Middle East - not pressing our
case so hard that the Arabs feel their neutrality and nationalism are threatened, but accepting those forces and seeking to
help channel them along constructive lines, while at the same time trying to hasten the inevitable Arab acceptance of the
permanence of Israel. We must give our support to programs to help people instead of regimes - to work in terms of
their problems, not ours - and seek a permanent settlement among Arabs and Israelis based not on an armed truce but on
mutual self-interest. Guns and anti-communist pacts and propaganda and the traditional piecemeal approach are not
enough - refugee resettlement and a regional resources development fund in full partnership with the Middle Eastern
nations, are all parts of a long-range strategy which is both practical and in the best interests of all concerned.
Seventh - We must greatly increase our efforts to encourage the newly emerging nations of the vast continent of Africa -
to persuade them that they do not have to turn to Moscow for the guidance and friendship they so desperately need - to
help them achieve the economic progress on which the welfare of their people and their ability to resist communist
subversion depends. We can no longer afford policies which refuse to accept the inevitable triumph of nationalism in
Africa - the inevitable end of colonialism - or the unyielding determination of the new African states to lift their people
from their age-old poverty and hunger and ignorance. We must answer the critical African need for educated men to
build the factories, run the schools and staff the governments by sending a growing stream of technical experts and
educators to Africa - and by bringing far greater numbers of African students - future African leaders - to our own
universities for training. Agricultural experts must be sent into areas where the land is unproductive and where modern
methods of agriculture are unknown in order to raise subsistence levels of farming and ensure adequate supplies of food
- and while this is being done we must use our own food surpluses to prevent hunger. We must establish a multi-nation
economic development loan fund - a full working partnership between the nations of the West and the nations of Africa
- to provide the capital necessary to start African economic growth on its way. And finally, if our policies toward Africa
are to be effective, we must extend this aid in terms of America's desire to bring freedom and prosperity to Africa - not
in terms of a narrow self-interest which seeks only to use African nations as pawns in the cold war.
Eighth - We must plan a long-range solution to the problems of Berlin. We must show no uncertainty over our
determination to defend Berlin - but we must realize that a solution to the problems of that beleaguered city is only
possible in the context of a solution of the problems of Germany and, indeed, the problems of all Europe. We must look
forward to a free Berlin, in a United Germany in a Europe where tensions and armaments have been reduced - where
perhaps the suggestions of General DeGaulle and Premier Adenauer requiring Soviet withdrawal behind the Urals can
be accepted. Such a solution is far from a reality - but both our good faith and our will to resist are dependent on our
willingness to face the total problem of tension and conflict in Europe. We must remain precise in our determination to
meet our commitments until a change in Soviet policy permits a constructive solution. In the meantime, we should
explore how the moral authority of the UN could be used to strengthen the security presently provided to the people of
West Berlin.
Ninth - We must prepare and hold in readiness more flexible and realistic tools for use in Eastern Europe. The policy of
"liberation," proudly proclaimed eight years ago, has proved to be a snare and a delusion. The tragic uprisings in East
Germany, in Poland and in Hungary demonstrated clearly that we had neither the intention or the capacity to liberate
Eastern Europe - and the false hopes raised by our promises were cruelly crushed. We must now begin to work slowly
and carefully toward programs designed to wean from their Soviet masters any dependents showing signs of discontent -
to nourish the seeds of liberty in any cracks appearing in the iron curtain by reducing economic and ideological
dependence on Russia. There are already opportunities in Poland for greater American initiative, aid, trade, tourism,
information services, student and teacher exchanges, and the use of our capital and technology to advance the standard
of living of the Polish people. Closer relationships can be offered in other so-called captive nations as well - showing a
creative interest, not a closed mind, by the nation that represents their one great hope for freedom.
Tenth - We must reassess a China policy which has failed dismally to move toward its principal objective of weakening
communist rule in the mainland - a policy which has failed to prevent a steady growth in Communist strength - and a
policy which offers no real solution to the problems of a militant China. We need to formulate proposals for a reduction
of tension in the Formosa Straits - at the same time making clear our determination to defend that Island. We must act
through an Asian regional development organization to stabilize the nations of non-communist Asia both politically and
economically, so as to strengthen their resistance to communist pressures. And, although we should not now recognize
Red China or agree to its admission to the United Nations without a genuine change in her belligerent attitude toward
her Asian neighbors and the world - and regrettably there is evidence that her belligerence is rising rather than receding -
we must nevertheless work to improve at least our communications with mainland China. Perhaps a way could be found
to bring the Chinese into the nuclear test ban talks at Geneva - so that the Soviets could not continue their atomic tests
on the mainland of China without inspection - and also because Chinese possession of atomic weapons could drastically
alter the balance of power. If that contact proves fruitful, further cultural and economic contact could be tried. For only
in this way can we inform ourselves of communist activities, attempt to restore our historic friendship with the Chinese
people, and make sure that we are not plunged into war by a Chinese miscalculation of our determination to defend all
of free Asia. Today we have no affirmative policies - only an attitude of negative resistance - with the chance of
dangerous action stemming from mutual miscalculation. This cannot last in a world where the Red Chinese are
increasingly important, increasingly menacing, and increasingly impossible to omit from effective international
agreements on subjects such as arms control.
Eleventh - We must begin to develop new, workable programs for peace and the control of arms. We have been
unwilling to plan for disarmament, and unable to offer creative proposals of our own, always leaving the initiative in the
hands of the Russians. An Arms Control Research Institute could undertake the technical studies needed before we can
detect and monitor the vast and complex weapons systems of modern warfare. The entire world hopes that the collapse
at the Summit has not destroyed man's hope for a nuclear test ban. But if such a ban is achieved, it must only be the first
step toward halting the spiralling arms race that burdens the entire world with a fantastic financial drain, excessive
military establishments, and the chance of an accidental or irrational triggering of a worldwide holocaust. At the same
time we must move toward the eventual rule of international law by working to strengthen the United Nations and to
increase its role in resolving international conflicts and planning for international scientific and economic development.
Twelfth and finally - We must work to build the stronger America on which our ultimate ability to defend the free world
depends. We must increase our own scientific effort - not only by strengthening and revamping existing research
programs in all fields, including the exploration of space - but by building an educational system which can produce the
talent and skill on which our future strength and progress depends. We must work to create an America with an
expanding economy, where growth is not dissipated in inflation, and consumer luxuries are not confused with national
strength - an economy capable of supporting our massive needs and our new programs. And we must also work to create
an America of equal opportunity and economic justice for all men of all ages, races, and creeds - an America which will
be, as the Founding Fathers intended us to be, a living example of freedom to the world.
This is a large agenda - a challenging agenda - and yet I do not pretend that it is, in any sense, complete. For if there is
one certain thing in a world of change, it is that the coming years will bring new problems, undreamt of challenges,
unanticipated opportunities.
The next President will confront a task of unparalleled dimensions. But this task will not be his alone. For just as he
must offer leadership and demand sacrifices - it is the American people who must be willing to respond to these
demands.
I realize also that the length of this agenda is in sharp contrast with the rosy reassurances of the Administration
"America is today," the Vice President told his National Committee Saturday, summarizing our position in the world,
"the strongest country militarily, the strongest country economically, with the best educational system (and) the finest
scientists in the world, over all." To feed that kind of diet to the American people during the coming months - to confine
our national posture to one of talking louder and louder while carrying a smaller and smaller stick - is to trade the long-
range needs of the nation for the short-term appearance of security.
For all America - its President and its people - the coming years will be a time of decision. We must decide whether we
have reached our limit - whether our greatness is past - whether we can go no further - or whether, in the words of
Thomas Wolfe, "the true discovery of America is before us ... the true fulfillment of our mighty and immortal land is yet
to come."
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Durango,

Colorado, June 18, 1960
No group of Americans who should have been less surprised by our U-2 flights than the people of Colorado. For no
section of this country owes more to the daring of American espionage efforts, than the State of Colorado. In 1806 an
American adventurer headed for the unmapped regions of the Rocky Mountains, carrying secret instructions. He was to
have himself arrested by the Spanish and taken to Santa Fe so that he could observe Spanish activities there, and perhaps
discover the source of Spanish gold. His mission, perhaps our first espionage penetration into foreign land, was
successful; although this particular mission was carried out without the knowledge of President Thomas Jefferson,
setting still another precedent for today. History does not record what he found in Santa Fe. But history does record that
on his way to the Southwest he incidentally managed to discover the Front Range of the Rockies, open Colorado up to
exploration, and get a mountain named after him. His name was Zebulon Pike; and the mountain he tried to climb -
Pike's Peak.
Today our secret agents go over mountains - not up them. They try to avoid capture - not seek it. They look for missiles
- not for gold. But one thing is still the same. For Mr. Pike, and his successor explorers, described the country through
which they passed in such dismal and forbidding terms that all plans to develop the land were halted. And today's
Administration - like those of the early 1800s - also has so little faith in the future of the West that it, too, has virtually
abandoned its development.
For eight long, arid years - as America's needs have grown, as new and urgent problems of resource conservation have
arisen - this Republican Administration has failed continuously and dismally to protect our great abundance of natural
wealth. In eight years - eight years of change and growth - this Republican Administration has failed to propose one new
program, a single new effort, one fresh plan for the development of our natural resources. In eight years the combined
talents of the entire administration have been unable to come up with one creative step forward - or given one sign of an
awareness that today's new problems require new solutions and a fresh approach. Instead of directing the energies of
government to the formulation of progressive policies - this Administration has devoted all its skill to blocking every
Democratic effort to move ahead in resource development. Frequently - as in the case of the water pollution bill -
Democratic programs have been met with destructive veto. And - when a veto was not thought to be politically
appropriate - Democratic proposals have been looked on as a challenge to the Administration's ability to force a
compromise which would cut the heart out of our programs - which would retain the form and not the substance. And,
unfortunately, the Republicans have often met this challenge.
Wherever we look - from forest, to mountain, to river, to the very air we breathe we can see America's priceless heritage
of natural wealth being dissipated by Republican despoilment under-development and neglect.
The development of our vital water resources - water to reclaim the land, to supply the power for cities and industry, to
provide opportunity for recreation and pleasure, and to meet the needs of a rapidly expanding population - has been
stifled and retarded by a resource budget which provides only a small fraction of the minimum sums recommended by
the Administration's own Department of Commerce. As a result many parts of the country already feel a water shortage
- and, unless these policies are soon reversed - these shortages will spread across the nation.
Our rich and vast national forests - the principal source of our timber, our hydroelectric power and our water - have been
rapidly deteriorating under a forestry program which is less than half the effort recommended by the Secretary of
Agriculture. Unless we increase today's investment in our forests, a future America will suffer enormous losses in
wasted timber, barren forest land, and dwindling water supplies.
Democratic efforts to control the wasteful and destructive pollution of our waterways was met with a crushing and
reckless veto - a veto which all but destroyed the hope of providing a clean and healthy water supply for all our people.
Here in Colorado past federal programs had doubled the amount of badly needed pollution control construction. But this
Administration, instead of stimulating your efforts, has tried to destroy them.
Vast stretches of arid lands are today going unreclaimed - even though we will need 3½ million more acres by 1980 if
we are to meet our growing need for food.
The enormous power needs of our growing cities and expanding industry have been sadly neglected by an
Administration which has failed to initiate a single, multi-purpose, basin-wide development project since it has been in
office - which has failed to heed Teddy Roosevelt's admonition that a "river is a unit from its source to the sea" - and
which was only persuaded to drop its backward-looking policy of "no new starts" by the approach of an election year.
Our mineral resources are going untapped - their potential for the future unexplored - even though our need for minerals
is growing by leaps and bounds.
Our priceless stock of natural beauty is being eroded - our wildlife going unprotected - our fish stocks destroyed - even
though by 1970 more than forty million American families will be on the road searching for new opportunities for
recreation, for pleasure, and for relief from urban living.
These failures - and many like them - are not failures to solve just Western problems - they are not the concern of the
Western States alone. For, as Theodore Roosevelt said, "The conservation of our natural resources and their proper use
constitute the fundamental problem which underlies almost every other problem of our national life. We must maintain
for our civilization the adequate material base without which that civilization cannot exist." And today the development
of our natural resources is vital not only to the survival of the American West - not only to American survival - but it is
essential to the survival of the entire free world. And that survival is being imperiled by short-sighted resource policies
which are impairing our national wealth and our national strength.
This Republican refusal to develop our natural resources - to provide the "material base" for tomorrow's America - has
been justified in the name of economy. Our future wealth has been sacrificed to today's balanced budget. Our future
needs have been neglected in order to satisfy a few short-sighted men in the Treasury. But the harsh fact of the matter is
that this Administration's resource policies have been the most wasteful, extravagant, spendthrift programs of any
Administration since the great giveaways which followed the Civil War. We have recklessly dissipated the resources on
which our strength depends. We have thrown away - heedless of our growing needs - opportunity after opportunity to
ensure that future generations of America will have the water, the power, the timber and the fertile land on which their
prosperity will depend. We have failed to invest in America's future - and a future America will have to pay the high
cost of our failures.
In 1961 we must reverse the policies of an Administration which has lost the faith in America's future which brought
Zebulon Pike to the Rockies and enabled American pioneers to subdue a continent. We must remedy the failures of an
Administration which has ignored the greatness of a West which is, as Archibald MacLeish has said, not merely a
storehouse of material abundance - but "a country in the mind" - which represents a spirit of daring and vision and belief
that America's true greatness still lies before us.
We must of course, rebuild the resource programs which are the proud heritage of the New Deal, and which have been
neglected and ignored during the past eight years - forestry programs, power programs, reclamation programs, river-
basin development and all the rest. In this way we can begin to repair the damage which has already been done and start
to restore our resource.
But we need more than a return to old policies and programs - important as those policies may be. We need a whole new
concept of resource development. For the days when our natural wealth was so plentiful that a little effort brought great
rewards, those days have passed. Nor can we any longer look upon each resource need as a separate and individual item
- requiring separate planning and separate administration. Today's resource needs are closely interrelated - the
development of our water supplies affects the irrigation of our land and even our stocks of fish. Forest development
influences power development, and our power development can only be carried out with a careful eye to the need for
flood protection. And, as our needs mount and our population grows, it will become increasingly essential that we
consider all our resources in light of their relationship to each other - as well as to the economy as a whole.
That is why I support Democratic efforts to establish a Council of Resource and Conservation Advisers in the office of
the President - a council which will engage in overall resource planning - which will assess our national needs - and
recommend national programs to meet them. With such a Council - working in cooperation with a Joint Congressional
Committee - we can have a continuous appraisal of our resource needs, and up-to-date inventory of our resource
potential - and a resource development program which can be shaped to fit all the needs of a growing economy and an
expanding population.
At the same time we must modernize the Administration of our resource development by bringing together programs
which are now often scattered through dozens of different departments. And we must also revamp our system of
financing new resource projects. Today the entire expense of the construction of new dams or new reclamation projects
is taken out of today's budget - distorting the cost of projects which will be returning revenues to the government for
many decades. Every business in the country spreads the cost of its long-term development programs over the years
when these programs will be in fruitful use. We must put the financing of America's resource development on a
businesslike basis - a basis which will reflect its true value; its real cost - and make clear the nature of our investment in
America's future.
It was Theodore Roosevelt who said that "To waste, to destroy, our natural resources.... will result in undermining in the
days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed." That
distinguished Republican President possessed a vision and an understanding which his successors have lost. For today's
Republicans have neglected and undermined the natural heritage, the hope for prosperity, of our children. Only under a
new Democratic Administration - an Administration which will apply creative and dynamic principles of planning and
financing to old problems and historic programs - can we begin to amplify and develop the abundance we have been so
freely given. Only under a Democratic Administration will we realize the prophecy of Stephen Douglas who, a hundred
years ago, said of the "Great West" and its wealth - "There, is the hope of this nation."
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at American

Legion State Convention, Sioux Falls, South Dakota,
June 19, 1960
DEFENSE
Winston Churchill said: "We arm - to parley." We prepare for war - in order to deter war. We depend on the strength of
armaments - to enable us to bargain for disarmament. We compare our military strength with the Soviets - not to
determine whether we should use it - but to determine whether we can persuade them that to use theirs would be futile
and disastrous - and to determine whether we can back up our own pledges in Berlin, Formosa and around the world.
In short, peace, not politics, is at the heart of the current debate - peace, not war is the objective of our military policy.
But peace would have no meaning if the Soviet Union ever achieved the power to destroy most of our retaliatory
capacity in a single blow. It would then be irrelevant as to whether the Soviets achieved our demise through massive
attack, through the threat of such attack, or through nibbling away gradually at our security.
Will such a time come?
The current discussions of defense have too often centered on how our retaliatory capacity compares today with that of
the Soviets. But the real issue is not how we stand today but tomorrow - not in 1960 but in 1961, 1962, and particularly
1963 and thereafter. 1960 is critical because this is the year that the money must be appropriated - by this session of this
Congress - if we are to obtain even initial results in subsequent years.
It is true that we cannot be certain that the Soviets will have, during the term of the next Administration, the tremendous
lead in missile striking power which they give every evidence of building - and we cannot be certain that they will use
that lead to threaten or launch an attack upon the United States. Consequently, those of us who call for a higher defense
budget are taking a chance on spending money unnecessarily. But those who oppose these expenditures are taking a
chance on our very survival as a nation.
The only real question is - which chance, which gamble, do we take - our money or our survival? The money must be
appropriated now - the survival will not, we hope, be at stake for a few more years.
I am convinced that every American who can be fully informed as to the facts today will agree to an additional
investment in our national security now rather than risk his survival, and his children’s survival in the years ahead - in
particular, an investment effort designed
(1) to make possible an emergency stop-gap air alert program, to deter an attach before the missile gap is close,
(2) to step up our ultimate missile program that will close the gap when completed: Polaris, Minuteman and long-range
air-to-ground missiles - meanwhile stepping up our production of Atlas missiles to cover the current gap as best we can;
and
(3) to rebuild and modernize our Army and Marine Corps conventional forces, to prevent the brush-fire wars that our
capacity for nuclear retaliation is unable to deter.
These additional efforts do not involve a small sum to be spent carelessly. There are other uses - schools, hospitals,
parks and dams - to which we would rather devote it. But the total amount, I am convinced, would be less than one per
cent of our Gross National Product. It would be less than the estimated budget surplus.
It is, I am convinced, an investment in peace that we can afford - and cannot avoid.
We cannot avoid taking these measures any more than the average American can avoid taking out fire insurance on his
home. We cannot be absolutely certain of the danger. But neither can we risk our future on our estimates of a hostile
power’s strength and intentions, particularly when secrecy is that power’s dominate characteristic - and particularly in
the light of our consistent history of underestimating Soviet strength and scientific progress. The chance that our military
improvidence will invite a national catastrophe is substantially greater - many, many times greater if you work out the
odds on an actuarial basis - than the chance that your house or my house will burn down this year or next. But as
individuals we are willing to pay for fire insurance, - and, although we hope we never need it, we are surely equally
prepared as a nation to pay every dollar necessary to take out this kind of additional insurance against a national
catastrophe.
I am calling, in short, for an investment in peace. Like any investment it will be a gamble with our money. But the
alternative is to gamble with our lives.
Some say that it is deplorable that the facts of our defense weaknesses are discussed in an election campaign. I agree. It
is not the discussion that is deplorable, however, but the facts. The Russians already know these facts. The American
people do not. The debate itself is not deplorable - it is deplorable that the situation deteriorated to this point where it
became a matter for debate. In matters of this kind, the only wise and safe course is to leave a margin so large as to
preclude any doubt or debate.
For when we are in doubt, our allies are in doubt, - and our enemy is in doubt - and such doubts are tempting to him.
While those doubts persist, he will want to push, to probe and possibly to attack. He will not want to talk disarmament.
He will not want to talk peace at the Summit.
I urge that this Congress, before the President departs for the Summit, demonstrate conclusively that we are removing
those doubts - and that we are prepared to pay the full costs necessary to insure peace. Let us remember what Gibbon
said of the Romans:
"They kept the peace - by a constant preparation for war; and by making clear to their neighbors that they were
as little disposed to offer as to endure injury."
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Quentin

Burdick Birthday Dinner, Fargo, North Dakota, June
19, 1960
It is a pleasure to join in the birthday greetings and tributes to Quentin Burdick.

There is a tradition in Tibet which decrees that a child born when the Dalai Lama dies is destined to be the reincarnation
of the Dalai Lama. Quentin Burdick was born when the Progressive Republicanism of Teddy Roosevelt gave way to
Taft Republicanism. Fortunately, he chose to be reincarnated as a Democrat - probably because this was the best way to
continue the progressive policies of his father. Quentin Burdick is the right man for North Dakota - the state which is
often known as the "land of the long furrow."
It would have been easy for him to become discouraged when he began practicing law here in Fargo in 1932. The nation
was in the very bottom of the Depression. Then, as now, a national Republican Administration had refused to focus on
the needs of the nation.
But he then began a long and continuous effort to bring hope to the North Dakota farmers. He is still engaged in that
effort - and never was it more needed.
In 1952, North Dakota farmers could buy a self-propelled combine with the proceeds from 2500 bushels of wheat.
Today it takes almost 3500 bushels to buy the same combine. At the same time that the price of the products the farmer
buys continues to ascend, farm income steadily declines. And when the farmer suffers, everyone suffers. It is no
coincidence that business failures in North Dakota were 60 percent higher last year than they were in 1952.
To help us with these problems we need men who know the facts, and who will face the facts. Quentin Burdick is that
kind of man. We need him in the Senate of the United States. We need him to help with the creative new legislation of
the next Democratic Administration.
In this land of the Nonpartisan League, I hesitate to make a partisan appeal. But there is no longer much argument about
the objectives - or the effects - of the Benson-Eisenhower-Nixon farm program. We need the help of Quentin Burdick to
halt the steady deterioration of our farm communities resulting from this program. The Washington press recently
reported that the Republicans hoped to win the North Dakota elections because there were good "Republican rains" this
spring. But it is not rain that we expect from our government. It is a program to harness the rain and the rivers - to make
good use of the blessings that nature brings us - to apply human intelligence to our great economic and political
problems.
The Administration theory that declining prices and uncontrolled production can solve our agricultural problems is both
impractical and unjust. It has been tried and it has failed. Whenever he is faced with declining unit prices, the farmer is
forced to increase production - bringing more surpluses and still lower prices. It is a losing battle - a battle which the
farmer cannot win.
A recent study by the Department of Agriculture has shown that, if all production controls were removed, farm income
would decline 46% in the next 5 years. This would mean almost universal bankruptcy - the disappearance of the family
farm - an accelerated movement off the farm - in short, national disaster.
What is called "the farm problem" is, in reality, three interrelated problems:
First, there is the crisis of insufficient farm income.
Second, there is the crisis of overwhelming surpluses.
Third, there is the crisis of excessive expenditures for programs of limited benefit.
Every proposal must be judged by the extent to which it can contribute to the solution of these three problems.
I do not say that a Democratic Administration would have all the answers to all the problems. I do not agree with those
who think that all we have to do is dismiss Mr. Benson and get a new Secretary of Agriculture. This problem is bigger
and deeper than one man or one administration.
But it is a fact that we need a sympathetic administration. It is a fact that we need an administration that will not veto
legislation that offers some hope for increased farm income. It is a fact that executive leadership is important. For no
major farm bill has ever been passed over a Presidential veto in this century.
It should be obvious by now that any effective farm program must be based upon sufficient control over farm production
to prevent it from overreaching its possible market. At the same time we must take advantage of our abundance to
improve our standard of living.
How do we do this? There are five essential parts to this basic program.
First, we must provide for adjustment between supply and demand. Wheat is no different from steel - or from
automobiles - or from refrigerators. When the steel industry finds itself with an excess capacity - as it does today - it
trims production. It does not reduce prices. There is no Administration effort to plow back every third company - or
even to reduce steel prices. The farmer is entitled to the same consideration. I recall a farm leader saying to me not long
ago that if the "free market" theory was so great for farmers, business should also be required to try it. "Outlaw all price
tags, adding machines and cash registers," he said. "Replace them with live auctioneers and sell everything thereafter by
bid. Violators would be sentenced to five years at farming for their living."
Second, any future farm program should be run by the farmers and for the farmers. Basic administration on the local
level should be in the hands of farmer committees elected by the farmers themselves. Complete responsibility for
establishing production quotas should be assumed by the farmer representatives subject to Department of Agriculture
guidance. No bureaucrat, no scientist, no economist, knows the trends and variations of the farm picture as well as the
local farmers. No one else has the right to make these important determinations.
On the national level we need a Federal Farm Board composed of leaders from the key commodity groups - a board
which can explain the farmers' needs to the Administration and the Administration's hopes to the farmer. This would be
a board made up of real farmers - and by farmers. I do not mean some of those whom Mr. Benson has appointed to high
office - the so-called "farmers" who own one cow and ten banks.
Third, the concept of parity must be retained as the goal and basis for pricing policies. Only in this way can our nation's
farmers be assured of a fair share of the national income. In the past eight years we have watched the steady decline in
farm income while all other prices, almost all other wages, and all other productivity spurted upward. The farmer has
been steadily squeezed between declining income and mounting costs. His share of the national income has dropped to
an all time low.
Under a program in which supply and demand were evenly balanced, there would be little or no need to support the
market by purchases. However, the controls should be available on a standby basis to take care of sudden fluctuations in
supply or demand.
Fourth, any national program should be based primarily upon the promotion and preservation of the family farm. That is
the basic unit here in North Dakota - that is the way it must continue to be. We have no wish to become a nation of giant
commercial corporation farms and absentee landlords. Our whole vitality as a nation depends on a contrary course. So
let us beware of programs that aid most those who need it least - that encourage the big non-compliers by giving them a
good support price anyway. Our business is to look out for the family farmer - and we can count on the family farmer to
look out for the future of our country.
Fifth, any national farm program must include provision for the conservation and wise utilization of our soil and water
resources. The surpluses of today may well become the scarcities of tomorrow. By the turn of the century our nation will
have a population of 350 million - equaling the population of India in 1951, a year of critical food shortage in that
country. With increased markets in under-developed nations and rising world populations, there will be an ever greater
demand for our food and fiber.
Properly used, our agricultural abundance can be an important instrument of foreign policy.
But this means careful planning. We must begin immediately to take into account all the needs of the future - needs for
fertile soil - for forest and wood products - for recreation. Soil conservation, reclamation, irrigation, and rural zoning
projects must be encouraged.
Only then will it be possible to gear national production to international need - to grow food for stomachs and not for
storage - to support the farmer's price and income at a level which will cover his costs and a reasonable profit, and at the
same time substantially reduce the cost of this program to the American taxpayer.
I am convinced that the farmers of this country - particularly if they are given a major voice in shaping and
administering this policy - will support it and cooperate with it. This is not a matter of partisan politics - and it is not
even a matter only of farm income. For our basic concern is not the interest of any single political party, or the interests
of any single group in our economy. Our basic interest is the national interest - and, dedicating ourselves to that
objective, we can go forward with renewed faith in the future of our land.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Dinner in

Honor of John Healey, Camden, New Jersey, June 22,
1960
Calvin Coolidge was not a man of many words. Once when his wife pressed him to tell her what the minister had talked
about in church, Mr. Coolidge said, "Sin." When she insisted he tell her what the minister had said about sin, Mr.
Coolidge finally replied, "He was against it."
We Democrats know what we are against - we are against complacency in regard to the needs of the nation - against
indifference to the suffering of the people in economic distress - against insensitivity to the great changes underway in
the world.
But we also know what we are for. We are for a new period of action and progress in building a strong and healthy
America. We are for government dedicated to the proposition that the promises of equal opportunity for all Americans -
regardless of race or creed or age - must be achieved in all parts of our public life. We are for American world
leadership designed to meet the Communist challenge and to create the conditions for peace and freedom. This means
we are for the election in November of a new Democratic administration and a Democratic Congress to provide the kind
of leadership the nation needs - and this means we are for the election of John Healey to Congress. The success of the
next Democratic administration will depend on the strong and vigorous support of men like John Healey in the
Congress. His experience in business and local government will serve him in good stead in the Congress - and he will
serve you and the nation by helping to bring about a new era of progressive government.
As we look around the world, as we read the newspaper accounts of one crisis after another, we need to remember that
there are certain principles which run through all our political problems whether on a local, national or international
level. One of these principles - the essential principle of the Democratic Party from the days of Thomas Jefferson - is
that people count. Power may take the form of atomic bombs or missiles or military bases, but the final source of power
is the people. To know what to do on a local level, a political leader must first of all be in tune with the people - must
understand their problems and their thinking - and must be responsive to the needs of people. The same is true on a
national or world level.
I am convinced the source of most of our trouble in these last years of dwindling American prestige has been an
Administration which is out of touch with the American people and with the people of the world.
Certainly the Soviet Union has been and will continue to be a potent trouble maker - the Communists played an active
leading role in stirring up the violent reaction in Japan to the United States-Japanese Military Treaty and to President
Eisenhower’s good will visit. A fact of our life now and in the future is the clear and ever present danger of a militant
world Communism - which will take advantage of every mistake we make, of every weakness we allow to develop.
And let me also express my respect and sympathy for President Eisenhower whose restraint and dignity in the face of
the insults he has suffered in the last two months is in the best American tradition. His good will is unquestioned.
What I question is the operating practice - the obsolete and outmoded approach of the Republican Administration to the
critical issues at home and abroad.
Secretary Herter has stated that a misjudgment was made in going ahead with the trip to Japan. He said that we thought
that the Japanese government had the situation well in hand. But obviously powerful forces in Japanese public opinion
are at work against the military pact with the United States - opinions and emotions and fears on which the Communists
were able to play, forces which we ignored or seriously miscalculated.
And this incident has shown that unfortunately candor is not enough - a confession of error is not enough. This is just
the last of a long series of miscalculations about the State of the World and the State of the Nation - of misunderstanding
of the minds and hearts of people throughout the world. Our next government must begin to calculate correctly before a
disaster occurs. For this, we must have an understanding of the forces at work in the world so that we can act before a
crisis comes to a head, so that we can act affirmatively, creatively, and effectively before there is nothing left but to
retreat.
We have seen how public opinion and forces have exploded in one form or another, in South Korea and in Turkey the
last month, and before that in South Africa, in South America, in Iraq, in Pakistan, in Lebanon, and in Cuba. As Prime
Minister Macmillan told the South African Parliament, the wind of change is blowing. It can wreck havoc - but it can
also be a source of new vigor and progress.
To meet this world of change, we can no longer afford a Party wedded to the status quo and an Administration alien to
change. We need a changing, growing ever stronger America which has no fear of a changing world - which can lead
the people of the world in the peaceful changes necessary to achieve human rights and justice everywhere. We need a
government which first of all has faith in the American people - faith that the people are ready to take on the great new
assignments, to meet the new challenge of this new age.
We need a government which will lead the North Atlantic community to a partnership with the developing nations of
Asia, Africa and South America. We need a government which will put us again in tune with the world - with the hopes
and aspirations of the rest of mankind.
"The soul of our country" as Franklin Roosevelt said after two terms of Harding and Coolidge, "in the previous
conservative era of Republican complacency the soul of our country lulled by material prosperity has passed through
eight grey years." We must put these dull grey years behind us. We must put an end to this depression of our national
spirit. We must inaugurate a new era of Democratic progress.
It is time for our holiday from history to end - for this nation to accept its destiny of world leadership, for us to take the
step at home and abroad to increase our strength and the strength of all free nations, for us to join the human race.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Essex County

Democratic Dinner, Spring Lake, New Jersey, June 22,
1960
It is a long way from North Dakota - where I spoke last week - to New Jersey. But, even though the distance is great,
much is the same. For here, as in the Dakotas, and in all the many states which I have visited in the past few months, the
American people are aroused - change is in the air - and the Democratic Party is preparing for its great, triumphant
march toward the White House. And I know that New Jersey will be leading that march in November.
But let me remind you that forty-seven years ago the Democratic Party was also on the road to a great national victory.
And when that victory had been achieved - when the Democrats found that for the first time in the Twentieth Century
the power and the prestige and the pomp were theirs - in the midst of that jubilation, President Woodrow Wilson
sounded a more somber note: "The success of a party means little," he said, "except when the nation is using that party
for a large and definite purpose."
Today we are again on the eve of a great victory - but, if that victory is to be worthy of the struggle we must also have a
great purpose. What shall that purpose be?
Of course we must modernize and extend the great social welfare programs of the New Deal - expanded social security
benefits, medical care for the aged, higher minimum wages, adequate unemployment compensation - a decent life for
our workers, food for our hungry, and an opportunity to achieve a decent life under freedom for all Americans. This is
the heritage of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman - and these are programs which we must and shall carry on.
But our purpose - our program for the sixties - must go beyond the great, visionary policies of the New Deal. For today
we have new problems, new challenges, new dangers - and the old answers are no longer enough. The Republicans have
not given us these new answers - and by this failure have demonstrated that they are more dedicated New Dealers than
any Democrat, so warmly have they grasped the programs of the thirties, refusing to move beyond them. Mr. Nixon has
no solution and he has not even responded to Mr. Rockefeller's suggestion that he look for one. But the Democratic
Party can and will provide solutions for today's problems just as it answered the problems of yesterday. And we are
going to begin to put those solutions into action in January - from the White House.
For, although the specific programs of the New Deal cannot meet all the challenges of the sixties, the philosophy that
underlay those programs is the key to our future course. The New Deal, President Franklin Roosevelt pointed out, is not
new at all, "but an old deal, old as the earliest aspirations of humanity for liberty and justice and the good life." And
those same ancient hopes will be our guide to the perilous years ahead.
For the next American President will not only be the symbol of hope to all Americans - he will be the central figure of
the entire free world - the man who leads the destinies of a nation which alone stands between the non-communist
peoples of the world, and the remorseless forces of communist despotism. Across his desk will come decisions affecting
not only our welfare and our survival - but the welfare and the survival of the non-communist world. He alone will have
the opportunity to make the American dream of freedom and plenty into the hope of the world - and perhaps, into a
reality for millions of people in all parts of the globe.
The next President must attempt to do for the world what the New Deal did for America - to protect and extend freedom
and equality, and bring to every man the hope for a future of growing economic opportunity. And the price of his failure
at this task may well be communist domination of much of the world.
That is why I have stated my conviction that the central issue of this campaign is the Presidency itself. The choice before
the voters is whether we are to have a Presidency which is a place of dynamic, creative leadership, a place where
policies are made and carried out - where our world responsibilities can be met - and office in the great tradition of
Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman - or whether we are to have four more years of drift and
indecision - of failure to lead, and failure to progress toward solution of the great problems of today's world. I believe
that the people will choose leadership - and that means that they will choose the Democratic Party.
For Mr. Nixon - the Republican's lone surviving heir to the throne - has said that he intends to carry out Republican
policies. Let us hold him to that statement. I do not believe this country will accept four more years of dwindling farm
income - four more years of islands of poverty and hunger in the midst of American plenty - four more years of
government by slogans which conceal rather than illuminate difficulties - four more years of dwindling prestige abroad
and dwindling strength at home. No, America cannot afford these policies, America does not want these policies, and
the American people are going to reject those policies in November.
The Republicans have charged that the Democratic Party is trying to promise something to everyone. But I say that it is
the Republicans who are promising the impossible. They tell the American people that we can meet our world
commitments, and strengthen our defenses without sacrifice or effort. They say that prosperity and economic growth do
not take work - that dangers should not cause concern - that their leaders will solve all problems, eliminate all
difficulties and, at the same time, cut our taxes.
These are irresponsible promises - promises which cannot be fulfilled - and promises which the American people are not
going to believe this November.
We Democrats have our promises too - but a different kind of promise. We hold out the hope of a country with an
expanding economy - where no group of Americans will know the pangs of hunger or the despair of poverty. And we
also carry the hope of a world where freedom grows stronger - and where the free world is able to endure the dangers of
an expansive, militant communism. But we do not say these are easy goals - or that they can be achieved without
sacrifice, and effort, and vision, and leadership. We know that we must reinstill in the American people that same iron
determination which drove men across the ocean to found a country and subdue a continent. And we know that the
many programs which are essential to these goals - the increased defense programs, the expanded economic aid
programs, the research and the peace programs, and all the rest, can never succeed without the active participation of the
American people - without a determination to strive and a willingness to sacrifice which has rarely been asked of a
peacetime America.
These are our promises - we do not offer peace and prosperity at no cost. But we do offer the leadership which can bring
high rewards for much work. And I believe that this is the kind of promise the American people will believe - and will
vote for in November.
A great Republican, Theodore Roosevelt, knew that great goals were not won without great effort. He said: "The
Twentieth Century looms before us big with the fate of many nations. If we stand idly by, if we seek merely . . . ease . . .
if we shrink from the hard contests . . . then the bolder and stronger peoples will pass us by and will win for themselves
the domination of the world."
To make sure that America is not passed by, is the great purpose of today's Democratic Party - that is the real goal of our
victory. Today we are working for a new era of Democratic rule - but that rule, and our triumph, will only be meaningful
if we can translate victory at the polls into victory for the American people and the cause of world freedom.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Luncheon in

Honor of the African Diplomatic Corps., Washington,
D.C., June 24, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. Two copies of a press
release and three reading copies of the speech exist in the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F.
Kennedy Library. One of the reading copies is heavily edited, but it is only a partial text and the press releases do not
incorporate those edits. The press release version has been chosen for presentation.
AMERICA AND AFRICA

These first few weeks of summer are a historic time for Africa and for the United States. Between June 20th and July 1st
four new African states - containing more than ten per cent of Africa's people - will become free and independent. And
three days later - on July 4th - the United States will celebrate the 184th anniversary of its own national independence.
During the turmoil and struggle of that first successful revolt against colonial rule, Tom Paine wrote that "a flame has
arisen not to be extinguished." And today that same flame - ignited by a small group of Americans in 1776 - the flame of
freedom and equality and progress - burns brightly across the entire continent of Africa - kindling in men the desire and
the will to shape their own destinies as free men.
We the people of the oldest nation ever founded on revolt from colonial rule welcome the nations of Africa - our newest
partners in man's centuries-old struggle for individual freedom, national independence and human dignity. And we
welcome them in the knowledge that the battle which we began 180 years ago will not be won until every land-mass -
from Africa to Asia to Eastern Europe - is occupied by men who are their own rulers, by nations which are free to
pursue their own goals, by governments which are founded on the consent of the people whom they govern. This was
the American dream in 1776: it is now the African dream - and together, Africa and America, the newest free nations
and the oldest - must dedicate themselves to fulfilling that dream for all mankind.
Much in Africa today is the same as America of 180 years ago: Africa has new and independent governments -
courageous and resourceful people - and the determination to build strong, and stable, and prosperous states. But,
although much is the same - much is different. For in the last half century the struggle for freedom has assumed a new
dimension. The enormous advance of science and the rise of industrial societies has resulted in what Arnold Toynbee
has called the most revolutionary fact of the modern world - not the hydrogen bomb or space satellites - but the
spreading knowledge and hope that the benefits of modern society and technology can be made available to all men.
This is the most important fact that distinguishes Africa from the rural, agrarian America of 1776. The people of Africa
are determined to emerge from the poverty and want which now blankets much of that vast continent. They intend to
accomplish the modernization of their society - to create a growing economy - in a small fraction of the time it took to
build modern America and Europe. They hope to compress the history of the last two centuries into a few decades. And
America - with its fast growing industrial society - has done more than any other nation to stimulate these desires and
arouse these hopes.
The satisfaction of African aspirations for rapid material progress is not merely a goal - it is a necessity. For stable and
free governments - in Africa and throughout the world - can only exist on a framework of economic advance. National
freedom is meaningful only when it brings freedom from poverty and want. Political independence cannot exist without
economic independence.
Thus, just as America provided the spark which helped bring freedom to Africa - we must also do our part in helping to
create the economic conditions which are essential to freedom's continued existence. We must do this, not because we
wish to use the African nations as pawns in the cold war - not because we wish to make them our unquestioning
instruments in the fight against communism. We must help Africa because the ultimate survival of the Free World
depends upon our ability to help construct a community of stable and independent governments - where human rights
are valued and protected - and where people are given the opportunity to choose their own national course, free from the
dictates or coercion of any other country. And we must help Africa because - as the richest and most advanced nation in
the history of the world - we have an obligation to help the hungry and poor of all lands achieve the freedom from want
which is the ultimate basis of human dignity.
What, then, is America's role in Africa?
It is unwise to generalize about a continent as vast and as varied as Africa. But it is clear that three basic, urgent
necessities underlie all of Africa's hopes for economic development.
The first is the need for education - for educated men to man the factories, run the schools, staff the government and
form the core of the educated electorate on which the ultimate success of democracy depends. Today little more than a
quarter of all Africans receive even a primary school education. The number of college graduates is pitifully inadequate
to fill even the top positions of public and private responsibility. America, with its ideal of free and universal education
as the privilege of every citizen, has provided the standard for Africa's future - and now it is our opportunity and
challenge to help Africa move toward that goal.
Second is the need for food. Almost three-quarters of African's people struggle to survive on subsistence farms.
Although famine is rare, malnutrition and its consequent diseases are not, and the effort to provide adequate supplies of
food is ceaseless. Increased and diversified agricultural production is essential both to the health of Africa and to its
economic development - and America, with its amazing farm technology and food surpluses, can be of major assistance.
The third basic need in Africa is the need for development capital. By themselves the African nations cannot hope to
generate the basic investment which is essential to the creation of a modern and growing economy. Africa today is the
least productive area in the world - yet it possesses a vast, virtually untapped reservoir of manpower and abundant
resources. These raw materials can be translated into a higher standard of living for Africa's people only through a
constant flow of capital investment.
As Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on African Affairs, I have, many times in the past, had the occasion to suggest
the ways in which the nations of the West could cooperate with the nations of Africa in meeting these urgent needs. And
I stress the word "cooperate". For just as we do not seek to impose our political forms on the new African nations, we
must take equal care no to impose our patterns of economic development on those same nations. Africans must assess
their own needs --determine their own basic goals - and share in the programs designed to help them - if those programs
are to be effective.
Thus, if we are to meet the overwhelming African need for education, we must not only greatly increase the number of
African student - future African leaders - brought to this country for university training - but we must establish a
multination African Educational Development Fund. This fund - in which the African States would be full partners -
would plan for the long-range educational needs of Africa, helping to establish the school systems and the universities
which would eventually allow Africa to educate its own people. And while Africa builds its own educational system this
fund would send a vastly increased stream of experts and educators - engineers and technicians - to train Africans in the
tools of modern production and modern agriculture, and in the skills and knowledge essential to the conduct of
government. This fund would also bring modern methods of agricultural production to Africa, meanwhile using our own
food abundance to meet immediate problems of hunger and malnutrition.
The job of providing development capital must also be undertaken by the West in full partnership with the African
nations - and by the government in cooperation with private business. For the capital needs of Africa are far too
extensive ever to be met by government alone. Without a vastly increased flow of private investment into the potentially
rich markets of Africa, efforts to achieve rapid economics development are doomed to failure. The job of government is
to provide the economic conditions and the long-range plans on which a sound program of attracting private investment
can be built. An international development fund - directed by Western and African nations - can provide the capital
necessary to construct the basic elements of economic advance-- roads, railways, power, water supplies, hospitals and all
the other public needs which are vital to the establishment of an industrial economy. This fund can establish local
Development Banks - such as we have already set up in Tunisia - to aid local businessmen to expand and modernize.
And --perhaps most important - such a fund would also provide the technical assistance with which African nations can
establish long range programs of economic development - to plan the best use of their resources, to assess their potential
markets-- and which can also help educate private industry all over the world to Africa's enormous economic potential.
You at this conference, today, have properly made the objective, of building Africa's economy, your own vital concern.
But these measures of economic and technical and educational assistance are not enough. To meet the challenge of the
new Africa - to turn our common dream of freedom and equality into a reality - we have to work to do here in America.
For our struggle to achieve racial justice at home is part of a common world problem of human integration - the problem
of integrating many different races and nationalities in a world community in which the great majority of people are
colored. Progress here will help promote a democratic solution of the problem in the rest of the world, just as the rise of
Africa is helping to quicken the pace of change here.
Again, there are great differences - but the essential aim is the same: a society in which no man has to suffer
discrimination based on race or creed, in which no man has to suffer domination by another, in which no man has to
suffer segregation or apartheid or any other form of human indignity.
For a century and three quarters we in America had a framework of law in which to work out this problem peacefully -
the framework you, too, have now. And we have developed our economy to great heights as you will do in time. But
184 years after declaring these truths to be self-evident - we are still unable to rest on our achievements. Our progress in
achieving this promised land - in which human dignity is secure and equal opportunity is enjoyed by all - has been
remarkable progress indeed - just as progress has been remarkable in Africa. But our efforts must go on and increase - to
achieve equal access to the voting booth, to the schoolroom, to jobs, to housing, and to public facilities, including lunch
counters.
Whatever economic, political or international considerations are involved, this is essentially a moral issue.
It calls for moral leadership - for effective, peaceful action by people and by governments.
Such action inevitably involves some unrest and turmoil and tension - part of the price of change. But the fact that
people are peacefully protesting the denial of their rights is not something to be lamented. It is a good sign - a sign of
increased popular responsibility, of good citizenship, of the American spirit coming alive again. It is in the American
tradition to stand up for one's rights - even if the new way to stand up for one's rights is to sit down.
And the fact that the Supreme Court in this country in one area after another is upholding the constitutional right of all
Americans to equal treatment and is requiring far reaching changes is also a sign of national vitality.
What remains is for the other parts of our government - particularly the Executive Branch - to do everything in their
power to make good the guarantees of the American Constitution. If the law of the land as interpreted by the Supreme
Court - the higher law of equal justice - is to be faithfully executed, then the high office of the Presidency must be used,
to provide strong, creative, persuasive leadership.
With large scale cooperative programs to stimulate the growth of Africa - with an America which is a living example of
freedom to all the world - America and Africa can work to preserve their common heritage of freedom. For both
America and Africa, the coming decade will be filled with challenges to that heritage. The revolution of 1776 now goes
on in every corner of the seething world. The Spirit of that Revolution now fires the hopes of all mankind. And the
forces which would crush freedom and destroy independence in 1960 are as strong and implacable as they ever were.
In the recent American film "The Defiant Ones" two men - a white man and a Negro - chained together, fall into a deep
pit. The only way out is for one to stand on the shoulders of the other. But - since they were chained - after the first had
climbed over the top of the pit, he had to pull the other out after him - if either one was to be free.
Today, Africa and America, black men and white men, new nations and old, are inextricably linked. Our challenges rise
formidably before us. If we are to achieve our goals - if we are to fulfill man's eternal quest for peace and freedom - we
must do it together - and together we can and will succeed.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Iowa, June 26 ,

1960
I would like to talk to you today about our farm problems. Those problems are serious. They are important. They are
difficult. But they can and must be solved.
Recently Vice President Nixon unveiled his long-awaited solutions to the problems of our nation's farms. But,
disappointingly, his answers were only question marks - the hard, tough problems of American agriculture were left
untouched - and the proposals which he did borrow for campaign purposes were the same programs which the
Democrats have been offering for the past eight years - and which this Administration - Mr. Nixon's Administration -
has always opposed.
Certainly we must agree with the Vice President's statement that we need more research. For eight years the Democrats
have been advocating an aggressive farm research program aimed at developing new markets and new uses for farm
products. But at the same time that Mr. Nixon was making his speech, the Republicans were blocking a Democratic bill
to provide for research into increased uses of agricultural products.
Mr. Nixon suggests that the rural development program should be expanded. But five years after this program was
initiated by a Democratic Congress, it remains little more than a pilot project, covering only 30 of our 3,068 counties.
Democratic prodding has resulted in a speech by Mr. Nixon - but no action from his Administration.
We can also agree with Mr. Nixon's suggestion for joint international action on food distribution - and for the storage of
food reserves for emergencies. But here again such proposals have been made by Democrats in the last three Congresses
- only to be ignored or opposed by Mr. Nixon's Administration.
We are less interested in what Mr. Nixon has proposed, than the prospects for action on these proposals. As Mr. Benson
has pointed out, Mr. Nixon was one of the "architects" of the Benson farm program. Mr. Nixon himself has stated that
he intends to run on the "Republican record" - and that means the dismal, destructive Republican farm record. And Mr.
Nixon himself has fully supported all Republican efforts to resist, oppose and destroy the very proposals which now fill
his election-year speeches. For the past eight years the Republicans have been making promises to the farmers in
election years - only to forget the farmer when the time for action came. And Mr. Nixon's speech looks like more of the
same.
But even more important - Mr. Nixon's farm program deliberately fails to tackle the hard, basic questions of parity
prices, production controls and deteriorating farm income. Increased use of agricultural products and increased exports
will help - but these programs alone cannot reverse the trend toward lower and lower farm income and higher and higher
farm surpluses.
The Nixon-Benson theory that uncontrolled production can solve our agricultural problems is impractical and
unworkable. It has been tried and it has failed. Whenever he is faced with the declining unit prices the farmer is forced
to increase production, bringing more surpluses and still lower prices. It is a losing battle - a battle which the farmer
cannot win.
What is called "the farm problem" is, in reality, three interrelated problems.
First, there is a crisis of insufficient farm income
Second, there is the crisis of overwhelming surpluses.
Third, there is the crisis of excessive expenditures for programs of limited benefit.
Every proposal must be judged by the extent to which it can contribute to the solution of these three problems.
There are five essential parts to any basic program.
First, we must provide for adjustment between supply and demand. Corn is no different from steel - or from automobiles
- or from refrigerators. When the steel industry finds itself with an excess capacity - as it does today - it trims
production. It does not reduce prices. There is no Administration effort to plow back every third company - or even to
reduce steel prices. The farmer is entitled to the same consideration.
Second, any future farm program should be run by the farmers and for the farmers. Basic administration on the local
level should be in the hands of farmer committees elected by the farmers themselves. Complete responsibility for
establishing production quotas should be assumed by the farmer representatives subject to Department of Agriculture
guidance. No bureaucrat, no scientist, no economist, knows the trends and variations of the farm picture as well as the
local farmers. No one else has the right to make these important determinations.
Third, the concept of parity must be retained as the goal and basis for pricing policies. Only in this way can our nation's
farmers be assured of a fair share of the national income. In the past eight years we have watched the steady decline in
farm income while all other prices and almost all other wages spurted upward. The farmer has been steadily squeezed
between declining income and mounting costs. His share of the national income had dropped to an all time low. Under a
program in which supply and demand were evenly balanced, there would be little or no need to support the market by
purchases. However, the controls should be available on a standby basis to take care of sudden fluctuations in supply or
demand.
Fourth, any national program should be based primarily upon the promotion and preservation of the family farm. That is
the basic unit here in Iowa - that is the way it must continue to be. We have no wish to become a nation of giant
commercial corporation farms and absentee landlords. Our whole vitality as a nation depends on a contrary course.
Fifth, any national farm program must include provision for the conservation and wise utilization of our soil and water
resources. The surpluses of today may well become the scarcities of tomorrow. By the turn of the century our nation will
have a population of 350 million - the population of India in 1951 - a year of critical food shortage in that country. With
increased markets in underdeveloped nations and rising world populations there will be an ever greater demand for food
and fiber.
Economists predict that during the next two years wages will go up - business income will go up - our standard of living
will go up. We cannot let the farmer down.
A Democratic program geared to these five basic principles would, I am convinced, restore common sense and common
justice to our farm policy.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at NAACP Rally,

Los Angeles, California, July 10, 1960
We meet on the eve of a great national convention. There our choice is more than the choice of candidates - it is the
choice of party roles and responsibilities. Will we face up to the issues that face America - or will we, as Randolph said
of Van Buren, "row to (our) object with muffled oars?" Will we appeal to the lowest common denominator - or will we
offer leadership where leadership has so long been lacking? Will we inquire as to whether a policy is good for the North,
South, East, or West - or will we know that a policy - if really good - is good for all people everywhere? And finally,
will we confine our campaign to abuse of the party in power - or will we realize, to paraphrase a noted statesman, that a
great "nay" is not enough - we need a mighty "yes" as well?
I hope my own views are clear. I want our party to speak out with courage and candor on every issue - and that includes
civil rights. I want no compromise of basic principles - no evasion of basic controversies - and no second-class
citizenship for any American anywhere in this country. And I have not made nor will I make any commitments
inconsistent with these objectives.
While we point with pride to the strides we have made in fulfilling our forefathers' dream of the equality of man, let us
not overlook how far we still have to go. While we point with concern to denials of civil rights in one part of the
country, let us not overlook the more subtle but equally vicious forms of discrimination that are found in the clubs and
churches and neighborhoods of the rest of the country.
Our job is to turn the American vision of a society in which no man has to suffer discrimination based on race into a
living reality everywhere in our land. And that means we must secure to every American equal access to all parts of our
public life - to the voting booth, to the schoolroom, to jobs, to housing, to all public facilities including lunch counters.
Let us trust no one who offers slick and easy answers - for the only final answer will come from the work of thousands
of individual answers, large and small, in the Congress, the courts and the White House, in states and cities all over
America, in the actions of brave and wise public servants, and in the reactions of determined private citizens such as
yourselves.
What we are seeking, after all, is really very simple. It's merely a recognition that this is one nation and we are all one
great people. Our origins may be different but our destiny is the same, our aspirations are identical - there can be no
artificial distinctions, no arbitrary barriers, in securing these rights.
--The right of every man to work as he wants to work, to be educated as every human being deserves to be educated, and
to receive for his labor or his goods a just compensation, which he can spend as he pleases, in the nation's finest luxury
store or the most modest 5-and-10.
--The right of every family to live in a decent home in a decent neighborhood of his own free choice.
--The right of every individual to obtain security in sickness as well as health, in retirement as well as youth.
--The right of every American to think, to vote, to speak, to read and to worship as he pleases - to stand up for his rights
and, when necessary, to sit down for them.
--And finally, the right of all people to be free from the tensions and terrors and burdens of war, its preparation and its
consequences.
These are not minority rights or even merely civil rights - they are the goals desired and required for every American.
There is nothing complicated about these goals, however difficult their achievement. There is nothing unreasonable or
unusual about these goals, however much some may resist them. But they will not be achieved without leadership -
moral, political, legislative and, above all, executive leadership.
The next President of the United States cannot stand above the battle engaging in vague little sermons on brotherhood.
The immense moral authority of the White House must be used to offer leadership and inspiration to those of every race
and section who recognize their responsibilities. And the immense legal authority of the White House must be used to
direct implementation of all Constitutional rights, protection of the right to vote, fulfillment of the requirement of school
desegregation, and an end to discrimination in the government's own midst - in public contracts, in employment and in
all Federal housing programs.
And, finally, if that President is to truly be President of all the people, then he must act to bring them together to
accomplish these objectives. How without communication, can we ever proceed in democracy? There can be no
progress without communication. There can be no reconciliation without meeting and talking with each other.
To be sure, there will be protest and disagreement - but if the end result is to be permanent progress instead of
frustration, there must be more meetings of men and minds. And the place to begin is the White House itself, where the
Chief Executive, with his prestige and influence, should exert firm and positive leadership.
Let us bear in mind that this is not merely a regional problem - it is not merely a national problem - it is international in
scope and effect. For the average American of Caucasian descent does not realize that it is he who is a member of a
minority race - and a minority religion - and a minority political system - and that he is regarded with some suspicion, if
not hostility, by most of that restless, envious, surging majority. The tide of human dignity is world-wide - and the eyes
of that world are upon us.
It is not enough to restate our claim to the Declaration of Independence. It is not enough to deplore violence in other
lands. It is up to us to prove that our way - the way of peaceful change and democratic processes - can fulfill those goals
better than any other system under the sun. It is up to us to rebuild our image abroad by rebuilding our image here at
home.
The time is short - but the agenda is long. Much is to be done - but many are willing.
Francis Bacon once wrote: "There is hope enough and to spare - not only to make a bold man try - but also to make a
sober-minded man believe."
My friends - if you are sober-minded enough to believe - then - to the extent that these tasks require the support, the
guidance and the leadership of the American Presidency - I am bold enough to try.

National Committee Dinner, Los Angeles, California,
July 10, 1960
The pre-convention campaign is over. For the candidates, the hour of unity is at hand. We have all been friends for a
long time. I know we always will. We have always supported our party's nominee. I know we all will in 1960.
For we are all Democrats - not Northern or Southern Democrats, not Liberal or conservative Democrats - but Democrats
by birth, conviction and choice. We know it is neither the party of war nor the party of appeasement - our only war is
against injustice, hunger and disease - and in that war there can be no appeasement.
And we know that there is only one legitimate issue of health in this campaign - and that is the anemic health of the
American economy today.
There is only one legitimate issue of age in this campaign - and that is the tragic failure of this Administration to meet
the needs of our older citizens, and particularly their needs for medical care.
There is only on legitimate issue of creed in this campaign - and that is our devotion to the public good ahead of private
interests - a creed the Republicans call creeping socialism - but FDR called it "A New Deal."
This fall will see the classic, age-old struggle - between the party of hope and the party of memory - the party of the
future versus the party of the past - the party that breaks precedents versus the party that breaks promises. And every
candidate here tonight joins me in one final campaign promise - we are going to win that struggle in November.
For those of you who are delegates, your hour of decision is also at hand. In the pomp and pageantry of convention
politics, it is easy to forget the context of your decision : the Free World that anxiously awaits a leader - the dark clouds
gathering ominously on the world horizon - the cries for help that come from around the country, from abandoned farms
and mines, from overcrowded slums and schools, from the unemployed and the underpaid and the unprotected - a
hundred, a thousand voices crying, here and around the world - cries that have not been heard - cries that must now be
heard.
173 years ago, in another dark and uncertain house, an earlier national convention was called - its delegates undertook to
draft a new constitution. May your work as delegates here this week stand the test of time as well as theirs. May your
decisions - like theirs - have meaning for the future generations to come, and ignite a beacon light for all the world to
see.
In the words of the Poet Longfellow:
"Humanity with all its fears,
With all its hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate."
Address of Senator John F. Kennedy

Accepting the Democratic Party
Nomination for the Presidency of the
United States
Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles
July 15, 1960
Governor Stevenson, Senator Johnson, Mr. Butler, Senator Symington, Senator Humphrey,
Speaker Rayburn, Fellow Democrats, I want to express my thanks to Governor Stevenson
for his generous and heart-warming introduction.
It was my great honor to place his name in nomination at the 1956 Democratic Convention,
and I am delighted to have his support and his counsel and his advice in the coming months
ahead.
With a deep sense of duty and high resolve, I accept your nomination.
I accept it with a full and grateful heart--without reservation-- and with only one
obligation--the obligation to devote every effort of body, mind and spirit to lead our Party
back to victory and our Nation back to greatness.
I am grateful, too, that you have provided me with such an eloquent statement of our
Party's platform. Pledges which are made so eloquently are made to be kept. "The Rights of
Man"--the civil and economic rights essential to the human dignity of all men--are indeed
our goal and our first principles. This is a Platform on which I can run with enthusiasm and
conviction.
And I am grateful, finally, that I can rely in the coming months on so many others--on a
distinguished running-mate who brings unity to our ticket and strength to our Platform,
Lyndon Johnson--on one of the most articulate statesmen of our time, Adlai Stevenson--on
a great spokesman for our needs as a Nation and a people, Stuart Symington--and on that
fighting campaigner whose support I welcome, President Harry S. Truman-- on my
traveling companion in Wisconsin and West Virginia, Senator Hubert Humphrey. On Paul
Butler, our devoted and courageous Chairman.
I feel a lot safer now that they are on my side again. And I am proud of the contrast with
our Republican competitors. For their ranks are apparently so thin that not one challenger
has come forth with both the competence and the courage to make theirs an open
convention.
I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith,
has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk--new, at least since 1928. But I
look at it this way: the Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the
American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment. And you have, at the
same time, placed your confidence in me, and in my ability to render a free, fair judgment--
to uphold the Constitution and my oath of office--and to reject any kind of religious
pressure or obligation that might directly or indirectly interfere with my conduct of the
Presidency in the national interest. My record of fourteen years supporting public
education--supporting complete separation of church and state--and resisting pressure from
any source on any issue should be clear by now to everyone.
I hope that no American, considering the really critical issues facing this country, will
waste his franchise by voting either for me or against me solely on account of my religious
affiliation. It is not relevant. I want to stress, what some other political or religious leader
may have said on this subject. It is not relevant what abuses may have existed in other
countries or in other times. It is not relevant what pressures, if any, might conceivably be
brought to bear on me. I am telling you now what you are entitled to know: that my
decisions on any public policy will be my own--as an American, a Democrat and a free
man.
Under any circumstances, however, the victory we seek in November will not be easy. We
all know that in our hearts. We recognize the power of the forces that will be aligned
against us. We know they will invoke the name of Abraham Lincoln on behalf of their
candidate--despite the fact that the political career of their candidate has often seemed to
show charity toward none and malice for all.
We know that it will not be easy to campaign against a man who has spoken or voted on
every known side of every known issue. Mr. Nixon may feel it is his turn now, after the
New Deal and the Fair Deal--but before he deals, someone had better cut the cards.
That "someone" may be the millions of Americans who voted for President Eisenhower but
balk at his would be, self-appointed successor. For just as historians tell us that Richard I
was not fit to fill the shoes of bold Henry II--and that Richard Cromwell was not fit to wear
the mantle of his uncle--they might add in future years that Richard Nixon did not measure
to the footsteps of Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Perhaps he could carry on the party policies--the policies of Nixon, Benson, Dirksen and
Goldwater. But this Nation cannot afford such a luxury. Perhaps we could better afford a
Coolidge following Harding. And perhaps we could afford a Pierce following Fillmore. But
after Buchanan this nation needed a Lincoln--after Taft we needed a Wilson-- after Hoover
we needed Franklin Roosevelt. . . . And after eight years of drugged and fitful sleep, this
nation needs strong, creative Democratic leadership in the White House.
But we are not merely running against Mr. Nixon. Our task is not merely one of itemizing
Republican failures. Nor is that wholly necessary. For the families forced from the farm
will know how to vote without our telling them. The unemployed miners and textile
workers will know how to vote. The old people without medical care--the families without
a decent home--the parents of children without adequate food or schools--they all know
that it's time for a change.
But I think the American people expect more from us than cries of indignation and attack.
The times are too grave, the challenge too urgent, and the stakes too high--to permit the
customary passions of political debate. We are not here to curse the darkness, but to light
the candle that can guide us through that darkness to a safe and sane future. As Winston
Churchill said on taking office some twenty years ago: if we open a quarrel between the
present and the past, we shall be in danger of losing the future.
Today our concern must be with that future. For the world is changing. The old era is
ending. The old ways will not do.
Abroad, the balance of power is shifting. There are new and more terrible weapons--new
and uncertain nations--new pressures of population and deprivation. One-third of the
world, it has been said, may be free- -but one-third is the victim of cruel repression--and
the other one- third is rocked by the pangs of poverty, hunger and envy. More energy is
released by the awakening of these new nations than by the fission of the atom itself.
Meanwhile, Communist influence has penetrated further into Asia, stood astride the Middle
East and now festers some ninety miles off the coast of Florida. Friends have slipped into
neutrality--and neutrals into hostility. As our keynoter reminded us, the President who
began his career by going to Korea ends it by staying away from Japan.
The world has been close to war before--but now man, who has survived all previous
threats to his existence, has taken into his mortal hands the power to exterminate the entire
species some seven times over.
Here at home, the changing face of the future is equally revolutionary. The New Deal and
the Fair Deal were bold measures for their generations--but this is a new generation.
A technological revolution on the farm has led to an output explosion--but we have not yet
learned to harness that explosion usefully, while protecting our farmers' right to full parity
income.
An urban population explosion has overcrowded our schools, cluttered up our suburbs, and
increased the squalor of our slums.
A peaceful revolution for human rights--demanding an end to racial discrimination in all
parts of our community life--has strained at the leashes imposed by timid executive
leadership.
A medical revolution has extended the life of our elder citizens without providing the
dignity and security those later years deserve. And a revolution of automation finds
machines replacing men in the mines and mills of America, without replacing their
incomes or their training or their needs to pay the family doctor, grocer and landlord.
There has also been a change--a slippage--in our intellectual and moral strength. Seven lean
years of drouth and famine have withered a field of ideas. Blight has descended on our
regulatory agencies--and a dry rot, beginning in Washington, is seeping into every corner
of America--in the payola mentality, the expense account way of life, the confusion
between what is legal and what is right. Too many Americans have lost their way, their will
and their sense of historic purpose.
It is a time, in short, for a new generation of leadership--new men to cope with new
problems and new opportunities.
All over the world, particularly in the newer nations, young men are coming to power--men
who are not bound by the traditions of the past--men who are not blinded by the old fears
and hates and rivalries-- young men who can cast off the old slogans and delusions and
suspicions.
The Republican nominee-to-be, of course, is also a young man. But his approach is as old
as McKinley. His party is the party of the past. His speeches are generalities from Poor
Richard's Almanac. Their platform, made up of left-over Democratic planks, has the
courage of our old convictions. Their pledge is a pledge to the status quo--and today there
can be no status quo.
For I stand tonight facing west on what was once the last frontier. From the lands that
stretch three thousand miles behind me, the pioneers of old gave up their safety, their
comfort and sometimes their lives to build a new world here in the West. They were not the
captives of their own doubts, the prisoners of their own price tags. Their motto was not
"every man for himself"--but "all for the common cause." They were determined to make
that new world strong and free, to overcome its hazards and its hardships, to conquer the
enemies that threatened from without and within.
Today some would say that those struggles are all over--that all the horizons have been
explored--that all the battles have been won-- that there is no longer an American frontier.
But I trust that no one in this vast assemblage will agree with those sentiments. For the
problems are not all solved and the battles are not all won--and we stand today on the edge
of a New Frontier--the frontier of the 1960's--a frontier of unknown opportunities and
perils-- a frontier of unfulfilled hopes and threats.
Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom promised our nation a new political and economic
framework. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal promised security and succor to those in need.
But the New Frontier of which I speak is not a set of promises--it is a set of challenges. It
sums up not what I intend to offer the American people, but what I intend to ask of them. It
appeals to their pride, not to their pocketbook--it holds out the promise of more sacrifice
instead of more security.
But I tell you the New Frontier is here, whether we seek it or not. Beyond that frontier are
the uncharted areas of science and space, unsolved problems of peace and war,
unconquered pockets of ignorance and prejudice, unanswered questions of poverty and
surplus. It would be easier to shrink back from that frontier, to look to the safe mediocrity
of the past, to be lulled by good intentions and high rhetoric--and those who prefer that
course should not cast their votes for me, regardless of party.
But I believe the times demand new invention, innovation, imagination, decision. I am
asking each of you to be pioneers on that New Frontier. My call is to the young in heart,
regardless of age--to all who respond to the Scriptural call: "Be strong and of a good
courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed."
For courage--not complacency--is our need today--leadership--not salesmanship. And the
only valid test of leadership is the ability to lead, and lead vigorously. A tired nation, said
David Lloyd George, is a Tory nation--and the United States today cannot afford to be
either tired or Tory.
There may be those who wish to hear more--more promises to this group or that--more
harsh rhetoric about the men in the Kremlin--more assurances of a golden future, where
taxes are always low and subsidies ever high. But my promises are in the platform you
have adopted--our ends will not be won by rhetoric and we can have faith in the future only
if we have faith in ourselves.
For the harsh facts of the matter are that we stand on this frontier at a turning-point in
history. We must prove all over again whether this nation--or any nation so conceived--can
long endure--whether our society--with its freedom of choice, its breadth of opportunity, its
range of alternatives--can compete with the single-minded advance of the Communist
system.
Can a nation organized and governed such as ours endure? That is the real question. Have
we the nerve and the will? Can we carry through in an age where we will witness not only
new breakthroughs in weapons of destruction--but also a race for mastery of the sky and
the rain, the ocean and the tides, the far side of space and the inside of men's minds?
Are we up to the task--are we equal to the challenge? Are we willing to match the Russian
sacrifice of the present for the future--or must we sacrifice our future in order to enjoy the
present?
That is the question of the New Frontier. That is the choice our nation must make--a choice
that lies not merely between two men or two parties, but between the public interest and
private comfort--between national greatness and national decline--between the fresh air of
progress and the stale, dank atmosphere of "normalcy"--between determined dedication and
creeping mediocrity.
All mankind waits upon our decision. A whole world looks to see what we will do. We
cannot fail their trust, we cannot fail to try.
It has been a long road from that first snowy day in New Hampshire to this crowded
convention city. Now begins another long journey, taking me into your cities and homes all
over America. Give me your help, your hand, your voice, your vote. Recall with me the
words of Isaiah: "They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount
up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not be weary."
As we face the coming challenge, we too, shall wait upon the Lord, and ask that he renew
our strength. Then shall we be equal to the test. Then we shall not be weary. And then we
shall prevail.
Thank you.
Press Conference of Senator John F. Kennedy at the

Overseas Press Club, New York, New York, August 5,
1960
This is a transcription of these remarks made for the convenience of readers and researchers. One draft of the speech
exists in the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. It appears to be a
transcript of the speech as given, including occasional errors of grammar and syntax.
SEN. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. President.

I want to express my appreciation to all of you for being kind enough to come here this morning and to give me a chance
to talk with you. This is really the first speech I have made since the Democratic Convention, but I was anxious to come
here to New York today to talk with you.
I think that you have a most important role to play in the coming election. I do not think of this election as merely a
political exercise. Rather, I see it as an opportunity for Americans to make their choice as to which road this country
should take in the coming months and years. I think that this election will give us an opportunity to reassess the
problems which face us. It will give the Congress and the next president an opportunity to go before the people in the
early months of January, February and March of 1961, with the support of the American people and attempt, with new
vigor and vitality, to carry out new programs and move in new directions.
The problems which the foreign language press primarily face are problems which they have faced for many years. All
Americans are immigrants. Some have come in more recent years than others. The function, I feel, of the foreign
language press is really three-fold -
First, to make it easier for those who are newly arrived in the United States, for those who have arrived at a point in their
life here in this country where they find it somewhat difficult to move immediately into the mainstream of American
life. The contact which you bring them with their older life, I think is most significant. In this way you serve as a bridge
between the new life and the old life. You serve as a method of transition. You do not merely keep alive the old life -
you also bring them in contact with the new life.
Secondly, you help maintain in this country a very valuable national asset and that is the connection with the past; that is
the connection with foreign languages. The knowledge of foreign languages, the knowledge of foreign cultures, the
knowledge of foreign history, is really the most important asset that we, as a nation, have in our relations with countries
abroad.
When an American goes to Poland, he comes not as a stranger - he comes, even if he is not of Polish extraction himself,
and I have seen this on the various occasions that I visited Poland. He comes as a friend, because nearly every Pole has a
relative living in the United States. And, what is true in Poland is true in Estonia and in Latvia and Lithuania and
Czechoslovakia and Hungary and the Balkans and in Yugoslavia and in all of these countries, who in the last fifty or
sixty years have sent so many of their fellow-countrymen to the United States.
An American is not a stranger. He is, in many cases, to them a fellow-countryman. That is a tremendous asset. This
forms a great well of friendship and I think that the foreign language press, so-called, really helps keep alive that most
important link.
In addition, I think the foreign language press can bring home to the American people the problems of those who are
immigrants, the problems of those who have newly arrived, the problems of the countries from where these Americans
have sprung.
I don't think that there is any doubt that one of the most powerful forces for the correction of two great policies are our
immigration policies and our policy toward the captive nations. I think this has been due to the vigor and the constancy
and the perseverance of the foreign language press - by keeping alive the issue of the captive nations, by reminding us of
the desire of these people to be free, by reminding us that this is unfinished business, before the American people and
before the bar of world opinion. I think it has served the cause of freedom.
Secondly [sic], by its constant fight to try to improve American immigration laws, I think the foreign language press has
performed a notable service to the people of this country - not to the immigrants - to the people of this country. Not to
the countries abroad who are adversely affected by our immigration policy but to the people of this country because in
the last analysis, we are the ones who suffer. If we present, in this area, an image to the world of hostility, of saying that
one country is better than another, by writing that into our national immigration laws, I think we do a disservice to our
people and to our country.
So, I am here today to meet you, to say that I think you performed valuable functions in the past and to say also that you
have great responsibilities to meet in the future.
I hope that I will have an opportunity to work in a position of influence to meet some of these problems. I hope that it
will be possible to be elected President, but whether I am elected President or continue in the Senate, these are great
problems for the United States.
The idea of a perfect Union has been one which has inspired this country from our earliest days. It is not achieved - and
in a sense probably it is a goal to which we will always be working to reach - but it is a goal which is worthy of our
effort. You play a most important role, as there is really a tie between Europe and the United States, between Latin
America and the United States, between Africa and the United States, between the Middle East and the United States
and, we hope more in the future, between Asia and the United States.
In a world where peace is our great endeavor and where we are fighting continually for the goodwill of all mankind, I
think that you serve on the front lines of that struggle.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Washington

DC, August 10, 1960
Today we begin debate upon the minimum wage bill known as the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1960.
The bill has two major purposes. First, it will raise the minimum wage now received by two and one-half million
workers from $1.10 to $1.25 an hour. Second, it will extend the protection of the Fair Labor Standards Act to 5 million
additional employees, chiefly in large-scale inter-state retail and service industries, thereby guaranteeing these
employees a fair minimum wage and a just premium for overtime.
Conscience and good business sense join in demanding the enactment of this measure. The bill will extend to the lowest
paid workers - to three and one-half million men and women and their families - a fairer opportunity to share our high
standard of living. To pass them by - to water down the help they need - or merely assume that prosperity at the top will
someday reach them - shocks the conscience of those who care.
The increases in purchasing power resulting from a higher minimum wage will help to restore consumer demand
required to put our idle industrial capacity back to work. The elimination of unfair competition based upon sub-standard
wages will protect fair-minded employers anxious to maintain fair labor standards.
The pending bill is the result of long and careful study. The Labor Subcommittee of the Committee on Labor and Public
Welfare held hearings on 10 days, in which it heard 77 witnesses. The relevant bills were reviewed in executive sessions
in the course of which all members of the Subcommittee made helpful contributions. The Committee bill embodies a
wide consensus of opinion among Senators from both sides of the aisle. The minority report is signed by only three
Senators.
The full extent of the changes to be made in the present law is summarized in a memorandum which I ask unanimous
consent to have printed after my remarks in the Record.
At this point I desire to speak only of the principal provisions.
MINIMUM WAGE
The Bill raises the minimum wage applicable to employees now covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act in three
stages: To $1.15 an hour, effective January 1, 1961, to $1.20 an hour on January 1, 1962, and, on January 1, 1963, to
$1.25 an hour.
In one sense, this is not new legislation. The Fair Labor Standards Act was enacted in 1938 in order "to protect this
Nation from the evils and dangers resulting from wages too low to buy the bare necessities of life and from long hours
of work injurious to health." When the original 40 cent minimum became inadequate Congress raised it to 75 cents and
later to $1.00 an hour. Now economic progress again requires a higher wage if we are to carry out the central purpose.
An increase from $1.00 to $1.25 an hour is necessary to put those wage-earners who earn the minimum in the same
position, relative to other segments of the economy, that they occupied after the 1955 amendment. Thus the present bill
merely extends to lower paid workers the gains already achieved by more fortunate groups through increased
productivity and collective bargaining.
Just a few figures make the point clear. In 1955, when the present $1.00 minimum was established, the average hourly
earnings of employees in manufacturing industries were $1.88. By March 1960, average hourly earnings had increased
41 cents, or 22 percent. To maintain the same cents per hour differential, the statutory minimum would have to be raised
to $1.41. To maintain even the same relative position, it would have to go immediately to $1.22 an hour instead of the
$1.15 recommended by the Committee. A small part of the change in average hourly earnings is probably the result of
shifts into higher paid types of employment; but the comparison demonstrates beyond doubt that failure to enact the
increases recommended by the Committee would remit two and one-half million wage earners to a declining status.
The need for action is the more acute because of the sharp increase in the number of employees dependent for a fair
wage upon Congressional action. In 1955 roughly half a million workers covered by the Act were receiving either the
statutory minimum wage or an hourly rate no more than 5 cents higher. The latest figures available show that one and
one-third million workers covered by the Act are receiving either the statutory minimum or a rate no more than 5 cents
higher. This is two and one-half times the earlier figure.
Consider the meaning of this trend to the workers affected. Since 1955, there has been a 15 percent rise in productivity.
They shared none of this gain. There has also been a 10 percent rise in the cost of living. The workers dependent upon
the minimum wage have therefore suffered a 10 percent decline in real earnings - in their ability to provide food,
clothes, homes, and health for their families.
Let me be still more precise. There are 35,000 workers in the apparel industry in New York City alone who depend upon
the Fair Labor Standards Act for a fair minimum wage. The New York City Department of Welfare regards $74 a week
as the minimum budget for health and safety for a family of four - a man and wife and two children. Working the
standard 40 hours, a man would earn only $40 a week at the present minimum - $34 short of the pay check needed. Even
the proposed minimum of $1.25 would leave his earnings $24 short of the sum required to support his family. In some
families more than one person is employed; but even if the man and wife both worked full-time every week, the present
statutory minimum would hardly cover the budget; expenses rise when both adults are working.
The proposed increases will not injure business firms. They are not inflationary. They will not cause significant
unemployment. If the dangers fancied by the minority were real, I would join them in opposing the measure. The
welfare of the business community is essential to a prosperous economy. To drive firms out of business or to force them
to curtail operations would defeat our very purpose. But the same arguments were presented against minimum wage
legislation in 1938, 1949, and 1955. History disproved them. On each of these three occasions increases far sharper than
those we propose today were put into effect without injury to employers, inflation or unemployment. The fancied
dangers were never realized.
The experience after the 1955 amendments is the most instructive because their impact is traced in a careful study
prepared by the U.S. Department of Labor. The Department found that the increase from 75 cents to $1.00 an hour did
not substantially affect any of the standard statistical series measuring trends in hours of work, employment, or
consumer prices. The impact was too small to be discernible in relation to overall economic activity.
More detailed study of 15 low-wage industries showed that employment rose in some industries after the $1.00
minimum was put into effect and declined in others. Evidently the change in the minimum wage was not a determinative
factor. In order to obtain a still broader view, the study was extended in six communities so as to include both covered
and non-covered industries. During the two months following the statutory increase employment in the covered
industries rose in one, fell in two, and was virtually unchanged in the others. These changes in employment can hardly
be attributed to the statutory increase but it is interesting to note that three years after the statutory increase employment
in the same communities had risen 20 percent in the industries subject to the Act and only 14 percent in those outside the
statute.
In short, the Labor Department’s study fully supports the conclusion that the 1955 minimum wage increase did not
result in any substantial changes for the Nation in either price levels or employment.
The increases now proposed can have no greater impact. In 1955 the increase was 25 cents an hour, or an average of 15
cents for each employee directly affected. In 1960 the increase will be only 15 cents, or an average of 9 cents for each
employee directly affected. Put another way, the 1955 increase raised the statutory minimum 33-1/3 percent, whereas
the 1960 increase will be only 15 percent. The increase in the total wage bill will also be markedly smaller. Since the
1955 increase was readily absorbed by the economy, we are bound to conclude that it can now absorb the smaller 1960
increase. The 5 cents an hour increases in 1960 and 1961 are no larger than might be expected in collective bargaining.
The exaggerated fear of adversely affecting costs, prices and employment apparently results from the fallacious
assumption that an increase in the statutory minimum requires corresponding wage increases all up and down the line.
Secretary Mitchell disposed of this argument in his testimony before the House Labor Committee.
"… as to the allegation that there is an upward, forward movement immediately corresponding to the wage increase, that
experience has shown that this does not happen."
Any increase in the minimum would undoubtedly require some adjustment of the wages of other employees of the same
business even though they earn more than the statutory minimum, but the increases would taper off rather quickly. As I
pointed out earlier, since 1955 average hourly earnings have increased must faster than the statutory minimum.
Generally speaking, wages at the bottom of the scale can be brought up to their old relationship without unduly
narrowing differentials.
It would be naïve to deny that there will be no dislocations. In a few instances there may be an undesirable compression
of the wage structure. But, fairly read, both history and the available studies show that the increases can be absorbed
without damage to business, inflationary price increases, or unemployment.
NEW COVERAGE
The Committee bill would extend to 5 million additional wage-earners the guarantees of a fair minimum wage and a
reasonable premium for overtime employment.
The major expansion of coverage brings under the Act retail and service establishments whose annual gross sales exceed
$1 million. Establishments grossing less than $1 million a year will not be affected. They will also continue to benefit
from the present Section 13 (a) (2) exemption. I emphasize the point because there has been widespread
misunderstanding. The bill does not touch ordinary inns, hotels, restaurants or motels in any part of the country. For
example, a motel owner who charged $15 a unit and maintained 180 units which he rented every night of the year would
be too small for the bill to affect him.
Likewise, the bill does not apply to the independent grocer or druggist, the country store, or even the independent
department stores and supermarkets found in most American cities. Ninety-seven percent of all retail enterprises would
not be affected.
We are concerned only with the large metropolitan department stores and vast chains which now dominate the retail
industry. Their outlets spread through many States. The management is centralized. Prices are often uniform. Goods are
purchased in large quantities from all over the Nation often at prices which cannot be obtained by independent
merchants. Their operations depend upon the channels of interstate commerce. And where hotels and other service
establishments are large enough to gross a million dollars their conditions of employment also become matters of
national import.
It is grossly inaccurate to describe these million dollar enterprises as local businesses which ought not to be regulated by
the federal government. In 1938 the point was doubtful, but the constitutional power of Congress has now been
established. Many federal statutes already apply to such large retail enterprises - the pure food and drug laws, the Wool
Products Labelling Act, the Sherman Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act and the National Labor Relations Act. The
NLRB conducts elections among the employees whom this bill would bring under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Their
employers obtain federal assistance against boycotts and picketing. Last year their trade associations were outspoken
lobbyists for additional federal restrictions upon the rights to strike and picket. At the present session some of them are
actively sponsoring federal legislation for resale price maintenance. Bringing under the Fair Labor Standards Act the
employees of retail and service establishments grossing $1 million in annual sales conforms the law to otherwise
uniform pattern of social legislation. There is no merit to the argument that the bill changes the balance between State
and Federal authority.
The extension of coverage to retail and service establishments which gross $1 million annually will not even indirectly
affect smaller businesses. Experience shows that a high wage employer can move into a community with relatively little
affect [sic] upon the wage scale of smaller local industries unless there is a shortage of qualified labor. Similarly, the
wage scales of large metropolitan department stores and multi-unit chains will exert no great influence upon smaller
businesses.
The other major change in coverage will correct an historic accident. In 1937 and 1938, there was grave uncertainty
concerning the constitutional power of the Congress to enact a minimum wage law. Various constitutional theories were
suggested. The Senate bill followed one course; the House took another. The conference report based coverage on the
work of the individual employee. Under the present law, therefore, a worker is covered only if he himself is engaged in
commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. The nature of the employer’s business is irrelevant. Thus, there
may be two employees, working side-by-side in the employ of the same employer, one of whom is protected by the
statutory minimum wage and one who is not. For example, a wholesaler’s order clerk who typed orders for goods
purchased out-of-State would be entitled to the statutory minimum, but the billing clerk at the next desk who typed bills
for customers inside the State would lack the same protection. The distinction is arbitrary and capricious.
So far as I am aware, the Fair Labor Standards Act is the only statute under which coverage depends upon the work of
the individual employee. The supposed constitutional justification no longer exists. Accordingly, the Committee bill
puts coverage upon an establishment basis, as under other labor legislation.
The change will greatly simplify enforcement of the statute. Employers and the officials of the Wage and Hour Division
will be able to determine the status of all employees in an establishment without checking the individual work of every
employee. The inequity between employees in the same establishment will be abolished.
The justification for applying the proposed new minimum wage to the newly covered employees is the same as the
reasoning which supports the increase in the minimum. The employees have the same needs. Their wages have fallen
behind average hourly earnings to the same, and possibly a greater, extent than the wages of employees earning the
statutory minimum. They are equally entitled to share in economic progress.
The fiscal burden of an inadequate minimum wage law lies upon the community, and thus upon every taxpayer. In New
York City, 44 percent of the families to whom relief is extended include those who are wage earners but whose incomes
are inadequate. An economic burden also lies upon competitors whose ability to pay a just wage is frustrated by unfair,
low wage competition. But the burden which should concern us most lies upon the American conscience. We can no
longer tolerate growing patches of poverty and injustice in America - sub-standard wages, unemployment, city slums,
inadequate medical care, inferior education, and the sad plight of migratory workers. The enactment of this bill is only
one step, but an essential step forward, as we cross this frontier to grasp the high opportunities which face the Nation.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Memorial

Program for 25th Anniversary of Signing of Social
Security Act, Hyde Park, New York, August 14, 1960
I am grateful to you - Mrs. Roosevelt - for allowing me to be here today. For I come to Hyde Park not to instruct but to
learn.
And I think that we can all agree that Eleanor Roosevelt is a true teacher. Her very life teaches a love of truth and duty
and courage. The wide world is her neighborhood. All its people are her daily concern. She is frank, she is outspoken,
she is forthright - and I know she always will be.
A visit to Hyde Park is both a pilgrimage and a challenge. We journey here to pay tribute to one of America's most
honored leaders. And we find here a challenge to renew the march toward those high goals of peace - and freedom - and
a decent life for all men - to which he dedicated his life.
"I occasionally go back home to Hyde Park," said Franklin Roosevelt, "so that I can have a chance to think quietly about
the country as a whole." Today, in the turmoil and conflict of our daily lives, we too can pause here a moment to think
about the man whose home this was - and about the nation which he led to greatness.
Standing on this quiet lawn - this spacious and soothing scene - it is difficult to recall the furious battles which were
fought by the man who lies here in honored glory - the conflicts which he waged - the victories which he won.
Yet we who lived while he governed can, here at Hyde Park, still hear the echoes of those heroic struggles: the struggle
to rescue America from poverty and economic collapse - the struggle to build a new America where all could live in
dignity - the struggle to secure freedom against the ominous armed advance of tyranny and oppression - and the last, the
most arduous, the unending struggle - the struggle which his wife still steadfastly carries on - the struggle to build a
world of free and peaceful nations.
If these battles were nobly fought - if the America of Franklin Roosevelt had a rendezvous with destiny - it met that
rendezvous only because it was guided to its destination by a great leader of men.
Today we commemorate one of those battles - the passage of the Social Security Act of 1935 - the most important single
piece of social welfare legislation in the history of this country. It was 25 years ago this very day that Franklin Roosevelt
could say, after a long and arduous struggle: "Today a hope of many years standing is in large part fulfilled"; and with
that he signed his name and social security became law.
For millions of Americans, with that one stroke of the pen, their insecurity and fear were transformed into hope - their
poverty and hunger were transformed into a decent life - their economic degradation was transformed into a chance to
live out their days in the dignity and peace they had so richly earned.
But the job which Franklin Roosevelt set out to do in 1935 is not yet done. That opening battle was won - but the war
against poverty and degradation is not yet over. And no one realized this more than Franklin Roosevelt himself. "This
law," he said, 25 years ago today as he signed it, "represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built, but which
is by no means complete." We are here at Hyde Park today - not merely to commemorate the cornerstone - but to help
complete the edifice.
It is fitting that we celebrate this anniversary. It is essential, from time to time, that we pay tribute to past greatness and
historic achievement. But we would betray the very cause we honor if we did not now look to the future as well. We
would be unfaithful to the man we honor if we did not look beyond his work to the new challenges - the new problems -
the new work which lies ahead. For the last public message he ever wrote, on the morning of his death, closed with these
words to the American people: "The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today. Let us move
forward with strong and active faith."
This is not 1935 - or 1945. This is 1960 - and today there are 16 million Americans past the age of 65. Three out of
every five of these - more than nine and one-half million people - must struggle to survive on an income of less than one
thousand dollars a year. Three million more receive less than two thousand dollars from all sources combined. And
those who draw social security receive an average check of $72 a month which - in 1960 dollars - does not begin to do
the job.
With the cost of living continually spiraling upwards, with the cost of basic items continually rising - $72 a month or
one thousand dollars a year cannot pay for even the most basic rudiments of a decent and dignified old age. And, even
worse, the substandard incomes - the poverty and neglect - dissipate and destroy the morale, the self-respect, the
personal pride of our older citizens.
These are shocking and shameful figures. They unmistakably reveal the dismal poverty, the hardship and the lonely
want which millions of Americans must face as they near retirement - they describe the meager and humiliating reward
which this, the richest country on earth, gives to those who have contributed to our country's strength.
This poverty and hardship become heartbreak and despair when illness threatens. No costs have increased more rapidly
in the last decade than the cost of medical care. And no group of Americans has felt the impact of these skyrocketing
costs more than our older citizens. Almost 20% of all those on social security must use one-quarter to one-half of their
meager annual income for medical expenses alone. Those over 65 suffer from chronic diseases at almost twice the rate
of our younger population - they spend more than twice as many days restricted to bed - and they must visit a doctor
twice as often. And even these impressive figures do not tell us of the uncounted thousands who suffer from lack of
needed medical care - from lack of vital drugs - and of hospitalization simply because they cannot afford to pay the bills.
Of course some of those who are now uncared for can get free health care. But such public assistance is often
painstakingly slow, the tests for giving it are often rigid and unrealistic. The care itself is often impersonal and
inadequate.
And even more important - thousands of our older citizens would rather endure pain and suffering than rely on public
charity. And they should not have to ask for charity.
This story is a living story, not merely statistics. It is deeply burned into every city and town, every hospital and clinic,
every neighborhood and rest-home in America, wherever our older citizens live out their lives in want and despair under
the shadow of illness. You have seen it in your state - I have seen it in my travels across all fifty states. It is a sight
engraved upon our minds and hearts - but it is a sight which, together, we can wipe from the face of this great rich land
forever.
First, we must enact immediately an adequate, comprehensive plan to enable our older citizens to meet their pressing
medical needs. Such a plan, a soundly-financed program - without a destructive, degrading means test - based on the
tried and tested operation of the social security system, is now before Congress; and it can - and should - and must be
enacted this year!
But I also say to you that this bill will be - like the original social security law - only a single stone in an unfinished
structure. It is an important start toward meeting the health problems of our older citizens - but it is only a start. And the
coming years will require even more of us.
Secondly, we must broaden and extend the current scale of social security benefits, which have barely kept pace with the
rising cost of living. We must devise machinery that will enable us to keep ahead of rising prices - so that human
welfare will not be cruelly dissipated by inflation.
Third, we must raise the amount which retired persons can earn and still be eligible for social security benefits - so that
our older people can supplement their meager benefits with meaningful outside employment.
Fourth, we must provide more than benefits. Our older people must receive not only their earned reward for their
contributions to America's past - they must be allowed to share in the great task of building America's future. Today too
many of our older people who can work - who want to work - cannot find work. Their abilities and skills - their
experience and wisdom and knowledge - are wastefully ignored, by a country which desperately needs their services
We must embark on a great program to use the skills of older Americans - through changes in government hiring
policies - through expanded employment services - and through an intensive education of our nation's employers to the
immense value of this great reservoir of unused talents.
And, since new work for our older citizens will often require new training, we must expand vocational training facilities
to ease their change to new job opportunities..
Fifth, we must provide adequate housing for the aged - housing which will be an integral part of the community in
which they live. For this we may need a new program of loans, and new incentives to builders to construct homes which
meet their special requirements.
Sixth, if we adopt these programs of housing and employment, and construct a system of adequate benefits - then we can
move to reduce the number of those who must depend on public assistance, and thus increasing the benefits to those
who still need assistance.
Seventh, we must expand our basic research into the causes and prevention of those chronic illnesses and diseases which
are associated with advancing age.
Eighth, we must do more for the widows and children who survive. Today the widow whose savings are gone - who is
forced to live on an income even less than her husband's retirement benefits - is truly the "forgotten woman" of social
security. We must remedy this shameful defect in our law.
And social security is just one of the many, vital battles for human welfare which are now being waged. I come to you
from a Congress where we are fighting to secure a decent, minimum wage for millions of Americans. This too is an
important and arduous struggle. And many other such struggles lie ahead.
To meet these urgent responsibilities will take determination, and dedication, and hard work. But I believe that America
is ready to move from self-indulgence to self-denial. It will take will and effort. But I believe that America is ready to
work. It will take vision and boldness. But I believe that America is still bold.
The writers of the Declaration of Independence did not promise us happiness - they promised only the "pursuit of
happiness" - and by this they meant fulfillment as a nation and as human beings.
It is this pursuit - this endless questing - which we must now resume. There are new problems, new dangers, new
horizons - and we have rested long enough. The world is changing - the perils are deepening - the irresistible march of
history moves forward. We must now take the leadership in that great march - or be forever left behind.
And this is why we have gathered here at the home of enduring greatness - not merely to pay tribute - but to re-freshen
our spirits and stir our hearts for the tasks which lie ahead. We celebrate the past to awaken the future.
This was said for all time almost one hundred years ago, by a great American standing at another graveside, at another
memorial service. "It is," he said, "for us the living ... to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who
fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us,
that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of
devotion ... that this nation, under God, may have a new birth of freedom."
Today, in that spirit, we pay our humble tribute.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Kennedy-

Johnson Midwest Farm Conference, Des Moines, Iowa,
August 21, 1960
No conference in this campaign is more important than this one. No domestic issue in this election is more important
than the farm issue. No part of the American way of life is more important - or in more trouble - than the family farm.
The Republicans like to say, over and over again, that the big issue in this campaign is executive experience. Their
candidate, they say, has experience in the executive branch - he has participated in its decisions - he has shared in its
responsibilities - he has been educated in its programs.
I will discuss Mr. Nixon's experience in other fields on other occasions. But when it comes to agriculture, I can only say
that disaster has been his experience, and Benson has been his teacher.
I do not use the word disaster lightly. During these last eight years of Mr. Nixon's experience in making decisions, farm
purchasing power has been cut some 20%. During the eight years he was sharing executive responsibility, hundreds of
thousands of farm families gave up the struggle against the cost-price squeeze. During these last eight years of Benson,
Nixon, Dirksen and Morton, the average farm family was reduced to a net income of less than $50 a week.
Here in the Middle West, Mr. Nixon hardly speaks to Mr. Benson. He disowns the man he once called "the best
Secretary of Agriculture we ever had." But in Portland, Maine a week ago, he talked along different lines. The reason
Mr. Benson has not been successful, he said, is because the Democratic Congress has never given his program a chance.
To that, the American farmer can only ask: where would we be without the Democratic Congress? For we have seen
enough of Mr. Benson's program in effect to know what it would do. His program is to drive farm prices down. His
program is to drive farm families off the farm. Contrary to Mr. Nixon's statement, the Congress did give Mr. Benson's
program a chance – but Mr. Benson's program never gave the farmer a chance.
Now that an election is near, the Republicans are talking about new slogans, new promises and a new Secretary of
Agriculture. But do not be misled. In the Republican Platform today, as in any Republican Administration of the future,
the Benson song may have ended, but his melody lingers on.
For Republican opposition to farm income protection is not a whim of Mr. Benson. It is a bed-rock principle of the
Republican Party. It is that party's iron-bound obligation to those who stand to profit when farm prices are kept down,
when the farmer is without meaningful bargaining power in the market place.
I am not talking about the consumer. The Republican farm program has not benefitted the consumer. Prices have stayed
at a record high level, as every housewife knows, regardless of how hard the farmer is hit.
And I am not talking about the taxpayer. The Republican farm program has not benefitted the taxpayer. The total costs
and losses on farm price support operations under Benson and Nixon have amounted in seven years to more than seven
times as much as the total for twenty years under Roosevelt and Truman. In fact, they have spent several billion dollars
more on agriculture than all the previous administrations in the history of this country combined.
The Republican policy of collapsing farm income does not benefit farmers, or consumers, or taxpayers. It benefits only
those powerful interests who benefit from the farmer's adversity - the same interests who keep Mr. Benson in his job -
the same interests that dictated this year's Republican farm platform.
That platform calls for "price supports best fitted to specific commodities." It doesn't say who decides - it doesn't say at
what level - and it doesn't say best for whom.
The Republican leadership has already demonstrated that they don't mean what's best for the farmer.
The Democratic Platform, on the other hand, spells out what we will do to reverse the decline in farm income, and to
meet our responsibilities to our farmers, our consumers and our taxpayers, to all America and to a hungry and troubled
world.
The platform pledges, in unmistakable language, "positive action to raise farm income to full parity of incomes and to
preserve family farming as a way of life."
It means that farmers shall receive returns for their labor, for their managerial skills, and for their investments which are
equal to the returns received for comparable human talents and resources in other types of enterprise.
This is the strongest pledge ever given to the farmers of America by any political party in history.
I stand behind that pledge, and I intend to make good on it, beginning next January.
I do not say the job will be easy. There are no new or magical solutions. Mr. Nixon's talk about a "massive land
retirement" plan with "indemnity payments" is no different than the 1956 "acreage reserve" plan of Ezra Taft Benson.
More empty slogans and wishful thinking will not solve the problem.
The first thing to be done is to face up to the problem squarely, to recognize its magnitude. We have a revolution on our
hands in agriculture. The headlines are full of revolutions in other parts of the world - but we have one right here on our
farms. It is a revolution of technology. More and more food is being produced by fewer and fewer people on less and
less land.
It is the result of improved machines and equipment, improved pest and disease control, improved water control,
improved breeds and varieties, improved timing in cultivation, improved feeding practices, farm plant layout, and farm
management.
Our Land Grant Colleges and private research are producing new miracles every year. Last month it was announced that
chlorophyll can now be synthetically produced - that we can do in the laboratory what since the beginning of time we
have relied on plants to do in the field - that is, convert sunshine, water and carbon dioxide into food materials.
Where is this revolution going to lead? A revolution of abundance is better than one of scarcity. But people are being
driven out of agriculture at a fantastic rate. The young people leave the farm and never come back. The families hit by
failure, merger or foreclosure move to the city, regardless of whether the city has jobs or homes. Our small towns are
being badly hurt - so are their churches and schools and businessmen - and so is the whole United States.
It would be nice to believe, as the Republicans believe, that migration off the farm will solve the problem of surpluses.
But the facts of the matter are that, during these last eight years when millions have been leaving the farm, our
agricultural production has actually increased at a faster rate than our total population. Mr. Benson has acquired
surpluses in storage six times as high as the 1952 level - surpluses which are costly to taxpayers, frustrating to the
world's hungry people and depressing in their effect on farm prices. Instead of population pressing on food supplies, as
Malthus and others predicted, food supplies in this country are now pressing on the population.
It would also be nice to believe, as the Republicans believe, that as farm prices fall, consumers will buy more food and
eat up the surplus. But it hasn't worked that way. Food prices have not fallen. We are, on the whole, an affluent, well-fed
people. Our stomachs can only expand so far. It takes a 20% drop in farm prices to move 2% more food into
consumption. And even then, the surpluses would not be going to where they are really needed - to the underfed, the
unemployed, the overlooked - to the families forced to get by on less that $20 a month worth of surplus flour, rice and
cornmeal, with some occasional dried eggs, lard and skimmed milk.
At the same time, there are other revolutions going on around the world - populations growing faster than food supplies
- new nations in need of assistance - underdeveloped nations in need of food for capital. These are fast-changing, fast-
moving times. The Republican Party is, as it always has been, the party of the status quo - and today in agriculture there
can be no status quo.
In short, timid and temporary measures will not do. The Benson-Nixon-Dirksen philosophy will not do. Four more years
of decline and disaster will not do.
We must harness these revolutions. We must ride these waves of change. We must learn to manage our abundance - to
bring the great productive capacity of American agriculture into balance with total needs at home and abroad, at prices
that will yield to our farmers a fair return on their capital and labor.
That is not a radical goal - or an impossible one. Nor does it treat the farmer any differently than anyone else. It may
take hard work - it may mean a difficult transition - it may require tough decisions and many complaints. But the job can
be done - and I pledge every effort of mind and heart to do it.
I would rather be accused of breaking precedents - than breaking promises.
I am here today to learn. It is my intention to spell out programs throughout this fall. They will offer no special
privileges. They will help no segment of the American economy at the expense of another. They will not satisfy
everyone - they will not reflect the wishes of any one group -but they will reflect what I think is right. And they will live
up to the strongest farm platform in American political history.
That farm program will not be based on cold statistics. It will not be based on economic textbooks, on academic theories
or remote trends. It will be a program for the individual farmer and his family - the man who has done more for America
and received less for it than possibly any other group in our nation - the man who fights year after year to do a good job,
to use his soil and water wisely, to cooperate with government policies, to maintain a decent home for his family, only to
see his crop prices go down and down as the cost of his equipment and his utilities and his family's clothes and doctor
bills go up and up.
That program must contain four basic objectives:
First, a positive policy of supply management to raise farm prices and incomes to parity levels - and that will require a
sympathetic Secretary of Agriculture using a whole arsenal of tools (marketing quotas, sales quotas, land retirement, soil
conservation, commodity purchases and loans, marketing orders and agreements, and many others - on a commodity by
commodity basis) in cooperation with the decisions made on the local level by local farmers themselves.
Secondly, a positive food and nutrition policy for all Americans, with better diets and distribution to our school children,
our unemployed and our unfortunate, and a security reserve against the hazards of modern war, expanding existing
programs and using the new ones a timid Administration has been unwilling to test.
Third, a dynamic food and fiber policy for world-wide use, emphasizing above all a "Peace Reserve" aiding all nations
in distress, and to which each farmer would be proud to contribute, instead of being constantly shamed in public on the
grounds that he is piling up wasteful surpluses.
Fourth, a long range program for low income farms, credit, research, and new rural industries.
Both parties describe one phase of their policy as "Food for Peace." But I would give that name to our entire program.
For peace is man's greatest aspiration - a just peace, a secure peace, without appeasement. We will not accept the peace
of foreign domination - we do not seek the peace of the grave. We want more than this so-called peace that is merely an
interval between wars.
There will be no farm program - there will be no farm boys or farms - if we cannot get off this deadly collision course
on which we are presently headed. It's time for real leadership again in foreign affairs - fresh, firm leadership for peace.
And in that mighty effort, we shall depend again - as we have in all our history - on our food, our farms and our loyal,
tireless farmers.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at V.F.W.
Convention, Detroit, Michigan, August 26, 1960
I am proud to be here today. I am proud to be here as a past Commander of the Massachusetts post named after my
brother. But I was particularly proud to be a member of the V.F. W. last night - when I arrived to learn that this
convention, after hearing a series of rosy reassurances, had called for an increase in our defensive strength. That
resolution showed courage, it showed conviction, and it showed loyalty to all we hold dear - and it makes me proud to
be a member.
I would like to give those rosy reassurances too, as any American speaker would like to give them. I would like to tell
you facts that any American would like to hear. I would like to be able to say to you categorically and proudly that the
United States is first in the world militarily, economically, scientifically, and educationally, and will be in the future.
But I cannot make that speech. I cannot in all honesty make those claims. I cannot go the country with appeals to the
voters' complacency. My appeal is to their duty - and it is refreshing to know by your resolution that you who responded
to that appeal in years past will not now heed the siren call of false contentment.
Your Convention resolution requires every American to ask himself these questions: Do we know for a fact that we are
and will continue to be first in the world militarily, economically, scientifically and educationally? Have you, since your
days in school, ever known any boy or man of unsurpassed strength who did not always receive the respect of his
enemies as well as his friends? And then ask yourself whether you have ever known a period when this nation was
treated with less respect and with such open arrogance by our enemies around the world, and regarded with such doubt
by our friends.
Possibly the days preceding the War of 1812 are a precedent - when the French and British contemptuously halted our
ships and seized our sailors - much as the Russians seized the crew of the American RB-47 downed over the East
German border. But I can think of no other period in our history when our peace conferences were broken off with such
contempt - when our president was not free to travel abroad - when enemy rockets were rattled from a once friendly
nation only 90 miles off our shores - and when the leader of our leading enemy dared to voice an interference in our
presidential elections.
These are unpleasant facts - unpleasant to recite - unpleasant to face. But face them we must. For, as Winston Churchill
told the British House of Commons in an age of similar peril: "We shall not escape our dangers by recoiling from them."
To face those facts is not disloyal, as some have implied - it is the highest type of loyalty. To state these facts does not
divide the country - and let us hope Mr. Khrushchev knows it. As Secretary of State Herter told him some weeks ago,
after the Conventions: Mr. Khrushchev, do not be deceived.
We are a united country. We are not divided by our views on communism versus freedom, on firmness versus
appeasement, on peace versus war. These are not at issue in this campaign. The issue in this campaign is which
candidate and which party can best summon all of America's people and resources to rebuild and regain our strength as a
free nation and I want my Mr. Khrushchev to know it.
Those who are gathered in this hall today are accustomed to facing harsh reality. That is our link with each other. That is
our link to the past. But the American veteran of today is not looking merely to the past. He is not assuming that his
service to his nation is over.
He is looking ahead instead to the kind of goals for America that he believed in, fought for and shares with every other
American - not an America of special privileges we have not earned - not easy promises of a soft life - but an America
that is on the move, that is shoring up its weaknesses, facing up to its challenges, living up to its name and traditions.
As veterans, we do not ask that our nation look constantly backward at our deeds of duty and sacrifice. But we do expect
a nation determined that those deeds shall not have been in vain - a nation determined to maintain and expand the world
security and leadership for which we fought.
The harsh facts of the matter are that our security and leadership are both slipping away from us - that the balance of
world power is slowly shifting to the Soviet-Red Chinese bloc - and that our own shores are for the first time since 1812,
imperiled by chinks in our own defensive armor.
We are still the strongest power in the world today. But Communist power has been, and is now, growing faster than is
our own. And by communist power I mean military power, economic power, scientific and educational power, and
political power. They are moving faster than we are: on the ground, under the ocean, in the air and out in space.
The world's first satellite was called Sputnik, not Vanguard or Explorer. The first vehicle to the moon was named Lunik.
The first living creatures to orbit the earth in space and return were named Strelka and Belka, not Rover and Fido.
I believe that there can be only one possible defense policy for the United States. It can be expressed in one word. That
word is "first."
I do not mean first, but. I do not mean first, when. I do not mean first, if. I mean first - period. I mean first in military
power across the board. Only then can new stop the next war before it starts. Only then can we prevent war by preparing
for it. Only then can we pave the way to disarmament by showing Mr. Khrushchev the futility of Russian armaments.
But let us always remember that Mr. Khrushchev is not going to be impressed by mere words. He is not going to be
deterred by mere rhetoric. He is not going to be moved by mere arguments and debate. It would be all right if the next
war were to be a war of words. But Mr. Khrushchev respects only one thing: power.
Today the United States of America is the greatest Nation on earth. And today we all agree that this is the most powerful
nation on earth. But what of 5 or 10 years from now? This nation in 1965 will still be the greatest - but will it still be the
most powerful?
The facts of the matter are that we are falling behind - behind in our schedules, behind in our needs, behind the Russians
in our rate of progress. The missile lag looms larger and larger ahead. Our Army and Marine Corps lack the manpower,
the weapons and the jet airlift mobility to put out a brush fire war before it becomes a conflagration. We need to put our
Strategic Air Command on an air alert and under wide dispersal - improve our systems of continental defense - step up
our anti-submarine warfare effort - increase the thrust of our rocket engines - harden our missile bases - and modernize
our outdated Pentagon research, organization and weapons evaluation.
All this and more must be done. It all can be done. Let us hope that it will not require the launching of Russia's first
reconnaissance satellite peering down on every part of the nation like a daily fleet of U-2 planes. I think the American
people are willing to undergo whatever is necessary for the world's best defense. The want to know what is needed -
they want to be led by their Commander-in-Chief.
And they do not accept the argument that their criticisms are selling America short. On the contrary, it is the people who
say America cannot afford to spend this money - who says America cannot afford the world's best defense - who in truth
are selling America short.
While our enemies daily grow more arrogant, more threatening, and more powerful, we are planning this year to spend
on our defense effort a smaller proportion of our total national product and our total Federal budget than at any time
since the pre-Korean period.
Let us put an end to this policy of deciding our fiscal requirements - and then trimming our defenses to meet them. Let
our dangers decide our defense requirements - and then fit our fiscal policies to meet them.
As you may know, there is currently a dispute over whether the Administration should spend the additional defense
funds voted by the last Congress.
Let me make my own position crystal clear: I not only feel very strongly that these funds must be unfrozen and spent; I
strongly urge the next President of the United States, to whichever party he belongs, to send to the Congress in January
specific requests for:
-- accelerating our Polaris, Minuteman and other missile programs
-- expanding and modernizing our conventional forces, giving them the versatility and mobility they require;
-- protecting our retaliatory capacity from a knock-out blow through the hardening and dispersal of bases, the use of an
air alert and improvements in our air defense system; and
-- streamlining our defense establishment to give primary attention to our primary needs.
That message should be sent next January, regardless of who is President, regardless of what it will cost and regardless
of how popular it will be.
I think the American people are ready to face the facts and pay the cost - as this Convention resolution has
demonstrated. I think the American people have been shocked by the turn of events - by Sputnik and the Suez, by Cuba
and the Congo, by the collapse of the Summit and the riots in Japan. And I do not believe they regard the statement of
our needs - in your resolution or my address - as either defeatist or disloyal. For we are proud of our country and we
know what it can do with a little leadership. But when you are proud of something, you don't let it deteriorate. You don't
let it stand still so others can run over it.
If the day ever comes when the American people are not able to face the facts -- or are not allowed to face the facts -
then we will be all through as a Nation. The first test of leadership in this country is not an ability to argue with the
Russians - anyone can do that. It is the ability to tell the people the truth about our danger - and to summon the people to
meet it.
And this is where the veterans have a special role to play. For we remember the meaning of peril. We remember the
warnings we sounded in years gone by, even when our might was unchallenged, our hopes were high and our enemies
still far behind. And we remember too those first dark days of World War II, when many were downcast or faint-hearted
- only to see America dot the skies with planes, the seas with ships, and dispatch one victorious mission after another the
best trained, best- equipped and most successful fighting force in the world's history.
Today the challenge is somewhat different - not only because the enemy has the power to destroy us - but because he
also seeks, by economic and political warfare, to isolate us. He intends to out-produce us. He intends to outlast us.
And the real question now is whether we are up to the task - whether each and every one of us is willing to face the
facts, to bear the burdens, to provide the risks, to meet our dangers - and to provide for them.
Will we be like the Congressional War Hawks prior to the War of 1812, who responded to the arrogant treatment our
sailors were receiving with tough talk and a hard line - but who failed to provide our Nation with the frigates needed to
keep the peace? Or will we say with Theodore Roosevelt that "if we are to be a really great people, we cannot avoid
meeting great issues. All that we can determine is whether we shall meet well or ill."
Press Conference of Senator John F. Kennedy, Portland,

Maine, September 2, 1960
This is a transcription of this press conference made for the convenience of readers and researchers. Two copies of a
single version of the text exist in the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. The
version in the Pre-Presidential papers is apparently a verbatim transcript from a contemporary recording.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It is a great pleasure to be here in Maine today. This is
really, in a sense, the beginning of our campaign, and I have been traveling the State of Maine with Ed Muskie, Frank
Coffin, who is candidate for Governor, Lucia Cormier, who is the candidate for the United States Senate, Jim Oliver,
Congressman from this District, John Donovan and Dave Roberts. We have traveled from Presque Isle, and we are
going to speak tonight and go to Washington. Tomorrow morning I fly to Alaska and speak to a dinner in Alaska
tomorrow night. In a way, therefore, I am covering the oldest section of the United States, Maine, and going to the
newest section, Alaska. But in a very real sense, both Maine and Alaska have the same problems, because they are the
problems of the United States, in a very difficult and dangerous time for us all. This campaign is important because the
issues we face are important, and because what happens to this country is important. I am glad to be here and I would be
delighted to answer any questions that the press might have.
QUESTION: Senator Kennedy, would you tell us how you feel about your chances in Maine in November, and those of
the other candidates of your party?
SENATOR KENNEDY: Well, I think that we are hopeful in Maine in November. Ed Muskie has given Maine the kind
of leadership which I think these other candidates, all of whom I know personally - I think the kind of leadership which
they can give the state. There is an old saying that as Maine goes, so goes the country. I would hope that we would do
well in Maine and as Maine went, so went the West of the United States.
QUESTION: Following Vice President Nixon’s southern swing, he said, "The Kennedy-Johnson ticket is in real trouble
in the South." Would you care to comment on that?
SENATOR KENNEDY: Well, we have problems in the South and I suppose we have problems in all sections of the
United States. The Democratic Party is the national party, the oldest party in the world. There are farmers in it, working
men, businessmen, ranchers, fishermen from Maine, farmers, it covers the whole United States. I think the problem
which any candidates have for the Democratic Party is to rally all the multi-groups that have maintained the Democratic
Party and put the national interest first. I think finally we are going to be successful in November, but it is going to be a
hard campaign and it will be a hard campaign in the South as well as in Maine.
QUESTION: Senator Kennedy, if you are elected President, will the Passamaquoddy Bay Project become a reality?
SENATOR KENNEDY: I have supported the Passamaquoddy Bay Project since I have been in the United States
Senate. I have great hopes for it. It is now before the Commission. I hope that the United States and Canada will come to
an agreement. It will be a great source of power, for not only Maine, but I think the whole northeastern United States. I
support the project, whether I am in the Senate or I am President.
QUESTION: If you were President, would you attend the general UN Assembly, the session which Mr. Khruschev said
he would attend?
SENATOR KENNEDY: I think the President should make the judgment on whether he attends the United Nations
because he is the President and he is responsible for foreign policy until his term comes to an end. I would not,
therefore, attempt to suggest. This is going to be an important session, but I would not attempt to advise the President on
this question.
QUESTION: Senator Kennedy, would you explain why you, the new titular leader of the party and Lyndon Johnson, the
Majority Leader in the Senate, were not able to get more of what you wanted out of this recent session?
SENATOR KENNEDY: As you know, we thought five or six bills were of great importance, medical care to the aged,
tighter social security, a bill to increase the minimum wage to $1.25, and a housing bill. In addition, we wanted to try to
do something for the farmers, which I think need particular relief at this time. We were not as successful as I hoped we
would be. But I think the real difficulty is the fact that on the two bills which were most controversial, the $1.25
minimum wage, and the aid to the aged and social security, we were informed in both cases that if those bills passed, the
President would veto them. All the President has to do to stop action is to veto any bill and he needs, according to the
Constitution, only one third plus one of either body to sustain his veto. It is extremely difficult for us to enact legislation
if a President were opposed to it. If I were President, I would indicate my support for these programs and I think in those
cases the Congress would respond. But this way, when the Congress acts, and it is threatened with a veto during every
stage of its action, it is extremely difficult, with the division of powers in our Constitution, to secure action.
QUESTION: Senator Kennedy, on balance, would you say that the reconvened short session helped or hurt your
candidacy in terms of the political impact of the decisions or the non-decisions.
SENATOR KENNEDY: I think it was unfortunate for the public interest because I did not think we got by what we
should have gotten by. As you know, we had a good deal of opposition on the other side of the aisle. Unfortunately, this
was a session where the political atmosphere was highly developed. In the long run, however, I am not so sure this
session is a loss. I think that the American people have seen in the last three or four weeks the difficulty of operating a
governmental system where the President and the Congress hold different views on great public questions. I think there
are sufficient divisions of power given to us in the Constitution without having a President of one party who is opposed
to these programs and a Congress of another party which is committed to these programs. If there is anyone who is
listening to me who does not want action and who does not want Congress to carry out these programs, then this divided
government is fine. But I think what we need, and I think this last three weeks showed it, is a Congress and a President
working together for progressive, responsible pieces of legislation. I am committed to that program, and I think that we
have had a good evidence in the last three weeks why it is necessary to unite the President and the Congress and not
separate them.
QUESTION: Senator Kennedy, one theme of the Republican campaign appears to be that Vice President Nixon has
experience and maturity which are superior to your own.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Yes, I have heard that said.
QUESTION: How do you intend to answer this argument during the campaign?
SENATOR KENNEDY: Well, I think as far as our ages they are very close. We both came to Congress 14 years ago. In
fact, the same day. As far as experience, I have been a member of the Senate Foreign Relationships Committee. I spent a
good deal of my life before the war, at least in the last years, traveling. I was in the Soviet Union, I think, in 1939, and in
Poland. I have been an active member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in my service in the Senate as well as
the Labor Committee. I have been concerned about foreign policy since my father was in London, and my judgment is
that the American Foreign Policy has been, in general, relatively unsuccessful in the last four or five years, that the
power and prestige of the United States in relationship to that of the Soviet Union and the Chinese Communists in the
under-developed areas of the world has declined relatively. Therefore, I do not feel that the last years have been so
successful that we should move from those to an endorsement of a previous action. I don’t think that you can suggest to
me one new program in the field of foreign policy which has had general acceptance around the world that has been
developed in the last years. Nothing comparable to the Marshall Plan, to NATO, to Point IV. I think what we need is a
new administration with new people, new vitality and new ideas.
QUESTION: Senator, can you tell us what you had in mind earlier when you spoke of protection for New England
industry? Are you implying some new trade proposal here?
SENATOR KENNEDY: No, but what I am implying is that as we get to atomic power as well as the Passamaquoddy
power, which will permit us to compete more successfully, as we are able to clean our rivers to make them less polluted,
as we are able to attract new industries by providing, I would think, a minimum wage which puts ours on a par with
other sections of the United States, as we concentrate our effort on education, our colleges and universities and schools,
in order to have the most highly skilled people, in these ways I think we can strengthen our position.
QUESTION: But the word protection was used, Senator. That is what aroused our interest. What does that mean?
SENATOR KENNEDY: It means to try to protect and nourish and develop our industries in this section.
QUESTION: By means of tariffs?
SENATOR KENNEDY: In the case of textiles we have had some protection from the voluntary quotas which have not
been altogether successful. I supported the peril point and the escape clause, both of which are in the present reciprocal
trade act. I would not suggest additional legislative action, however, on reciprocal trade. But I do think it is a matter of
great concern what is happening to our textile industry and I do think we want to make sure that the domestic industry is
permitted to maintain itself.
QUESTION: You mentioned there were problems in all parts of the nation. I think one of the issues possibly that would
affect Maine quite a bit is the Democratic plank on full parity price support.
How would you convince Maine people of the rightness of this plank in view of the fact that its implementation would
mean higher grain costs for Maine farmers and would mean higher costs to the consumers of food products and higher
taxes for our taxpayers?
SENATOR KENNEDY: Well, I don’t consider that that is an altogether accurate description of the Democratic plank. I
think that farm income nationally is wholly unsatisfactory. It is as low now as it was 20 years ago. It is a matter of
national concern. Farmers of the United States, whether they live here in Maine or whether they live in Oregon, are the
very important segment of the American economy. I don’t think the Maine economy prospers if American agriculture is
on the decline. You sell a good many things that you manufacture in this state, and we do in Massachusetts, to the
Midwest. Therefore, it is a matter of great national concern if the farm income sharply declines. The average wage for a
dairy farmer in the State of Wisconsin, and it is true that our own dairy farmers have been hard hit, is 50 cents an hour.
The grain farmers’ income in many grain parts of the country is the same level it was in 1938. I think this is a matter of
great national concern. Farmers are the number one market for Detroit automobiles. Detroit automobiles are the number
one market for Pittsburgh steel. If farm income drops, so does Detroit, so does Pittsburgh and so does Maine. So I don’t
consider it a battle between Maine and Wisconsin or Iowa.
QUESTION: Senator Kennedy, I have a two part question here for you. This has to do with the OAS conference that
was recently held. At that conference, I believe the United States agreed to sever relations with the Dominican Republic,
I presume in an effort to get the South American countries to go along with our suggestion that they censure the Castro
government, and perhaps place restrictions on the Castro government.
If we severed relations with the Dominican Republic, granted Trujillo is a dictator, and there are other dictators we do
recognize, he has never done anything to us, he is anti-Communist and there is the possibility that a communist regime
will succeed him if he topples. At the OAS meeting all they did with regard to Castro was to adopt a vague resolution
condemning the penetration of South America by Communists, not mentioning Cuba by name.
Do you think we were wise in severing our relations with Trujillo, No. 1, and, No. 2, do you think we were successful at
this OAS conference?
SENATOR KENNEDY: I do think that our policy towards Trujillo is wise. The basic wave which has swept South
America in the last ten years is to have independent governments within their own countries. It is anti-dictatorship. The
reason that American policy in South America does not enjoy the high esteem which it enjoyed during the 1930’s during
the period of good neighbors was our relations with the former dictator of Venezuela, our intimate relations with
dictators in several other countries. I don’t think we can expect the people of Latin America to join us against the
dictatorships in the whole hemisphere unless we also don’t attempt to play the game the way it is.
The second point which is a valid one is that the Latin American resolution against the Castro government was not as
strong as we wanted it to be. That I consider a very ominous sign. That is the Castro regime as sufficient popularity in
Latin America, both because it is directed against us and our stature is not strong there, and also because too long people
of Latin America have been denied their economic opportunity. Therefore, the political leaders of those countries, who I
think are anti-Castro without a doubt, were not politically strong enough to afford to condemn Castro out of hand. I
think he should be condemned. I think he is a source of maximum danger. I think the big task of the next administration
is going to be to contain this revolution in Cuba, itself, and not to have it spread through Latin America. We did make
progress to a degree, though not satisfactory, however, in my opinion, and a constant struggle is going to go on if we are
going to isolate this Communist conspiracy in Cuba.
Now let me say that I am critical of this administration for its policy toward Castro in its early days and its policy toward
Batista’s dictatorship in the last days. I don’t take the views that the only alternative to a dictator is a Communist
dictator. If the United States had just had its influence, and at that time the United States was extremely powerful in
Cuba, it seems to me we could have persuaded Mr. Batista to hold free elections at the time he was permitted to go and
permit the Cuban people to make their choice instead of letting Castro seize power through revolution.
I think we are going to have a good deal of trouble in the future with Castro through all of Latin America. I agree we did
not do as much as we wanted towards Castro. I do not agree with our policy toward Trujillo.
QUESTION: The House Inter-American Subcommittee recommended today that the U.S. retain complete control over
the Panama Canal and, in effect, keep the U.S. flag flying exclusively. What is your view towards this?
SENATOR KENNEDY: I think we should keep the flag flying over the Panama Canal, and I think we should also be
concerned about our relations with Panama. I think we should make our relations with their country as palatable as
possible. I would keep the American flag flying from the points of ownership, but I would certainly attempt to keep
close relations with Panama. It is very difficult to operate that Canal if it is operated in a sea of hostility.
QUESTION: I come from a section in the State of Maine that will either go Democratic or Republican. The people have
talked to think there is a great similarity between both programs. I would like to have you tell us tonight where the
Democratic platform differs from the Republicans. I know it is a big subject, but what is the greatest difference.
SENATOR KENNEDY: I think the Democratic Party, and I hope the candidates running, certainly the candidates in this
state and I think the candidates nationally, I think, are better prepared to meet the very revolutionary future which faces
the United States and the free world. This administration has been in office eight years. They have been in office during
some of the most difficult and trying periods. But I do think in that eight year period, the image of the United States as
the most vigorous, vital and powerful country in the world has begun to dim. I mentioned in Presque Isle today a poll
which Gallup took in ten countries, asking those people whether they thought the Soviet Union or the United States in
1970 would be first militarily and scientifically. The Soviet Union won both of those polls in the ten countries involved,
in both categories. I don’t think there is any doubt that ten years ago the United States was preeminent. I think the
Democratic Party is prepared to bring new people, new ideas, with a true recognition of the seriousness of the struggle
that we face.
QUESTION: Senator Kennedy, yesterday, Mike Wallace he is the TV man, said that there has been a tremendous
outbreak of what he calls scurrilous and malicious literature and he says it is having its effect on some parts of the
country. I wonder if it is your feeling that this work is the work of a well organized group or whether it is something that
is coming from what you might call a lunatic fringe group and could be ignored.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Well, I don’t think it probably could be ignored, and I would be reluctant to think it came from
any organized group. There are a good many Americans who are concerned about the question of religious freedom. The
power of the President is great. There are a good many Americans of good will who honestly want to hear my views on
the question of religious liberty, constitutional separation of church and state, and so on. I have given those views on
every occasion that I am asked and I am glad to give it again. Of course, I believe in the United States Constitution. Ed
Muskie, Frank Coffin and I take the same oath as the President takes, to defend the Constitution as members of
Congress, and I would take that oath if I were elected President, and I would take it on the Bible. So I am delighted if
anybody asks me my feeling about it. I don’t feel at all reluctant to discuss it. I know there is a group of people who
would not accept any answer, who are not interested in my views on the matter, who are not interested in my experience,
who are not interested in what has happened in this country in our history where we all believe in it. I can’t answer them
and I suppose they are going to vote against me. All I say is they are really wasting their vote, because here in the most
difficult time, when we in this country are on trial as the exponents of free government, are going to spend the next two
months discussing our churches, and where we go - I think my candidacy would be unfortunate. The purpose of this
discussion is to discuss issues and give alternatives.
QUESTION: You do understand the type of literature I am talking about?
SENATOR KENNEDY: I have seen it sent to me.
QUESTION: You do not believe it is the work of an organized group?
SENATOR KENNEDY: Obviously it is organized enough to send it around the United States, but I just feel we are
going to meet that problem. I have faced it before. I ran into it in the West Virginia and we emerged successfully. The
State of Maine has shown that what it values as the kind of men they choose for office is not what their religion is. That
is why this country has been so successful. I am not prepared to say that we are not going to have a comparable
experience in this election. My judgment is that come November this matter will assume its proper proportion.
QUESTION: Senator, last week’s Kiplinger Washington letter mentioned that both you and Vice President Nixon have
your own private, personal public opinion polls. I am wondering how yours compares with the latest Gallup report?
SENATOR KENNEDY: I have only seen a couple of polls since the election. I thought this last Gallup poll was about
the way mine was. I would say this is a very close election.
QUESTION: Senator Kennedy, prior to World War II, the United States had undisputed economic lead throughout the
world because of its mass production methods. Today we have equipped most of those foreign countries with as modern
machinery as we have, if not actually more modern than ours in many instances. Their wages are very low. We have
dropped our tariffs considerably to accommodate their goods. I understand that recently for the first time foreign
concerns have been able to undersell us in Europe and they are underselling us at home today. If our wages here
continue to spiral and limitations are placed on the amount of work that people may do, how are we going to increase
our economy by five percent a year?
SENATOR KENNEDY: Well, let me say in the first place the balance of trade is still relatively in our favor. Where we
have lost is because we have maintained troops over seas and we have contributed a good deal to maintaining the
economies of other countries. That is what has really contributed to the balance of payments run against us. The trade
balance is still even and in many cases is in our favor. I do suggest - I do agree that you have suggested a long range
problem, and that is how can we compete successfully with not only Western Europe but also the Soviet Union. I think
it is going to be a matter of the greatest possible concern. We can stay ahead. I think that we are going to go find a great
investment in capital goods. I think by changes in our tax laws we can stimulate new investments in new machinery. I
think our productivity is going to be maintained. I would say it is a serious problem but it is one that is possible of
solution. I don’t think what is causing us difficulty is that we are paying generous wages. I am not interested in driving
our wage levels down. I think we are still meeting the competition. Generally we are and we can continue to do so.
QUESTION: In the prepared text of your speech at Manchester this morning, with reference to the decline in the textile
industry here, you listed full use of valuable weapons against the excessive imports as one means of reversing a serious
decline. I gathered from your response to Donovan’s question that you are opposed to fixing mandatory quotas or
increasing tariffs in order to achieve this. Is that correct?
SENATOR KENNEDY: Well, in the case of worsteds we have a quota in the sense that when worsted imports go over 5
percent, then the tariff changes. In the case of cotton textiles we have relied on the so-called voluntary system, though of
course we do have some protection for cotton. All I am suggesting is that while the Japanese have relaxed their imports
in accordance with agreement, we are getting a great increase in textile imports from Hong Kong and certain other
countries. I think these must be a matter of concern. Several appeals have gone to the Tariff Commission and we are still
in rather critical condition in the textile industry. I think that there is a proportion in every industry between imports and
domestic production. I don’t want to see any domestic industry driven to the wall by excessive imports and that is my
general view. I say in the case of textiles, the last 18 months have been a matter of concern to me.
QUESTION: Senator Kennedy, you mentioned that the threat of veto had some effect on at least two pieces of major
legislation during the special session and yet your opposition publicly and through various periodicals have said that you
assumed the mantle of leadership from Mr. Johnson and you failed miserably. Would you want to comment on it?
SENATOR KENNEDY: I realize that that is what the Republicans say, but they are entitled to do it. We did not do as
well as we could hope. Let us take a look at two pieces of legislation in which I was extremely interested, housing and
education. Neither one of those bills came to a vote in the House of Representatives because there they were bottled up
in the Rules Committee. There are four Republican members of the Rules Committee, and not one of them would vote
to permit, even though the President requested housing legislation and aid to education, not one of the four Republican
members of the Rules Committee would permit either one of those bills to come to the floor for a vote. Two Democrats
joined with them. I think that was a mistake. But the four of the Democrats voted for those bills to go to the floor. Not
one Republication on the Rules Committee would vote with us.
No. 2, we went to conference between the House and the Senate on minimum wage. Six out of seven Republicans on
that conference voted against that not only the $1.25 minimum wage, but also against the President’s own program
which we finally offered as a compromise. Six out of seven Democrats on the conference voted for $1.25 minimum
wage. I will give you the fourth one.
In the case of medical care for the aged on social security, 45 Democrats voted for it and one Republican voted for it.
Even though Governor Rockefeller had endorsed it strongly and even though it was the most efficient and economic
way to do the job. I think the record is quite clear in this Congress, and I think the American people are going to have to
decide whether they want a repetition of the kind of negative block actions which were carried on in this Congress or
whether they want us to move ahead. We cannot possibly challenge a President who is opposed to us. The Constitution
gives him too many powers. All I say is the American people ought to decide whether that is what they want or whether
they want to move ahead.
MODERATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, you have time for one more question.
QUESTION: Senator Kennedy, in a few days the State of Maine will be the first state in the Union to be without any
passenger train service, according to the Supreme Court of Maine. They say it is coming all over the country. Some of
us think it is more important to get to Bangor than to the moon right now. I wonder if you have any thoughts about the
transportation problem nationally.
SENATOR KENNEDY: I think the matter is a matter of greatest possible concern, the breakdown in negotiations. I am
sure that the President is extremely concerned and I am hopeful that he will use the influence of his office to attempt to
have the two groups reach an agreement. In the final analysis there is every important public interest as well as the
interest of the parties, and I am hopeful that the President can serve as the bridge.
Let me say finally that I guess we are all finished. I want to thank Miss Cormier, who I hope is going to serve in the
Senate; Frank Coffin, the candidate for Governor; Jim Oliver, the Congressman from here; and John Donovan, and all
the rest who I think would serve as a first class team for Maine.
We finish here, but we are coming back. I think we have in a great State of Maine to demonstrate that we have a new
frontier. This is an old section of the United States, but I believe that its promise is still bright. I am going to carry that
message to Alaska, and I hope that Dave Roberts and all the rest will be traveling the State of Maine with me when I
come back in October. That you very much, everybody.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Bangor, Maine,
September 2, 1960
My friend and Colleague, Ed Muskie; my friend and your next governor, Frank Coffin; Lucia Cormier, Dave Roberts,
John Donovan, ladies and gentlemen:
I came here to Maine to start this campaigning in my own backyard. I do so not merely because I live in Massachusetts.
I do so because here in this part of the United States we have in a very real sense the same feeling of a new frontier that I
talked about in Los Angeles when I accepted the Democratic nomination. And I am here also because we have in this
State, I think, a singular opportunity to send some distinguished people to hold positions of responsibility in the
government of this state and nation in the next four years.
I must say I don't come here and speak for them just because they are Democrats. I think in this election the Democratic
Party and the Republican Party are means to an end, not an end in themselves. They are a means of providing gifted men
and women for the service of this country in a difficult and dangerous time.
I think that Lucia Cormier, Frank Coffin, Dave Roberts and John Donovan follow in the tradition of Ed Muskie, who
was chosen by a state which had been Republican, not because he was a Democrat but because they thought that he was
the kind of a man that they wanted to speak for them in this state and in the nation. And what is true of Ed Muskie is
true of Frank Coffin, it is true of Lucia Cormier, it is true of Dave Roberts, and it is true of John Donovan. Adversity
brings out the best in a man and in a country. And it brings out the best in a political party.
The reason that the Democrats of this state have selected unusual people is because it isn't easy. Now, the challenges
that face this country aren't easy. But because it isn't easy, I think it is going to get the best from us.
I run for the office of the Presidency because I believe, because I know, that this is the great office in the gift of the
United States and, really, the great office in the gift of the free people of the world. We represent not only ourselves. The
President of the United States represents not only the Democrats of the country. He represents all of the people around
the world who want to live in freedom, who look to us for hope and leadership.
I must say that if I am elected President of the United States, I am not going to attempt only to select men for positions
of high leadership who happen to have the word democrat after their name.
When Franklin Roosevelt became President in 1932 he selected three Republicans to be members of his first Cabinet.
When President Truman was the President, he selected men like John McCloy, Robert Lovett. He continued men like
James Forrestal. He brought John Foster Dulles into the State Department to negotiate the Japanese Treaty. He secured
for the great positions of responsibility the best men and women he could get.
This is what we are going to do in the future.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Portland,
Maine, September 2, 1960
Miss Cormier, Frank Coffin, Jim Oliver, John Donovan, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:
I want to express my thanks and appreciation to Ed Muskie, my friend and colleague in the United States Senate, and I
am delighted that I have had a chance to come here in this state on the opening day of a long campaign. As you probably
may have heard, we leave tomorrow at nine o'clock to speak at Anchorage at dinner there, at eight o'clock tomorrow
evening, and then come back on Sunday night and go to Detroit. I suppose it took about a year and a half to two years to
go to Alaska a few short years ago. But you can go to Alaska now in the space of the day, almost as fast as the sun. It is
one more dramatic indication of the kind of world in which we live, the changing face of this world and the changing
face of our country.
My grandfather and my mother spent many summers of their lives within a short radius of this city in Old Orchard
Beach. My father and mother came to this state on their honeymoon. I know Maine well because I live in Massachusetts.
It is not so different there; it is not so bad in Massachusetts. I want some of you to go to Boston some time and see what
it is like.
I sit with Ed Muskie, and I sit across, in the Congress, from Frank Coffin and from your distinguished Congressman.
Actually, as you know, the Constitution of the United States provided that the duty of the Senators should be confined to
approving treaties and approving Presidential appointments. But the Constitution of the United States gave great
authority to Members of the House of Representatives, and particularly two authorities: One to raise taxes and the other
to spend your money. That is what Frank Coffin has been doing for the last two years. And if you have any complaints,
don't take them to Ed Muskie or myself, but talk to Jim Oliver and Frank Coffin and all the rest of them that have been
doing that.
In any case, he has done a good job. He is the kind of young leader which our party needs. But more important than that
- which our country needs. We cannot possibly afford to waste the talent that we have. Therefore I am confident, and I
say this as a fellow New Englander who is concerned that here in the oldest section of the United states, that we, too,
should move ahead. I am confident that this state will give him a ringing indorsement as their Governor, and that you
will send to the United States Senate a distinguished Senator in Lucia Cormier.
I sat in the United States Senate and saw our efforts to obtain medical care for the aged through social security fail by
five votes in the United States Senate two weeks ago. If Miss Cormier had been a member of that body, she would have
voted with us and we would have needed only four more votes. A Senator's voice is important. Decisions hang on the
judgment of a few people. The contests are close, and, therefore, I urge this state to send her to Washington to speak
with a voice of progress and vigor from an old section of the United States. And Jim Oliver and Dave Roberts and John
Donovan to sit there in the House of Representatives and speak for Maine.
This is an important election. The last Democratic President of the United States from this section of the country was
Franklin Pierce from the State of New Hampshire. It took him 35 ballots to be nominated and he accepted reluctantly. It
didn't happen that way in Los Angeles. I ran for the office of the Presidency after 14 years in the House of
Representatives and the Senate because I have come to realize more than ever that this is the great office, that the power
that the Constitution gives the President, the power and the responsibility which the force of events have thrust upon the
President, makes this the center of action, makes this the mainspring, the wellspring, of the American system. Only the
President speaks for the United States. I speak for Massachusetts. And Ed Muskie speaks for Maine. And Claire Engle
speaks for California. But the President of the United States speaks for Maine and Massachusetts, and California and
Hawaii, and Alaska. And he speaks not only for the United States, but he speaks for all those who desire to be free, who
are willing to bear the burdens of freedom, who are willing to meet its responsibilities, who recognize that freedom is
not license, but, instead, places a heavier burden upon us than any other political system.
This is an important election, as Ed Muskie said. I come here to Maine as a neighbor, but I don't come here saying that if
I am elected that my only interest is going to be the protection of New England. That isn't what New England wants in a
President. They want someone who understands this section and its needs, but they also want someone who will speak
for the country in a difficult and trying period.
Demosthenes, when he was trying to rally the Athenians against Phillip of Macedonia, said that "If you analyze it
correctly, you will conclude that our critical situation is chiefly due to men who try to please the citizens rather than to
tell them what they need to hear."
I hope that that will not be said about any Democratic candidate for any office, from the lowest office in the county to
the President of the United States. I don't run for the office of the Presidency to tell you what you want to hear. I run for
the office of the Presidency because in a dangerous time we need to be told what we must do if we are going to maintain
our freedom and the freedom of those who depend upon us.
A well-known and distinguished Republican once said, "I am a liberal abroad and a conservative at home." I could not
disagree more. You cannot possibly separate the world around us and carry out one set of policies there, and here in the
United States drag down our efforts to move ahead.
The two Presidents of the United States in this century who had the most vigorous and vital foreign policy were
Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, and the reason for it was because the 14 points of Woodrow Wilson were
directly related to his new freedom and the Four Freedoms of Franklin Roosevelt were directly related to the idealistic
aspirations of the New Deal. The effort to make a better life for people in our country reflected itself around the world.
You cannot be successful abroad unless you are successful at home because every problem that you have here in the
United States has its implications abroad. If you have a bad and weak school system in this country, with poorly paid
teachers, then you do not educate a child, and when that child is not educated you can never get it back. He has lost his
chance. The Soviet Union works night and day to turn out the best educated citizens they can get in the disciplines of
science, mathematics and engineering.
Every time we waste our food in a hungry world, here in this country, that affects the foreign policy and the security of
the United States. Every time we deny to one of our citizens the right of equality of opportunity before the law, the right
to send their children to schools on the basis of equality, so much weaker are we in Africa, Asia and Latin America,
where we are a white minority in a colored world.
I don't hold the view at all that we can isolate ourselves into a system, while around the world we attempt to carry on the
principles of the American Revolution. They are intermixed. If we are successful here, if we are moving ahead with a
dynamic economy, then we shall be successful abroad.
Do you think it is any accident that the decline of American prestige relative to that of the Communist world takes place
at a time when the United States had last year the lowest rate of economic growth of any major industrialized society in
the world?
I visited the Soviet Union in 1939. The Soviet Union was isolated, with countries hostile to her on every boundary.
Today, 21 years later, China, Eastern Europe, her influence in the Middle East which has been an object of Russian
policy for 300 years - you cannot possibly be satisfied that the power and influence of the United States is increasing
relatively as fast as that of the Sino-Soviet bloc, and you do not have to look 90 miles beyond the coast of the United
States if you think different.
I visited Havana three years ago and I was informed that the American Ambassador was the second most influential
person in Cuba. He is not today. He cannot even get to see the Foreign Minister's assistant. This is the problem we face
in 1960.
What shall we do in this country? What shall we do around the world to reverse the trend of history, to take those
actions here in this country and throughout the globe that shall make people feel that in the year of 1961, the American
giant began to stir again, the great American boiler began to fire up again, this country began to move ahead again?
Those who live in Africa, Asia and Latin America began to wonder what America was going to do and not merely what
the Soviet Union was doing or the Chinese Communists. And the young men and women, those who are students, those
who teach them, those who represent the intellectual vitality of these countries, began to look to the United States as a
dynamic country which carried with it a hope for a better life for people all over the world.
Should we be astonished at what is happening in the Congo today when they have less than a handful, probably less than
14, college graduates in the whole country? When there is no officer who is a Negro who is native in any of their armed
forces? Do you think that a country can manage a system as sensitive as democracy when it does not have the chance to
educate its people?
In Laos, Cambodia, the Congo and Cuba we have seen in the last few years the tide turn against us. But I do not concern
myself with the feeling that the decline of the United States has set in. This is a great country. It represents the best
system of government there is. It represents in a real sense the kind of system that everyone wants to live under because
it fits a basic aspiration of human beings, to live in an independent nation in a free way.
We have the best system. We have every chance. We have the most power. We can, I believe, be a decisive influence in
a difficult and trying period.
I ask your support in this campaign. This is not a contest merely between the Vice President and myself. This is a
contest between all of us who believe that the future belongs to the United States. All of the men and women of talent
and industry, and interest and vitality who wish to serve this country, who wish to play a part in its life, I ask the support
of all of you in this campaign in the State of Maine. I ask the support of all of those who believe that this country can
lead the world and who believe that this country is ready to move again.
Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy at San Francisco
International Airport, San Francisco, California,
September 3, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. Two copies each of the press
release and reading text of the speech exist in the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy
Library. All four texts are essentially the same.
This rally marks the official beginning of the 1960 Presidential Campaign.
From now until November 8 we are taking our case to the forum in which it belongs - where there is no threat of veto -
where there is no parliamentary obstruction - and where we will be successful - and that is the forum of the American
people.
Until a Democrat is in the White House, the Republicans can block action on an adequate minimum wage - they can
water down medical care for the aged - they can play politics with civil rights - they can block action on a decent
housing bill and a good school bill. But they cannot block the American people on November 8th
The theme of this campaign is going to be action - action at home to keep the pace with our growing needs, to help the
unfortunate, to build a still greater nation - and action abroad, to match the rise in Communist power, to meet the
turbulent revolutions reshaping our globe.
I believe the American people elect a President to act. I believe the crises of the 1960’s require him to act. And I believe
the voters all across the country in November 1960 are going to call for action.
There are times in the life of a nation - as in the life of any family - when we simply want to get away from it all. We
want to relax, to forget about our problems, to shut out the noise and the confusion, and simply count our blessings.
Perhaps we have been going through such a time in the life of our nation. Perhaps in 1952 we needed such a time. But
the 1960’s are not going to be that kind of time.
For this is not the same nation it was in 1952. Automation was little more than a word then - now it means
unemployment and hardship for untold thousands of workers. The pressure on our schools - the plight of our elderly -
the cost-price squeeze on our farmers - the decline of our cities -the high cost of medical care - these are all newer and
greater problems and pressures which in 1960 are still growing and changing and demanding new leadership.
The world is changing, too. The old era has ended. The old ways will not do. In 1952 most of us had not even heard of
Nasser, Lumumba, Castro or even Khrushchev. We did not know of any serious Communist problems in the Middle
East, in Africa or in Latin America.
But now there are new leaders, new nations, new weapons of destruction. The balance of power is shifting. The gap
between rich and poor is growing. And the world in which we are only a tiny minority is restless, watching and on the
move.
We must move, too. This nation is ready to start moving again. Our vacation is over. Our relaxation is at an end. We are
ready to face the facts - to shoulder our burdens - to tackle the job of building a new and better world beyond the New
Frontier.
But [if] we are going to undertake that job, a stand-still philosophy will not do. A do-nothing party will not do. Four
more years of a Republican President blocking action by a Democratic Congress will not do. What we need - what we
seek - what this campaign is intended to bring - is action, instead of drift - leadership, not salesmanship - and dedication,
in place of mediocrity.
We are not talking simply about a political contest. I am in this campaign as your candidate for President of the United
States. That is the greatest office in the world. That is the office which historically, constitutionally and logically always
must be the fountain-head of our leadership. The Congress cannot do the job alone - that ought to be clear to everyone
by now. If this nation is to reassert the initiative in foreign affairs, it must be Presidential initiative. If we are to rebuild
our prestige in the eyes of the world, it must be Presidential prestige. And if we are to regain progressive leadership on
our domestic problems, it must be Presidential leadership.
But this is not a one-man crusade. The New Frontier is not to be won by one man - or two or even the leaders of one
political party. It is a challenge to all Americans - to all who are willing to commit themselves to the future instead of
the past - to all who find their duty in the harsh realities of our times.
For these are harsh times. The future will not be easier. Our burdens will not lessen. Our enemies will not weaken. But I
cannot believe that history will say of our time: "They were the greatest, richest, strongest nation on earth - but they
stood still too long."
I believe that history will write a different story. I believe that history will mark this as a turning-point in the life of our
nation and in the pursuit of peace. I believe that with your help - with your efforts, joining the efforts of millions like
you all over America - we can make this a time of greatness - a time of which history will truly say, when reciting our
perils, that we lived by the Scriptural injunction: "Every one shall help his neighbor, and shall say to his Brother: Be of
good courage."
I call upon you - not as Democrats, not as Californians, but as neighbors and brothers - to help make that prophecy a
reality.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Edgewater

Hotel, Anchorage, Alaska, September 3, 1960
The Republicans see Alaska as a giant ice-box - a useless wasteland. They see its problems and its limitations. They see
it as a burden on the mainland - a cost to the taxpayers - at best a colony for certain commercial interests. As far as they
are concerned, it is still "Seward's folly."
But I see another Alaska - the Alaska of the future. I see a land of over one million people. I see a giant electric grid
stretching from Juneau to Anchorage and beyond. I see the greatest dam in the free world at Rampart Canyon, producing
twice the power of TVA to light homes and mills and cities and farms all over Alaska. I see a network of paved
highways and modern airports linking every city and section of this state. I see Alaska as the destination of countless
Americans - seeing not only land and gold, as in days of old, but seeking a new life, new cities, new markets, new
vacation spots. And I see an Alaska that is the storehouse of the nation, rich in timber, rich in minerals, rich in fisheries,
rich in water power and rich in the blessings of liberty as well as abundance.
I do not say that this is the Alaska of 1961 or even 1971. I do not say a Democratic Administration can magically being
all this to pass. The work must be the work of many - the burden must be the burden of many. It will take your help and
your efforts and your time - but it is high time we got started.
For the Alaska I see is not the Alaska of a "no new starts" policy. It will not come about when forests and fisheries are
being depleted, highways are being neglected and water power is going to waste. It will not come about as long as
Alaska faces drastic discrimination under the Federal Highway Act - or is saddled with extra-high ocean shipping rates.
And it will not come about under an Administration that acts only through the negative, empty, arbitrary method of
Presidential vetoes.
I know that Alaska has had reason in the past to be grateful to Administrations of both parties - to Abraham Lincoln and
Theodore Roosevelt, in particular, among the Republicans. But there is a special tradition for Democratic
Administrations in Alaska - Woodrow Wilson founding the Alaskan railroad and the City of Anchorage - F.D.R.
founding the Matanuska Valley settlement, Ladd Field and a stable gold market - Harry Truman founding the Eklutna
power project and a host of others. I can only give you my pledge, should I be elected, and my wish - to carry on in that
great tradition - and to be worthy of it.
I come here seeking your votes because this is a sovereign state. Your rights ought to be equal to any other states, new
or old, large or small. But many new nations of the world have learned that political equality and independence are not
enough without economic equality and independence. And while the Democratic Congress could grant Alaska her just
political rights, it will take a Democratic Administration to grant this state her just economic rights.
For I voted for Alaska to be a sovereign state, not a colony. And I find the discrimination now practiced against this state
hard to believe. I could hardly believe that the largest state in the Union received less money for roads than the smallest
state in the Union. I could hardly believe that the study of the Rampart Dam project has been cut back to a pace that
would take 10 years to complete. I could hardly believe that the Secretary of Interior was still insisting that fish traps
continue, despite the fact that they were abolished by your Constitution and Legislature.
Why has the Department of Interior refused to survey the public land needed for this state's private development? Why
was Ladd Field abolished without warning? Why must ocean transportation rates here be among the highest in the
world?
The answer would appear to be a deliberate attempt to reduce the state of Alaska to a second class rank - and I have
always believed that there should be no second class states in all America.
It is time for this country to start moving again - and time for Alaska to start moving with it. We are not going to be
deterred by those who scoff at our plans and programs. They called TVA Pie in the Sky. They called Grand Coulee and
Bonneville Pie in the Sky. It is only natural for them to call Rampart Canyon Pie in the Sky - and to shrink from the
gigantic tasks required to give this state the transportation network and other essentials it needs.
These needs and these programs are cast in huge dimensions. But so is the state of Alaska. And the Scriptures tell us of
the time when "there were giants in the earth." And I sincerely believe that Ernest Gruening and Bob Bartlett and Bill
Egan and Ralph Rivers and in a sense, all of the people of Alaska, are giants in a giant land.
That is what this state needs. And that is what our country needs. This is not time for trivia. This is not time for petty
complaints and halfway measures. This is a time for giants - for doers instead of talkers - a time for the great-hearted,
not the faint-hearted.
I give you the call of the New Frontier - and I call for your help on the Last Frontier. Together, in a common effort for
the common cause, I know we can prevail.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Detroit Airport,

September 4, 1960
exists in the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. It is apparently a release to
the press of a transcription of his remarks.
Governor Williams, the next Governor, John Swainson, ladies and gentlemen; My friend and colleague, Senator
McNamara; Friday night we campaigned in Portland, Maine, Saturday at noon we went to San Francisco, Saturday night
we went to Alaska; tonight we are in Detroit. We did not make that trip for pleasure. We made it because we believe it is
vitally important that the Democratic Party win this election. This country cannot afford, nor can the whole free world
afford, four more years of a do-nothing Republican leadership. (Applause)
I am delighted to be here, to participate in the Labor Day ceremonies tomorrow. It is a great occasion. But I can assure
you that if we are successful in the election in November that the vacation for this country will be over. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Picnic,

Muskegon, Michigan, September 5, 1960
in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. The text
is apparently a verbatim transcript of the remarks as delivered.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Governor Williams, Lt. Governor Swainson, and the next Governor, Senator McNamara, and
the next Senator, Senator Hart, Don Jennings, who is going to be a great Congressman from this district, ladies and
gentlemen: I want to express my appreciation to the Governor. Every time he introduces me as the potentially greatest
President in history of the United States, I always think perhaps he is overstating it in one or two degrees. George
Washington wasn't a bad President, and I do want to say a word for Thomas Jefferson. But otherwise I will accept the
compliment. (Laughter and applause). In any case, I am grateful for his support now - Hoover was a great President, too
- (laughter) and Dewey was a great candidate (laughter).
I want to express my appreciation to the Governor for his present support and his support before the Convention. I spent
the day in the State of Michigan, following Walter Reuther around, and I want to say that what I think has been
particularly impressive has been the quality of the party leadership here in the State of Michigan, and the wholehearted
support and confidence and support that people of this state have given the Democratic leadership. I appreciate what the
Governor said about the St. Lawrence Seaway. I know that in the State of Massachusetts at that time it is not very
popular, but it is a source of satisfaction to me that when I ran for office for reelection to the Senate two years ago, I
secured in the State of Massachusetts the highest vote that was ever given, and I say that because the people of
Massachusetts recognized in the long run that a rising tide lifts all the boats, and what is good for one part of the United
States is good for all parts of the United States. (Applause)
I do not consider a politician's chief duty to consider how he can gain popularity at the moment. His chief duty, his chief
obligation, in fact, his only reason for service, is to tell the truth to the American people, not to seek to please them, but
to serve them. That is the responsibility in the difficult years of the 1960's. (Applause)
My criticism of this Administration basically, my criticism of the Republican Party is that in the most dangerous years
that this country has ever faced, they still use a slogan, "You've never had it so good." I don't go around the country
criticizing present leadership because I enjoy it. I admire the President of the United States as a man, but I do not believe
that we can continue the same kind of leadership in the future. (Applause) A Gallup Poll taken in ten countries a few
months ago asked the people of those countries who they thought would be first in 1970, militarily and scientifically, the
Russians or the United States. Now, if you had asked them ten years ago every one of them would have said the United
States. But in 1970, a majority of the people of those countries thought that the Russians would be first, both militarily
and scientifically. That is what hurts the United States. If they think we are on the decline and the Russians are on the
rise, if they think that our brightest day is somewhere in the past and now the future belongs to the Soviets, then all those
people who want to go with the winner turn against us and move in the direction of Moscow and Peking. I want it said
in 1970 that we are first, scientifically and militarily, educationally, economically. We should be first because we
represent the greatest system of government ever devised. But this system, if it is going to work, requires that all of
dedicate ourselves again. I don't run the office telling you what I am going to do for you. I run for office asking you to
join with me in rebuilding the prestige of the United States, in demonstrating that we are the greatest country on earth.
This country is ready to move. (Applause) This country is ready to move and we are ready to move with it. Thank you.
(Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Doo Drop Inn,

Muskegon, Michigan, September 5, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: The greatest Governor in the history of Michigan, Governor Williams - (applause) - with the
possible exception of John Swainson in the years to come - (laughter) - Senator McNamara, my seat mate in the United
States Senate - between the two of us we usually vote right - (laughter) - Don Jennings, whom I am confident will be
elected to the Congress from this district (applause) Walter Reuther, who could be - (laughter) - Leonard Woodcock,
Senator Hart, Mrs. Price - and I am not running - (laughter) - Senator Church - he comes from Idaho; we won't mention
him - Monsignor, ladies and gentlemen: I am leaving to go to Pocatello tonight. You have heard of Pocatello. There was
a famous story of the United States Senator from Idaho who got defeated as we all do sooner or later, and therefore it is
always regarded as Senators who stay on and on after being defeated that they don't want to go to Pocatello. I will know
tomorrow why that is (laughter). In any case, I am delighted to be in Muskegon. We really have had a great day. I must
say I am encouraged. I don't know if they just took me in the strong Democratic areas but in any case we really had a
good day and I am most appreciative to you. (Laughter
I am most appreciative to Mennen. This is Governor's day in this district. He endorsed me at a crucial time in my race
for the nomination. Back at about the 10th of June when everything looked like it might fall apart, he endorsed me, and
the Michigan delegation supported him, and I don't think there is any doubt that he played a most significant part in
securing my nomination. (Applause)
For that reason, among others, I am anxious to win. I don't want him to look bad next November (Laughter). I am very
grateful to Walter Reuther who has been speaking ahead of us. I have missed some great speeches today, but he went
ahead of us, spoke for an hour or two, got the audience warmed up, and I came on. (Laughter)
About 12 [sic] years ago a foreign visitor to Michigan came and was talking to a United States Senator from this state,
Louis [sic] Cass, and was very impressed by Michigan. He said if this is what Michigan is like in its childhood, what
will it be like in its old age. Senator Cass said, "Michigan or the United States will never have an old age."
I think that is what we are going to decide in 1960. (Applause) The Democratic Party is the oldest political party on
earth. We trace our intellectual descent back to Thomas Jefferson. Our call this year, however, is to the young at heart,
whether they are over 65 or under it. All those who believe and have lived though the days of Woodrow Wilson's new
freedom, through the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt, through the Fair Deal of Harry Truman, through the great
crusade of the last eight years, they know how important this election is that the Democratic Party assume control of the
Executive Branch of Government. (Applause) And the Democratic Party of Michigan, under John Swainson, with Pat
McNamara and Don Jennings, and all the rest, are prepared to offer that kind of leadership in this state. This has been
true with the Democratic Party throughout our history. When the Federalist Party was old and tired, Thomas Jefferson
began the Democratic Party. His first action early as President was the Louisiana Purchase, against the wishes of all
those who came from my own section of New England, who wanted the country to remain small, secluded, belonging to
a few. Instead, he took a chance and spread the United States west, and even though when he became President the
western boundary of America was Virginia, he sent Lewis and Clark all the way to the Pacific Ocean to open up the
entire United States. That has been the spirit of the Democratic Party. It has been the spirit of Jackson and Roosevelt and
Truman and all the rest, and that is the spirit we are going to recapture. (Applause)
I think this is an important election. I know that candidates think every election is important, but I think that the election
of 1960 is important. I think we have an opportunity to make a choice of whether we are going to continue to move
forward, as I believe we must. What is at stake in this election is not only our security within this country, but also the
petition of the United States around the world.
Senator Johnson and I are prepared to carry on a great effort to secure new frontier for the United States, a frontier
which offers not merely what we are going to promise in this campaign, but offers an opportunity to all of us to serve the
great Republic. It is, I think, a source of concern to us all that the first dogs carried around in outer space were not
named Rover and Fido, but, instead, were named Bekla and Strelka. It was not named Checkers, either. (Laughter)
In any case, we are finishing in Michigan for the time being, but we are coming back to this state. We have to carry this
state. (Applause)
The law says that you can only vote once on election day, but if you will go out and register one person between now
and the time of the election in November, then you can vote twice. I think that this is an important time. I ask your help
in this election. We can win this one. Let us try to work together and make Michigan Democratic, sweep this country in
November, and then begin to go out to work and roll up our sleeves and being to move. Thank you. (Applause
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Muskegon,
Michigan, Airport, September 5, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. One text of the speech exists
in the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. It is apparently a release to the
press of a transcript of John F. Kennedy's remarks.
Ladies and gentlemen; I want to express my thanks to all of you for coming down to this airport to meet us. I am sure
after spending the day traveling around Michigan that Michigan is going Democratic in November. We want your help.
(Applause)
I want you to know that this campaign, I think, is the most important election that we have had in many ways since the
election of 1932. I don't think we want to turn this country for four more years over to the Republicans. I think we can
win. We can send Pat McNamara back to the Senate, elect a great Governor to succeed Mennen Williams, John
Swainson, and give me your help. Thank you. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Pocatello, Idaho,

September 6, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A single reading copy exists
I have started this week to take my case for the New Frontier to the people of America - to the people who live on that
Frontier of change and challenge. On Sunday I was in Alaska. Yesterday I was in Michigan. And today I bring my cause
to Idaho - the state that has been on the winning side in every election this century. As Idaho goes, so goes the nation -
for I believe that in 1960 Idaho is going Democratic.
In Alaska I saw the "Last Frontier", the geographic frontier - for there Americans are still pushing back the wilderness. It
is rugged country - it takes rugged people - and in Alaska I saw men and women who have the heart and the will to build
a better state and nation.
In Michigan I saw the industrial frontier - the advent of automation. Machines are replacing men -and men are out of
work. But there was no spirit of defeat. They know that machines can be made a blessing instead of a curse. And they
retain that same determined spirit that has made this nation the greatest nation on earth.
Now I am here in Idaho - here on the resource frontier - the energy frontier - the challenge of combining the riches of
our earth with the genius of our science to shape a better life for our nation, our world and all its people.
I want to talk with you about those resources today - for the future of Idaho is closely linked with the future of our
resource development. I know, of course, that Idaho is also a great agricultural state - and that southern Idaho claims
with good reason the title of potato capital of the nation. I spoke last Friday in Aroostook County, Maine, which also
claims to be the potato capital of the nation. I do not know enough about the situation - or perhaps I should say I know
too much - to take sides in that controversy. But this much I do promise you: if I am elected President on next
November 8, I will return the capital of the free world to Washington, D.C.
To assert leadership abroad requires that we assert leadership at home. It requires that we move ahead on every front -
on every frontier. And we have not been moving ahead in recent years.
One reason we have not been moving ahead is because the Democratic Party needs a few more votes in the United
States Senate. Idaho can help meet that problem this November by sending Bob Mclaughlin to join Frank Church in one
of the best teams any state could have in the Senate.
Another reason we have not been moving ahead has been the obstructionist tactics of the Republican members of the
House Rules Committee - who have voted as a unit to block action on housing bills essential to Idaho's timber,
education bills essential to Idaho's schools and other matters essential to Idaho's progress. And this state can help take
care of that problem, too, by electing Ralph Harding to the Congress.
But if we are to really move ahead in this country - if the mineral and resource potential of this state and region is to be
fully realized - then a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate are necessary, but not enough. The Congress can urge
administrative action - the Congress can appropriate money - the Congress can pass legislation. But without Presidential
leadership, Presidential initiative and Presidential cooperation instead of vetoes, the Congress cannot do the job alone.
Last week in Washington we had a striking example of what I mean. Both Houses of the Congress were determined to
do something to help our distressed lead and zinc industry. In the last 7½ years our domestic production of lead and zinc
has declined by more than one-third. Our output of zinc has never been this low since the depression. Our output of lead
has never been this low in the 20th century.
Almost all of the small mines have been abandoned - and most of the middle-sized mines have either closed or are on
the brink of closing. In Idaho alone, lead and zinc production since 1952 has been cut almost in half.
There was disagreement as to the solution. Many proposals were controversial. But on one bill the Congress was in
agreement - the Small Mines Stabilization Act. This was a bill authorizing assistance to small lead and zinc mines to
enable them to hold their heads above water at a time when imports were driving market prices down. This bill was not
a final solution - but it would have helped several hundred of our smaller mines in Idaho and throughout the West. And
it would have helped several thousand miners who have lost the only job they knew how to perform - the only means
they had of supporting their families.
The House passed the Small Mines Stabilization Act. The Senate passed it. But last week we were told that it would be
vetoed - that it would never become law - and that nothing would be done to help our distressed mines and miners, their
families and their communities. I was shocked - I know the people of Idaho were shocked, and we can agree on one
further fact: that bill would never have been vetoed by Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, or any Democratic President.
Unfortunately, what has happened in lead and zinc has happened in other mineral and resource areas vital to the
economy of this state - in tungsten, aluminum, cobalt, lumber, uranium and all the rest. Perhaps the most striking
example was the decision to shut down the largest cobalt mine in the country, located in Lemhi County, with its two
million dollar payroll on which Idaho depended. The Government said this mine was no longer needed. They admitted
that cobalt was essential - they admitted we needed a safe supply - but they said we would be able to get all the cobalt
we needed from such friendly countries as Cuba and the Congo. They were wrong about Cuba - they were wrong about
the Congo - they were wrong about cobalt - and the American people will prove them wrong next November.
But I do not want to dwell on the past. I want to stress the future. For this election is to decide the future, not the past.
And not far from where I speak is a place which may hold the future in its hands - the National Reactor Testing Station
in Arco. Here is the key to the future of our military mobility - but here also is the key to the development of atomic
energy for peaceful purposes. This station is an important outpost for the new frontier of energy and resource
development.
The nation can be proud of what is going on at Arco. But the nation should also be concerned about what is not going on
at Arco. That station is doing an excellent job in testing atomic power plants and reactors. But if we were moving ahead
with more vigor and vision in this field, Arco today could be testing on an extensive scale advanced reactor concepts for
rocket-propulsion, space vehicles and civilian atomic power.
If this nation were moving ahead with more aggressive research and development in this field, the benefits would be felt
throughout the West for in this region alone are three-fourths of the Free World's known uranium reserves. Uranium
mines which are now plagued with cutbacks and stretchouts could be tapped to their full potential.
But even more importantly, that kind of aggressive atomic research and development is needed if this country is to win
the race for competitive atomic power - a victory which can have a more profound effect throughout the world than the
Soviet Sputnik or missile to the moon.
The hard facts of the matter are that today we do not have that kind of research and development program in atomic
energy - and neither do we have them in mineral resources. The National Science Advisory Committee on Mineral
Research has recommended intensive studies into new techniques of mineral discovery - to find new ways of locating
and reaching the immense wealth which lies beneath a covering of sediments throughout our Western states. Our
methods of exploring mineral deposits on the surface, or near the surface, are no longer sufficient - particularly if we are
to compete with foreign producers working in richer deposits of high grade ore.
Similarly, our research in the peaceful uses of atomic energy has fallen far short of expectations. There has been too
much bureaucratic red tape and too little budget - too much time between the drawing board and the production line, and
too little time spent on looking ahead with vision.
It is time for this country to move ahead in the resource and energy field - and to undertake the research necessary to
move ahead - and to stay ahead.
We have not hesitated in the last few years to spend more than $1 million for mineral resource development in
Afghanistan. I do not see how we can continue to hold back on our development here at home.
These are not small problems - and they will not be solved by small men with small plans. Neither will they be solved
with big words. We need men who can look ahead - men who believe in the future - men who are willing to try
something new and the Democratic Party has those men.
This is what this campaign is all about. That is the kind of leadership this country needs on the new frontier. I cannot
promise that the future will be easy. But those who crossed the mountains to Idaho 100 years ago - seeking land and
gold and a new way of life - did not expect that life would be easy. Lewis and Clark did not travel this area on a mission
they thought would be easy.
Today the frontier they explored has been pushed aside. We stand on the edge of a new frontier - and we need more men
to cross the mountains. I am here to ask for your help. I am here to ask for new pioneers. With your help, with many
hands, we can make for all the nation a living reality of this state's inspiring motto: Esto Perpetua - may this state endure
forever!
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Lincoln

Monument Rally, Spokane, Washington, September 6,
1960
Governor Rosellini, Senator Jackson, Senator Dill, ladies and gentlemen: I am very grateful to the Governor, who I am
confident will be not only the present Governor but the next Governor of the State of Washington. (Applause)
And I am glad to be here with my friend, "Scoop" Jackson. After I was nominated at the Democratic Convention in Los
Angeles, the first thing I did was ask him if he would take over the leadership of the Democratic Party because I wanted
him at my side representing the progressive, clean and responsible government of the northwestern United States.
(Applause)
I think it is most appropriate in the election of 1960 that we should meet in the shadow of a distinguished Republican,
Abraham Lincoln, because we believe that his spirit motivates our party in the great election 100 years after he assumed
the responsibility of office.
This is a most important election. In 1860 Lincoln said, "This nation cannot exist half slave and half free." I don't think
in the 1960's that this world can exist half slave and half free, and the basic question of this election is what course of
action we should adopt, what course of energy should we follow, what course of leadership should we practice if the
world is going to move not in the direction of slavery but in the direction of freedom. That is the issue of this campaign
and it is most appropriate, therefore, that we meet under the statue of Lincoln. He faced it in his country in 1860. We
must face it around the world in 1960, and I am confident that here in the Inland Empire you are ready to do it. I don't
think there is anyone in the City of Spokane that can say that this election does not matter. You cannot live in the center
of a great wheat producing section of the United States and be satisfied with things as they are. You cannot live in the
Northwest United States, a great mining center, and be satisfied with things as they are. You cannot live in one of the
greatest defensive sections of the United States and be satisfied with things as they are. You cannot live in the United
States today - you cannot be a citizen of the United States and be satisfied with things as they are.
I don't criticize present actions merely because I enjoy criticizing. I criticize them only because I think that there is a
better way to do it. (Applause) This is a great country, but I think it can be greater. This is a great state, but I think it can
be greater. All of those who are satisfied with things as they are, who feel that the balance of power in the world is
moving with us and not with our adversaries should vote for the Republican Party. But all those who retain a sense of
adventure, who feel we can do better, who want to start moving again. I hope they join with us. (Applause)
This is the most important election, I think, certainly since 1932. The record of the Democratic Party and what it can do
is written in the Administrations of Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. I think this country is ready to
move again. I ask your support. (Applause)
I talk here in one of the newer sections of the United States, even though I come from one of the oldest sections of the
United States. When I talk about the New Frontier, I don't mean just a physical reality, I mean all of those who believe
that they want to serve our government and serve our system who want to join with us not because of what we are going
to do for them, but for the opportunity that they will have to serve our country. I ask your help in this campaign. I am
confident that if we can be successful, if we can assume the responsibility of leadership, this country, which is ready to
move, will move again. Thank you. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Salem, Oregon,

September 7, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: Mrs. Neuberger, Acting Governor Pearson, Senator Lusk, Monroe Sweetland, Jimmy
Davidson, my friend, Congresswoman Green, and ladies and gentlemen: First, I would like to introduce my sister, who
is representing my wife, who is otherwise committed, my sister, Mrs. Peter Lawford. (Applause)
I want to thank Mrs. Neuberger for her generous introduction. I am proud to come to her state and be presented by her. I
served with her husband, Dick, in the Senate. I was associated with him on many important pieces of public activity, and
I am delighted that he is going to be succeeded by a distinguished member of his family, the next Senator of the United
States from this state, Senator Neuberger. (Applause)
And I am grateful to my friend and colleague from the United States Senate, Senator Lusk, who has been with us a short
time, but who has become a beloved member of the Senate. (Applause)
I come from Massachusetts, which is a long way from this state. One hundred years ago, Henry Thoreau said, "Eastward
I go only by force; westward I go free. I must walk toward Oregon and not towards Europe."
This town of Salem is named after a town in my own state of Massachusetts, Salem, Massachusetts, and it is an
interesting fact that the seal of the City of Salem, in Massachusetts, has a palm tree, has an Indian, and the slogan in
honor of the great seaport of Salem is "To the farther side of the Indies." The East Indies are linked with Salem,
Massachusetts, because the people of Salem sailed out to those islands in order to bring the wealth home to
Massachusetts. Just as the people of Massachusetts, just as the people of New England came west, and, therefore, Salem,
Oregon, and Salem, Massachusetts, and the Indies are all linked together by people of courage, who were not satisfied
with things as they were, but thought they could do better and came to this state of the Northwest.
I come here today from the oldest section of the United States, and in the last five days I have traveled from the
Fairground in Maine to a fairground in Palmer, Alaska, to a fairground in Michigan, to a fairground here in this state,
and in every one of those states I have seen the vitality of the American system.
I run for the office of the Presidency saying that this is a great state and a great country, but I also say that it can be a
greater country. I don't ask the support of anyone in this election who feels that everything that is happening in this
country today is as it should be, and if there is no need for further progress. I don't ask the support of anyone in this
election who believes that the security of the United States is insured around the world, who feels that the balance of
power is moving in our direction instead of in the direction of the Communist world.
I talk of those who came from this state 100 years ago, who liked my state but who thought they could do better. I come
and run for the office of the Presidency because I like America, but I think it can do better, and that is what we should
dedicate ourselves to. (Applause)
The hard, tough question for the next decade, for this or any other group of Americans, regardless of their party, is
whether we or the Communist world can best demonstrate the vitality of our system. Which system, the Communist
system or the system of freedom is going to be able to convince the watching millions in and Africa and Asia, who stand
today on the razor edge of decision and try to make a determination as to which direction the world is moving. I think it
should move with us. I think ours is the best system. I do not agree with Mr. Khrushchev when he says he is going to
bury us. I think we can demonstrate in the next ten years, in the next 40 years, that our high noon is in the future, that
our best days are ahead, that our system is in keeping with the basic aspirations of the human people, all over the globe,
and the Communist system is doomed to fail. But I think we can do it only if we are willing to work for our country.
I call for the New Frontier and when I do so I don't say what I am going to promise to do for you, if I am elected. I
promise that I will give you an opportunity to serve your country, to demonstrate that our cause and the cause of
freedom all over the world are intertwined together. I come to this valley in this fair today asking you to join me in this
great national effort to rebuild the strength of here and around the world. I think this country is ready to move again.
Thank you. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Redding,

California, September 8, 1960
We meet today in the shadow of lordly Mt. Shasta. Shasta Dam is the keystone and fountainhead of the Central Valley
project. I'll follow the Valley this trip all the way down to Bakersfield.
During these two days I'm following the trail blazed in 1948 by Truman. Truman carried the Valley.
The conservation and wise development of our natural resources - our water, land and air - is not a California problem.
It is not a western problem. It is a national, indeed, a world-wide problem.
I have seen the arid lands of the Middle East. Water is the key there to riches and poverty, to peace and war. Men and
women spend a third of their working days fetching water from distant wells. Even in the United States, some areas are
desperately short of water - and at the same time other areas are ravaged by floods. And our forests are vanishing, our
wildlife is vanishing, our streams are polluted, and so is the very air we breathe.
Yet America is rich in natural resources. Our impending resource crisis is not due to scarcity. It is due to
underdevelopment, despoilment, and neglect.
Water is the key to the American future. In 1900 we Americans used 40 billion gallons of water daily. This year we will
use 312 billion, enough to cover Rhode Island a foot deep. By 1975, The Commerce Department estimates, we will use
453 billion gallons a day. For we are in the midst of a population explosion. By 1975 there will be over 230 million
Americans. And their needs for electric power in all-electric homes, all-electric factories, all-electric farms, will be three
times as great as it is today. We consumed 144 million kilowatts of power in 1958. By 1975 we will need nearly 500
million. We must expand our generating capacity to meet the need. We have the potential - an estimated potential of 117
million kilowatts. But we have developed only 26.5 million kilowatts - only a fraction of our most powerful resource.
Great leaders of the past understood these facts of national life. It was a great Republican leader, Gifford Pinchot, who
said: "A nation deprived of liberty may win it, a nation divided may reunite, but a nation whose natural resources are
destroyed must inevitably pay the penalty of poverty, degradation and decay."
Under Franklin Roosevelt the Federal Government launched a grand endeavor to develop our river basins - TVA,
Bonneville, The Central Valley Project of California - models for all the world to admire - proof that a free people,
acting through their own freely-chosen government, can put the people's rivers to the service of the people.
Today, in a close-knit tumultuous world, the development of our natural resources is not only vital to the survival of our
western states - and the survival of our nation. It is vital to the survival of the entire free world. But that survival has
been endangered by short-sighted Republican policies at Hell's Canyon, at TVA, here at the Trinity Dam Project, and
across the nation - by a policy of "no new starts", a policy of do-nothing, stand-still status quo.
It is time to start.
First, we must reverse the defeatist policy of "no new starts" and move ahead with full development of our natural
resources, including the extension of the Central Valley Project.
Second, we must reassert the public's rights in the public domain which the so-called "partnership" policy has
undermined, maintain the public preference clause against monopoly, defend the integrity of TVA, the Columbia Basin,
and the Central Valley, and recommence the forestry, reclamation, anti-pollution, recreation and public lands programs
begun by the New Deal.
Third, we must get on with reclamation and basin-wide river development across the nation.
Fourth, we must appoint a Federal Power Commission that will uphold the public interest, and not serve private interests
alone.
Fifth, we need a whole new concept of resource development. So vast, so complex, and so neglected are our resources
that their wise development cannot be parceled out piecemeal. Nothing less than comprehensive basin-by basin, valley-
by-valley planning on a nationwide scale can do the job. And nothing less than leadership, Presidential leadership, can
do the job. We must establish a Council of Resource and Conservation Advisers in the office of the President himself - a
council which will engage in overall resource planning - which will assess the national needs of an expanding
population - and recommend national programs to meet them.
Sixth, we must bring to bear on our natural resource problems the best scientific brains, the best ideas, and the best
modern technologies that are available. New methods of retaining snowpacks, of preventing surface evaporation of
stored waters, of controlling floods and managing watersheds, of cloud seeding and long-range weather forecasting and
weather control - above all a crash program of research on how to convert salt water to fresh water - all these and many
more tools must be summoned to the task. We have the technological know-how. What we need to do now is remove
the bureaucratic and political roadblocks - and forge ahead.
In the long-ago dim past around the world, other great nations have wasted and devoured their priceless heritage of land
and water - and their temples and palaces lie buried in the jungle and desert sand.
Mr. Khrushchev has said: "Electrification of the national economy has always been regarded by our Party as the cardinal
task." Measured by installed capacity, the Communists were 28 years behind us in 1950 - but unless we speed up or they
slow down, in less than 28 years from now they will have passed us by.
I don't want a second-rate America.
This is no time for retreat and defeat. This is a time for strength, for development, for greatness - a time for bold ideas
and brave new programs. And as we face the awesome challenges of the future, we would do well to remember the
words of faith that Franklin Roosevelt wrote down on the day before he died - "The only limit to our realization of
tomorrow will be our doubts of today."
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Red Bluff,

SENATOR KENNEDY: Governor Brown, ladies and gentlemen. I want to express my appreciation to all of you for
having come down and meeting us at the station, and I am also delighted to be in the home town of my friend and
colleague with whom I served in the United States Congress for 14 years - Clare Engle. (Applause) His successor, Bizz
Johnson, has been campaigning with us, and I am delighted to be accompanied across the face of California by your
distinguished Governor, Pat Brown. (Applause)
I campaign for the office of the Presidency in a very difficult and dangerous time in the life of our country, and I do not
do so promising that if I am elected all of the problems of California and the United States and the free world will be
solved. But I do believe that it is vitally important if the security of the United States is going to be protected, if our
position as a leader of the free world is going to be maintained, that we recognize the close relationships between the
vitality of our own domestic economy and our position around the world. If we stand still here at home, we stand still
around the world. The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman were so successful in
their foreign policy was because they were so successful in their domestic policy. When Franklin Roosevelt harnessed
the TVA and the Central Valley, and Bonneville, he demonstrated to a watching world that this country was moving,
and, therefore, they were prepared to follow his leadership in their great efforts to obtain their freedom and
independence. This valley is a great natural resource, not of the State of California only, but of the United States. This
belongs not to one state but to all the people, and, therefore, I think it appropriate that the United States participate in the
development of the resources of the western United States and the resources of the State of California. (Applause)
I would like to make it clear that when the people put their shoulders to the development of great dams, then I think that
power should be distributed in a way that benefits the people. I don't think the people should pay for irrigation and have
the power distributed by a private company. I think the people should benefit. (Applause)
I come from a section of the Unted States that has problems entirely different from California. We have too much water.
You have too little. But it is a fact that in this century the two Americans who recognized the importance of the
development of natural resources to the United States were both from the eastern United States. One was a Republican,
Theodore Roosevelt, and the other was a Democrat, Franklin Roosevelt. I can assure you that if we are successful in this
campaign, we are going to move ahead on all fronts, on the development of our national economy, on the development
of our natural resources, rebuilding our country, so that by the year 2000, when two people live in this country for every
one that lives today, this will then be a strong and rich country whose security is assured. I run for the office of the
Presidency in the most difficult time of our country. In many ways the most difficult time in a hundred years. In the
election of 1860, as Abraham Lincoln said, the issue was whether this country could exist half slave and half free. I
think the issue in 1960 is whether this world can exist half slave and half free. If it is going to move in the direction of
freedom, it is going to move in the direction of the things which we value, then the United States has to lead. I don't
promise you an easy future, but I can promise you that if we are successful, this country will begin to move again. This
country will begin to lead again. This country will go forward. Thank you very much. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Richmond,

SENATOR KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. (Applause) Governor Brown, Senator Miller, the next Congressman,
Doug Page, ladies and gentlemen: I want to thank you all for coming to the station. This train is going south, but it is
also going toward Washington, and I want your support in this campaign. (Applause)
This contest is not merely between the Vice President and myself. This contest is between the Democratic Party and the
Republican Party, and in that regard there is no contest. (Applause)
Governor Stevenson used to say that for a few months every four years the Republican program was interrupted by the
Liberal Hour. But I think the record of the Republican Party is written on the bills that never become law, on the things
we failed to do. And the record of the Democratic Party is written in the programs of Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom,
Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, Harry Truman's Fair Deal, Adlai Stevenson's New America. (Applause)
This contest is between those who think things are fine as they are, those who are satisfied with the status quo, those
who think we can't do any more or do it any better, and on the other side there are those of us who know we can do
better, who believe it is a great country but know that we can do better, who believe it is a great country but know it can
be a greater one. I ask your help in this campaign. Give me your hand and we will join together and move this country
forward. (Applause)
If you think we can provide better schools for our children and more help for the older, if you think we can develop this
state and the resources of the West, if you think it is possible to strengthen the image and prestige of the United States
around the world, then come with us. If you are tired and don't want to move, then stay with the Republicans. But I think
we are ready to move. (Applause)
My wife is home and we are having a baby, a boy, in November. I want you to meet my sister who lives in California,
Pat Lawford. (Applause) And then I want you to meet the man who I hope is going to be the next Democratic
Congressman, Doug Page. I hope you will all be registered. I would really appreciate your help in this campaign. I think
California is the place to win this election. Thank you.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Stockton,
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A single copy exists in the
Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Governor Brown, Congressman McFall, Senator Short, Assemblyman Darrah, ladies and
gentlemen: First of all, I want to thank you for coming down to the station. The Republicans are all in bed. That is why
we are working. (Applause and laughter) We have campaigned in this state, starting up in Oregon. We are heading down
toward Los Angeles today, but we are also heading toward Washington. (Applause) I think here in this valley you know
what can be done. Today is the 110th Anniversary of California's admission to the Union. This country and this valley
was a desert 100 years ago. It shows what this state can do. It shows what this country can do. Our argument with the
Republicans is not because we do not know that they share a common goal for America - they do - but our argument
with them is that they don't know how to do it. We do. (Applause)
The record of the Democratic Party is told in the programs - rain, we brought it; we brought it with us - (laughter) - the
record of the Democratic Party is told in the programs of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman
and Adlai Stevenson. They wanted this country to move forward and so do we. I ask your help in this campaign. I think
we meet in the most difficult time in the life of our country. In many ways, this is the most important election since the
election of Lincoln 100 years ago. We have great hopes for our country. It is a great country, but I think we can do
better. I hope you will support us. I think this country is ready to move again. Thank you very much. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Merced,

SENATOR KENNEDY: Governor Brown, my former colleague in the Navy, Senator Cobey, Congressman Bernie Sisk,
with whom I serve in the Congress of the United States, Assemblyman Gordon Winton, ladies and gentlemen: I want to
express my appreciation to all of you for coming down in this valley sunshine and rain to say hello. (Laughter) We are
campaigning in this State of California because I think this is the place where this election can be won in November.
(Applause)
This is the 110th anniversary of the admission of California into the United States Union. This State of California was
founded and developed by those who live in other sections of the United States, but were not satisfied with things as
they were. The Democratic Party is not satisfied with things as they are now, not because we don't feel that this is a great
country, but because we feel it can be a greater country. This is a great country. We can do better, and I ask your help in
this campaign. (Applause)
You cannot farm this valley without realizing that there are problems in this valley which can be solved by the united
action of all our people, in developing the natural resources. You cannot be over 65 without realizing that there are many
people over 65 who are faced with serious problems without any assistance under social security in paying for their
medical bills. You cannot have children without realizing that in many parts of the United States they have inadequate
classrooms with inadequate teachers, with inadequate compensation. This is a great country, but I think that we have to
realize in the 1960's that it is going to be a difficult and dangerous time for us all. I think in many ways that the 1960's
are going to be as difficult as any years we have had since the 1860's. I don't run for the office of the Presidency
promising that if I am elected life is going to be easy. I don't think it is going to be easy in the 1960's. I think we face the
most difficult and dangerous and trying times in the life of our country. It isn't enough to concern ourselves with what
happens in this valley. The United States must also be concerned with what happens in Colombia and the Congo and
Indonesia.
One hundred years ago, when this state was founded, the people who came here worried about their farms. Now we
have to concern ourselves with the whole globe around us. The United States is the great defender of freedom. If we fail,
the cause of freedom fails. If we succeed, the cause of freedom succeeds. I ask you to join me, not only in maintaining
the vitality of this state and country, but also in joining in a great effort to protect freedom around the globe. In the
American Revolution, Thomas Payne said, "The cause of America is the cause of all mankind." I think in 1960 the cause
of all mankind is the cause of America. (Applause)
In the election of 1860, Abraham Lincoln said, "There is a God and He hates injustice. I see a storm coming, but if He
has a place and part for me, I am ready." There is a God today and He hates injustice, and we see the storm coming. But
I think He has a place and a part for all of us, and I think we are ready. (Applause)
My wife is at home and she is going to have a boy in November. (Laughter) My sister, Pat, who lives in California, is
campaigning with us, my sister, Pat Lawford. (Applause)
I would like to have you meet a Senator from the State of Washington, who is Chairman of the National Democratic
Committee, Senator Scoop Jackson. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Madera,

SENATOR KENNEDY: Governor Brown, ladies and gentlemen: I am not going to make a speech in this rain. The only
satisfaction you get is that it is raining on the just and unjust, Republicans and Democrats. I want to thank you for
coming out. We are going to win this election and we are going to win it right here in the State of California. I ask your
help. (Applause)
I don't think that anyone could have lived in this valley for the last years under Republican and Democratic
Administrations without realizing there is a great difference between them. We believe in going ahead. We believe in
doing better than we are doing, and they believe in standing still. I ask your help. I think we can start this valley, this
state and this country on the move again next January. Thank you very much. (Applause)
I want you to meet my sister, who lives in California, who left Massachusetts because she did not like the weather there,
who is out here. My sister, Pat Lawford. (Laughter and applause) I would like to have you meet Senator Scoop Jackson,
Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, from Washington, who will say a word to you.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Tulare,

SENATOR KENNEDY: Governor Brown, my friend and colleague, and a great Congressman, Harlan Hagen, your next
assemblyman, I hope, Bob Williams, and Myron Frew, ladies and gentlemen: I want to express my thanks to you all for
coming down in this sun and saying "hello." We are running in this campaign train not only towards the City of Los
Angeles, but we are running this campaign train all the way to Washington. (Applause)
This is the 110th anniversary of the admission of California to the Union. This state was constructed by people who
lived in other sections of the United States, who thought they could do better in this state. We feel we can do better in
this country. I ask your help in this campaign. (Applause)
I think the record of difference between our two political parties, the Republicans and Democrats, is written in this
valley. The Republicans say, "We have done as much as we can do to develop our water resources and our agriculture."
We say, "We can do more," and we are going to do more. (Applause)
This valley was built by you in cooperation with your state government and with the policies of Franklin Roosevelt and
Harry Truman. I propose, if elected in November, to carry on those policies, to move this state and country forward as I
believe it must be if we are going to maintain our position in the world. (Applause)
When this state was built, all that we had to worry about was the welfare of the people of California. Now every farmer
and every businessman and every working man and woman, worries not only about Tulare, but they worry about the
Congo and Cuba and the far side of space. The United States is the leader of the free world, and I run for the office of
the Presidency with full recognition of those responsibilities which go with that leadership.
My feeling is that this is a great country, but I think it can be a greater country. The United States is the hope of the free
world, but I think the United States can be stronger. I think it can stand for more. I think we can do a better job.
(Applause)
I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I can tell you that in Africa,
leaders 20 years ago quoted Jefferson and Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. Today in many cases
those leaders look east to Peking and Moscow. They have lost their confidence in us. They don't see the United States as
a great revolutionary country which is on the move. They see us as a country which has had its high noon, which is now
in a plateau, which belongs to the past, not the future. I ask you to join me in this campaign with a full recognition of all
opportunities to rebuild our strength, rebuild our prestige, maintain our security, and maintain ourselves as the leaders of
the free world. (Applause)
I don't run for the office of the Presidency promising that if you elect me life will be easier. I think life in the 1960's for
any American is going to be difficult, but I can promise you that if I am elected that we are going to lead this country
and this country and this state will move ahead and move again. (Applause)
This election of 1960 is 100 years after the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, and in that election, Lincoln wrote a
friend, "There is a God and He hates injustice. I see a storm coming, but if He has a place and a part for me, I am ready."
In 1960, we believe there is a God, and we believe He hates injustice, and we see a storm coming, but I think if He has a
place and a part for us, then we are ready.
I ask your help in this campaign. Thank you. (Applause)
My wife is home and she is going to have a baby in November so she could not come and campaign with us. But my
sister, Patricia, who left Massachusetts, a great state, left Massachusetts and came out here to California and is
campaigning with us. My sister, Pat Lawford. (Applause)
I would like to have you meet Senator Engle who is over in Idaho today, but his wife is traveling with us. Mrs. Clare
Engle. (Applause) And last but by no means least we are accompanied by the Chairman of the National Democratic
Committee, the Senator from the State of Washington, the most eligible bachelor left in Washington, Senator Scoop
Jackson. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Turlock,

SENATOR KENNEDY: Governor Brown, Speaker Brown, Senator Donnelly, my friend and colleague in the Congress,
Congressman McFall, ladies and gentlemen: I want to express my thanks to all of you for coming down here in the rain
to greet us. We have been campaigning in this state since yesterday morning, and I think that California is the place to
win this election. I ask your help. (Applause) This valley shows what can be done by community effort. Here in this
valley you have harnessed the land and the water for the use of the people. (Applause)
I think that today, when we celebrate the 110th Anniversary of the Admission of California to the Union, we also
celebrate this week the 340th anniversary of the journey of the Pilgrims from Europe to my own State of Massachusetts.
In both cases a single force motivated both groups; the feeling that however good life may have been, they could do
better. I think that is our feeling in 1960. However great this state is, however great this country is, however satisfied we
may be, I think we can do better, and I think we are going to do better after this election. (Applause)
I don't think that there is anyone who can live in this rich valley or in this rich state or in this rich country who can be
satisfied with doing everything that needs to be done. I think the best days of the United States are still ahead.
(Applause)
I don't promise that if I am elected that life is going to be easy. But I do promise that if I am elected this country is going
back to work again. I don't think that any American citizen can possibly feel that the balance of power in the world, vis-
a-vis the Soviet Union and the Chinese Communists, is moving in the direction of freedom. I think in the last few years
it has moved against us. I can assure you that if we are successful, this country will once again be second to none; not
"First, if," not "First, but," not "First, when," but "First," period.
I ask your help in this campaign. (Applause) I ask your help and I can assure you that I think the Democratic Party is
ready for leadership. I assure you that if we are successful we are going to move. Thank you very much, indeed. Thank
you. (Applause)
My wife is in Massachusetts and she is going to have a baby in November. So my sister, who used to live in
Massachusetts and saw the wisdom of coming to California, living here, married - I would like to have you meet my
sister, Pat Lawford. (Applause)
Senator Engle is doing some business for the nation but Mrs. Engle is traveling with us. I would like to have you meet
Senator Engle's wife, Mrs. Clare Engle. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Lindbergh

Field, San Diego, California, September 11, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: Senator Fischer, ladies and gentlemen: I first of all want to express my thanks to all of you for
taking Sunday off and coming to the airport to greet us. This is the beginning of this campaign in the State of California,
and across the nation. I think here in California in this community of San Diego, I think we can win the Presidential
election with your support. (Applause)
The basic issue which separates the Republicans and Democrats in this campaign is whether we are doing as well as we
can do. We hold the view that while this is a great country, we can do better; while this is a great state, we can do better;
while this is a powerful country, it can be stronger. And I think here in San Diego, which has been one of the boiler
points for the building of American strength and American force and American vitality, I think here in San Diego we
can lead the Democratic tide. Thank you very much. (Applause)
Address of Senator John F. Kennedy to the

Greater Houston Ministerial Association
Rice Hotel, Houston, Texas
September 12, 1960
Reverend Meza, Reverend Reck, I'm grateful for your generous invitation to speak my
views.
While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I
want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960
election; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of
Florida--the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no
longer respect our power--the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who
cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms--an America with
too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.
These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious
issues--for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real
issues in this campaign have been obscured--perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less
responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again--not what
kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me--but what kind of
America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no
Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no
Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote--where no church or church
school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied
public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him
or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no
public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the
National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body
seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts
of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is
treated as an act against all.
For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in
other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or
a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead
to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim- -but tomorrow it
may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great
national peril.
Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end--where all
men and all churches are treated as equal--where every man has the same right to attend or
not attend the church of his choice--where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote,
no bloc voting of any kind--and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and
pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often
marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in
which I believe--a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of
any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the
members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his
own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon
him as a condition to holding that office.
I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's
guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to
do so--and neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI
of the Constitution by requiring a religious test--even by indirection--for it. If they disagree
with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.
I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to
none--who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require
of him--and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any
religious oath, ritual or obligation.
This is the kind of America I believe in--and this is the kind I fought for in the South
Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may
have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a
disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."
And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died--when they fled here
to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches--when
they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious
Freedom--and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side
with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey--but no one knows
whether they were Catholic or not. For there was no religious test at the Alamo.
I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition--to judge me on the basis of my record of 14
years in Congress--on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against
unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools
(which I have attended myself)--instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and
publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the
statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other
centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948
which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views
of almost every American Catholic.
I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts--why should you? But
let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used
by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free
exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those
nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants and those which deny it to Catholics.
And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the
Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France--and the independence of such
statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.
But let me stress again that these are my views--for contrary to common newspaper usage,
I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for
President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public
matters--and the church does not speak for me.
Whatever issue may come before me as President--on birth control, divorce, censorship,
gambling or any other subject--I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in
accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard
to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could
cause me to decide otherwise.
But if the time should ever come--and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely
possible--when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the
national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public
servant would do the same.
But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or
Protestant faith--nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win
this election.
If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had
tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40
million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then
it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics
around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.
But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind
and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency--practically identical, I might add, to the
oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can "solemnly
swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to
the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution . . . so help me God.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Women’s

Democratic Luncheon, New York, NY, September 14,
1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A reading copy and a press
release of the speech exist in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F.
Kennedy Library. The two versions are substantially the same, although the press release has at least one significant
omission. The transcription is based on the reading copy.
We meet today only a few blocks from the United Nations, where next week the eyes of the nation and world will once
again be focused. We have seen the U.N. at its best this year when it took swift action to save the Congo from Chaos
and tyranny. We may see it at its worst next week if Mr. Khrushchev chooses to use it as a propaganda platform.
But at its best or at its worst, the U.N. remains the symbol of mankind's deepest aspiration - our aspiration for peace -
not a peace that is merely an interval between two wars - not a peace that teeters on the brink of war - not the peace of
slavery or the grave - but a peace enforced and controlled by nations united against the common, universal danger of
destruction.
We want a peace in which the funds now poured into the destructive forces of armaments may be channeled into the
constructive results of disarmament - into great multi-nation efforts to eradicate disease, harness rivers, eliminate
illiteracy and explore the frontiers of space. We want a peace in which we can truly beat our swords into plowshares, our
bombs into reactors, and our rockets into space vehicles.
We are a great distance away from that kind of peace in the world today - and the distance is growing greater every day.
We do not have that kind of peace when half our national income is spent for military purposes - or when the Soviet
leader boasts that our children will grow up in a communist America.
We are, on the contrary, engaged in a great struggle, in a great contest. But we ought to know by now that it is not a war
of words. It is not a struggle that can be won by arguments and debates. For words are not a substitute for action - and
committee meetings are not a substitute for decisions.
I would hope that the American people would have learned this lesson from the sight of Soviet agents, Soviet
technicians and Soviet salesmen worming their way into every corner of the free world. I would hope that they would
have learned this lesson by the headlines from Cuba, by the headlines from the Congo, by the headlines from Laos, from
Paris, from Moscow and from Tokyo. But, judging from their campaign speeches, I am not yet certain that our
Republican opponents have learned the lesson at all.
How many Sputniks and Luniks and Castros and Lumumbas will it take to make us realize that we must be dynamic in
something more than our public relations? How many more countries need to be penetrated by salesmen for the Soviet
way before we wake up. How much closer must we drift to nuclear destruction?
I know of no single issue of greater concern to all the American people - men or women, Republicans or Democrats -
than the issue of peace. No political party has a monopoly on the desire for peace. There is no 'party of peace' in this
country - just as there is no 'war party' or 'party of appeasement.' The sooner we get these artificial labels out of the way,
the sooner we can get down to discussing the real issues of peace.
For there are real issues. There are real differences in approach. And I want to talk about those differences today - about
the steps which must be taken by the United States to put us back on the road to peace again.
First, peace requires an American defense posture strong enough to convince any potential aggressor that war would be
a mistake - his mistake. A Democratic Administration will never negotiate with the Russians from a position of
weakness. We must do what is necessary - and we must spend what is necessary - to convince the men in the Kremlin
that an attack on us would be suicidal for them. And to obtain that kind of bargaining power, and make sure it will
always be enough, requires two kinds of defensive strength:
** An invulnerable atomic striking force strong enough to persuade the aggressor that our force could survive his attack
in sufficient number and capability to penetrate his defenses and punish his crime; and
** A modern conventional striking force of sufficient strength, firepower, and mobility to intervene quickly and
effectively before any brushfire war became a holocaust.
Only when both of these objectives are secure - so secure that our enemies know it and respect our strength - can we talk
more successfully with Mr. Khrushchev about peace. And the Democratic Party is dedicated to securing that kind of
defense for our nation.
Secondly, peace requires an America that is planning, preparing and striving for disarmament and other steps toward
peace. Disarmament today is just as complicated as armaments - involving complex problems of surveillance,
reconnaissance, seismography, atmospheric sampling and testing stations. A successful blueprint for a safe disarmament
is as difficult to devise as a successful blueprint for modern war.
But the hard facts of the matter are that we have fewer than 100 people in the entire Federal Government working on
these problems. And the result has been that this country has not been prepared for any disarmament, arms control or
atomic testing conference that has taken place since the end of the Korean War. After all these years, Republicans now
talk of establishing a special arms control agency in the Executive branch. But the hour has grown late - the weapons are
more deadly - atomic know-how has spread - and the next Administration must devote to the problems of peace the
same resources and energies that are now devoted to the preparation of war.
Third, peace requires an America standing shoulder to shoulder with other free nations, united by close ties of
friendship, commerce and mutual respect. In the last 7 1/2 years, the uncertainty of our NATO Alliance, the collapse of
the Baghdad Pact and the limited value of our other pacts have all demonstrated that a common fear of communism is
not a sufficient base for unity.
America cannot stand alone as a TINY minority in a hostile world - without friends and allies, without sources of supply
and markets, without an international effort to stem aggression from any source. But if we want the support and
cooperation of others, we must earn their friendship and respect. We must consider their problems as well as ours. And,
joined by other free nations of the West, we must help strengthen the political and economical independence of those
nations newly emerging on the bottom half of the globe - to prevent in those countries the chaos and despair on which
communist expansion feeds.
If communism should obtain a permanent foothold n Latin America - if a new Soviet Satellite should be successfully
established in Africa - or if Communist China should win her race with India for the political and economic leadership
of all Asia - then the balance of power would move heavily against us - and peace would be even more insecure.
Our purpose is not to buy friends or hire allies - our purpose is to defeat poverty. Our primary weapons must be long-
term loans, technical assistance and regional development plans. And our goal is to once again influence history, instead
of merely observing it.
Fourth, peace requires positive American leadership in a more effective United Nations, working toward the
establishment of a world-wide peace under law, enforced by world-wide sanctions of justice. In this age of jets and
atoms, we can no longer tolerate a world that is like a frontier town without a sheriff or magistrate.
But the United Nations can be no stronger and no more imaginative than the nations which make it up. Unless we are
willing to take the leadership in the U.N. - and that means next week as well as the years ahead - unless we are willing to
channel more of our ideas, programs and delegable power to that body - then we may expect to see that one last hope for
peace swallowed up in the oceans of hate.
Fifth and finally, peace requires an America that stands as a model of harmonious relations to all the world - a nation
whose leadership is convincing because we practice what we preach. We can better unite the free world against poverty
and injustice and racial discrimination when we have successfully eliminated them from our own system - when we
have demonstrated that we are on the move in this country - when we have demonstrated that we are capable of
progressive leadership at home as well as abroad.
These are five pathways to peace. Not one can be accomplished overnight. Not one can be accomplished without a break
with the past, without a change in attitudes and a change in administration. Not one will be easy.
But I will not promise - as our opponents did the other day - that we will end the cold war. If any candidate believes this,
he is deceiving himself. If he does not believe it, he is deceiving the American people.
For the facts of the matter are that there will be setbacks as well as progress - there will be harsh facts to face - and there
is no point in continuing to describe our failures as triumphs.
All I can promise you is a tireless, ceaseless effort to rebuild our strength, our prestige and our image - to move this
country forward again on the new frontiers of peace.
During the next four years, the office I seek - the Presidency of the United States - will be a hard and lonely job. But I
am a candidate for that office because I want to get things done - because I want America to recover her purpose, her
dreams, her vigor - and because I want your children and mine to grow up in a saner, safer world.
Are you willing to join with me in this task? Are you willing to serve as new pioneers on the new frontiers of peace?
Alone, I can only promise you my best - but together, I know we can prevail.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at State Office

Building, Trenton, New Jersey, September 15, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A single copy, which
appears to be a verbatim transcript of the speech, exists in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-
Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Governor Meyner, the next United States Senator from the State of New Jersey, Thorn Lord,
your present and future Congressman, Frank Thompson, Freeholders, Ladies and Gentlemen: We started at New York
this morning at about 8:30 and we have traveled across a few hours one section of the State of New Jersey. I must say
that this has been the best day of our campaign, and I am most grateful to you all. (Applause) And I am grateful to your
distinguished Governor, Bob Meyner, for riding with me and for his hospitality in his state on this occasion in this most
important election.
Many of us are government employees. I have a different office in Washington than you who work here in the City of
Trenton, but I think that all of us who work for the government in one service or another, or all of us who work in other
capacities, have a great and common interest in this campaign, and that is the advancement of the interest of the United
States, to increase its power and prestige, to make it more secure, to make it possible in a dangerous world, when hazard
surrounds us on every side, to make it possible for us to move safely ahead in a world of peace, protecting not only the
security of the United States, but holding out the hand of friendship to all those who wish to be associated with us.
(Applause)
Other Democratic Presidents in this century, Woodrow Wilson, who served in this city, in this state, Franklin Roosevelt
and Harry Truman, all faced difficult and dangerous times. The election of 1932 I think meant the preservation of
freedom here in the United States. But I think the election of 1960 may well mean the preservation of freedom all
around the globe. I have no argument with the Republican Party and their desire to see a better country. What I argue is
their ability to do it. (Applause) Whether they have demonstrated any time in this century, whether in our position to
Wilson, Roosevelt or Truman, or whether in the days of their power McKinley, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Dewey and
the others, whether they have demonstrated an understanding of how our country moves and how it works, and how
necessary it is for the President of the United States to set before the American people the unfinished business of our
society. We face problems more complicated and as difficult as any that faced any American president in the 100 years.
I don't run for the office of the Presidency saying that if we are elected life will be easy. I think life for an American
citizen, if he meets his responsibilities, if we meet it as a nation, will be as hazardous, as trying, as burdensome and as
responsible as it has ever been during our long history. But I do promise that under the leadership of the Democratic
Party in this time of crisis, as in so many crises in our history, I think it is possible to make our country move forward. I
think it is possible for us to regain the position of leadership we once had in the days when Roosevelt and Truman and
Wilson spoke with a force of vigor as a great revolutionary country. (Applause)
I do not accept the view that our high noon is in the past, and that we are moving into the late afternoon. I think our
brightest days can be ahead. I think it is up to us to build the kind of country here, the kind of economic society the kind
of equality for all our citizens, regardless of their race or their religion, so that people around the world wish to move
with us and not with our adversaries. (Applause)
I ask your help in this campaign. I ask your assistance. We can not possibly win without you, but I think if we can move,
we can start this great boiler which is the United States, fired up again and we can make this country move. Thank you.
(Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy in a Statewide

Television Speech at Zembo Mosque Temple,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, September 15, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. The speech exists as a press
release in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library.
The release appears to be a verbatim transcript of the speech as delivered.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Governor Lawrence, Col. Rice, Governor Leader, ladies and gentlemen: I want to express my
appreciation to all of you and to the people of Pennsylvania. If it had not been for the write-in vote that I secured in the
Democratic Pennsylvania primary I would not have come to the Los Angeles Convention in any position of strength.
And if it had not been for the support that Governor Lawrence and the Pennsylvania delegation gave me at the
Convention, I would not have been nominated. (Applause)
But my appreciation to your distinguished governor goes beyond that. He was unfailing in counsel and support and
advice he gave me during the convention and the support he has given me since the convention. I therefore feel a sense
of warm appreciation to all of you and to him, and I am delighted to be here in Pennsylvania tonight. (Applause)
In addition, I am glad to be here because I feel a sense of kinship with the Pittsburgh Pirates. (Applause) Like my
candidacy, they were not given much chance in the spring. (Laughter) But fighting youth is winning out in the fall and
neither of us is going to settle for second place.
This city escaped Hurricane Donna. It looks like you will have no trouble from Hurricane Ethel. But next November 8th,
Hurricane Democrat is going to sweep the State of Pennsylvania. (Applause)
I was interested to have Col. Rice tell something of the difficulties of divided government in Pennsylvania. We have
been talking about the same thing in Washington, and now the Congo is providing an example for us all. I think we need
a united government in the United States and in the State of Pennsylvania, if we are going to carry out action, if we are
going to carry out the commitments of a great Democratic Platform to which we are all pledged. Our platform is called
the Rights of Man. I am not sure what the Republicans are calling theirs, but some have suggested that it might be called
the Power of Positive Thinking. (Laughter and applause)
In any case, I stand here tonight as the standard bearer for the Democratic Party, and I therefore stand in succession not
only to great Democrats of the far past, Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland, and the others, but I also stand here in
succession to three great Democratic Presidents of the 20th Century, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry
Truman. (Applause)
I run for the Presidency in probably the most difficult time in the history of this country. Certainly the most difficult in
the past 100 years. Because while the election of 1932 of Franklin Roosevelt meant that we would preserve freedom
here in the United States, the great stakes in the election of 1960, I truly believe, is the preservation of freedom around
the world. (Applause)
I do not therefore run for the Presidency under any expectation that life will be easy for Americans if we are successful.
I think to be an American citizen in the 1960's will be a hazardous and dangerous occupation, but I do think we bear
great responsibility and I think we have great opportunities to meet those responsibilities as the chief defender of
freedom in a time when freedom is under attack all over the globe. The challenge that faces this generation of
Americans is as great as the challenge that faced that generation of Americans who in 1932 Franklin Roosevelt informed
that they had a rendezvous with destiny. I believe that our generation of Americans also has a rendezvous with destiny
which we are prepared to meet. (Applause)
Across the face of the globe freedom and Communism are locked in a deadly embrace. At this moment and during the
past few months and years, the Communist expansion has been on the move. We see it beginning to move. We see it
beginning to penetrate in Asia. We have seen it recently in the chaos of Africa, and we have seen Communists which
this administration promised in the 1952 campaign to roll back in Eastern Europe while they unleashed Chiang Kai-shek
in Asia. We have seen that same Communism expand to within 90 miles of the coast of the United States, eight minutes
by jet from the coast of Florida.
I was in Havana three years ago. The American Ambassador informed me on that occasion that he was the second most
powerful and influential man in Cuba. Today the American Ambassador is not. He does not see the President, the Prime
Minister or the Foreign Minister. The Soviet Ambassador is the second most powerful man in Cuba today. That is the
record that we have seen of an administration which committed itself to the liberation of Eastern Europe and now finds
an old and traditional friend, Cuba, under the domination of the Communists, while their power begins to express to all
of Latin America. It is up to our generation of Americans to check this advance. My campaign for the Presidency,
therefore, is an effort to mobilize the great strength which is in the great American Republic, and mobilize the resources
of the most powerful and rich country which I believe our country is, to mobilize those resources for the great struggle.
There is only one thing that will impress the Russians and the Chinese, and that is not debates, and that is not
conferences and those are not words. It is a strong America, not strong if, not strong but, not strong when, but strong
first. (Applause) And the fact of the matter is that the United States cannot be strong in its foreign policy unless it is also
strong domestically. The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman were influential and
stood as great world leaders was because they led the United States here at home, because they concerned themselves
with the position and plight of their fellow citizens. Because they held out their hands to their fellow Americans, the
people of the world wanted to grasp the same hand. (Applause)
The people of the world want to know that freedom can bring the good life, that if they follow the road that we have
marked, that their life will be productive, their people will be working, they will be solving their problems at home, and
therefore when the Republican candidate states that he is a liberal abroad and a conservative at home, I could not
disagree more. Unless we are progressive and liberal and forward looking here at home, we cannot possibly be
progressive and forward looking and liberal abroad. The two are tied together. (Applause) Therefore, a liberal foreign
policy marked by leadership and strength must be marked by a domestic policy here in the State of Pennsylvania and
around the country that moves. We will not win the greatest contest in our history if our economy limps along at the
lowest rate of growth of any major industrialized society in the world, last year, behind not only the Russians, and it was
one half to one third of that of the Soviet Union, but lower than Germany, France, or England, countries who we helped
ten years ago to rebuild their economies.
The resources that we need for the great contest of the 1960's to demonstrate that we are the most vital society are lost
when we do not use our hands, when men are out of work and can't find work, and when we have a lack of economic
growth. This is the reason that I think that those people of Pennsylvania and the United States who desire to see our
country move ahead, who desire us to be successful in our world policy, also should recognize that the Democratic Party
in its long history, especially in the 20th Century, has been successful here at home and has been successful abroad.
(Applause)
Franklin Roosevelt speaking before 100,000 people at Franklin Field, Philadelphia, in accepting the second Presidential
nomination, put the choice and the alternatives before us clearly. In that speech he said: "Governments can err,
Presidents do make mistakes, but the immortal Dante tells us that Divine Justice weighs the sins of the cold blooded and
sins of the warm hearted in a different scale. Better the occasional faults of a government living in the spirit of charity
than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference." That is what we have had in the
last eight years. (Applause) And no state in the Union has learned that hard lesson more the State of Pennsylvania,
where 335,000 men and women were unemployed last month, one out of every 14 people actively seeking a job and
unable to find it.
The Vice President's slogan is "You never had it so good." Well, they have never had it worse, those people who want to
work and can't work, at a time when we are enjoying prosperity in certain sections of the country. I know we (can) do
better. This is not 1932. We are not moving back. I cannot believe that a country which is faced by so many challenges
at home and abroad cannot meet the problem of full employment so that our people can find work when they want it.
(Applause)
I lived with this problem for a month in the state of West Virginia, the same problem that hundred s of thousands of
people in this state are faced with, and in Southern Illinois, and in Kentucky and in my own State of Massachusetts,
where hundreds of thousands of families wait every month for a surplus food package from the government which
consists of rice, grain or dry or powdered eggs, and this summer they announced that they are going to add lard.
I think we can do better than that. I think we must do better than that. I am not satisfied at all as citizen of the United
States with a country with the richest agricultural production in the world, to be distributing the kind of surplus food that
we are distributing which lack, in my opinion, the essential requirements which any American should have to sustain
himself and his family. (Applause)
But this is not all. During the last session the Congress in August, we attempted to pass through the United States Senate
a bill which would have provided medical care for our aged on social security. We receive d the support of 45
Democrats and one republican. We were threatened with a veto if we had passed it. We failed by five votes. I can assure
you that if we are successful in this election that is going to be at the top of our agenda. (Applause)
We attempted to pass in the Senate of the United States a bill providing $1.25 minimum wage. The average wage for
laundry women in five large cities of the United States, and many of them are Negroes, is 65 cents an hour for a 48 hour
week. I think we can do better.
I think this administration has been frozen in the ice of its own indifference. I think the fundamental responsibility of all
of us who wish to survive, who wish to lead our lives in peace, who wish to see the influence of the United States extend
around the world as a vital and vigorous society, whose brightest days are ahead, whose economic growth is increasing,
whose devotion to the public interest is being maintained, I think it is essential that we go out of here and win this
election and demonstrate as Franklin Roosevelt did in his day, and Wilson in his day, and Truman in his day, that a
government and the people can work together. (Applause)
I said at the beginning that I thought that the problems facing the United States and the problems facing the next
President of the United States were more difficult than they had been since the time of Lincoln. During the 1860
campaign, Lincoln wrote to a friend, "I know there is a God and He hates injustice. I see the storm coming. If He has a
place and a part for me, I believe that I am ready." Now 100 years later, in a comparable period in the national history,
we know there is a God, and we know there is a storm coming. But if He has a place and a part for us, I believe that we
are ready. (Applause) Thank you. (Standing Ovation.)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the York

County Fairgrounds, York, Pennsylvania, September 16,
1960
The text in the file appears to be a verbatim transcript of John F. Kennedy's remarks on the occasion.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Thank you very much. I want to express my great appreciation for a very nice introduction by
a distinguished son of the great State of Pennsylvania, former Governor Leader. I appreciate that very much, indeed.
I am delighted to be here with Governor Lawrence, who has traveled with me through this state today. I must say that
the Pennsylvania Dutch have been very generous since early morning.
I come as the standard bearer for the Democratic Party which is, as you know, the oldest political party in the history of
this country, dating back all the way to Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. Our roots are deep in the soil of the
United States. We represent the only national party in this country. We represent farmers in Maine, steel workers in
Pennsylvania and farmers in Pennsylvania. We represent farmers and pioneers in the State of Alaska, and ranchers in
Texas. I think the great contribution which the Democratic Party has made since its earliest inception has been its sense
of looking forward to the new, of breaking new ground. Jefferson did it, Jackson did it. Cleveland did it. Woodrow
Wilson stood for the New Freedom, Franklin Roosevelt for the New Deal, Harry Truman for the Fair Deal, Adlai
Stevenson for the New America, and now I run on a platform which I call the New Frontier. (Applause)
No Democratic President in this century has run on a plank or platform or a program which can be entitled as
McKinley's was, "Stand Pat with McKinley." No Democratic President kept cool with Coolidge or returned to normalcy
with Harding or had enough in 1946 or today, "You never had it so good." I think this country has not had it so good. I
am not pleased as an American, nor do I feel secure as a citizen of the free world, to see the power and prestige and the
influence from the United States declining in relation to that of the Communist world, because there are no second
chances in this life; there are no chances that we can turn to other powers to defend our interests, as in World War I and
World War II when other countries turned to help us. We stand as the last thin line between the spread of Communism
and a free world. If we fail here, if we don't fulfill our potential, if our society is not expanding and developing, then we
fail not only ourselves, but we fail the cause of freedom.
I don't think since the time of Athens, 2000 years ago, has any people had placed upon them the same burden of
responsibilities that we have placed here. Until we build a strong country here, until we have full employment in the
United States, until our economy is expanding, until there is a sense of vitality here in this country in our life, then our
influence will spread, or if it does not it won't spread.
Latin America, Africa and Asia stand today on a thin line of decision, attempting to determine which way the future lies.
Does it lie with Khrushchev and Peking or does it lie with us? I think it lies with us, but I think it must be made to lie
with us by our own efforts and our own exertions. I don't run for the office of the Presidency promising an easy life, and
I don't run for the office of the Presidency promising that if I am elected the problems of this country will be over. They
won't be over. I think our life will be hazardous in the 1960's and 1970's. But I think if we remain strong here, if we have
a defense second to none, if our economy is expanding, then I think the world will determine that the future lies with us.
If we ever strayed second to the Soviet Union or the Chinese, if our economy is on a plateau, if we are not moving ahead
in this country, then we won't move ahead around the world.
In the next ten years the United States is going to have to find 25,000 new jobs a week for the next ten years if we are
going to maintain full employment for our population. I don't think the Republican Party in the last eight years or in this
century has been willing to take this country and move it forward as Franklin Roosevelt and Wilson did in their day. I
think we have a great opportunity for service. I ask your help in this campaign. I ask you to join with me in a journey
into the 1960's, whereby we will mold our strength and become first again, not "First, if," not "First, but," and not "First,
when," but "First." And I want the people of the world to wake up and wonder, not what Mr. Khrushchev is doing or
what the Chinese Communists are doing, but I want them to wonder what the United States is doing. I ask your help in
this campaign. Thank you. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Towson

Shopping Center, Towson, Maryland, September 16,
1960
This is a transcription made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A single copy exists in the Senate Speech
file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Governor Tawes, Mr. Kaul, Mayor Grady, Mrs. Otenesek, Mr. Birmingham, Mr. Goldstone,
Senator Goodman, Attorney General, ladies and gentlemen: I want to express my appreciation to both the Governor of
your state, to my friend and colleague in the Congress, your Congressman, who I hope you are going to return, not only
for the benefit of this district, but also for the country, Congressman Danny Brewster, who has been our host today -
(applause) - and also my appreciation to you for two things: First, because you are kind enough to stand up and listen at
the end of a long day, and also because it was my success in the Maryland primary that helped make it possible for me
to win the nomination and secure the support of the Maryland delegation at the convention. (Applause)
So having gotten me halfway around the track, I would like to have you push me the rest of the way home. (Applause) I
run for the office of the Presidency in probably the most difficult and dangerous time in the life our country. I heard
President Eisenhower speaking at a dinner some months ago saying that while he had a personal preference for
President, he could predict that after the first week of commitment, which the next President would have, that the Chiefs
of Staff would come some afternoon and say that the United States is faced with a difficult and dangerous situation some
place in the world and what did he, the President, think they should do. I don't think that there is any doubt that during
the next four years the task of the President, the burdens that will be placed upon him, the responsibilities which all
Americans must meet, will be heavier than they have been any time since the administration of Abraham Lincoln. So I
do not run for the Presidency feeling it is a ceremonial or caretaker's office. I run for the Presidency because I feel
strongly that the United States has a great role to fulfill in the world, to maintain its own freedom, and to serve as the
chief defender of freedom around the world. I don't think that there is any American who has lived through the past few
years who can possibly feel that the balance of power is moving in our direction. I think this is a great country, but I
think we can make it a greater country, and I think it is a powerful country, but I think we can make it more powerful.
All over Africa and Asia and Latin America I think the prestige and influence and the image of the United States as a
revolutionary and free country, I think, is diminished.
I am Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa of the Foreign Relations Committee. Twenty years ago African
nationalists quoted Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Jefferson. But today thousands of young students, thousands of their trade
unionists, and those who will be leaders go to school in Moscow or Czechoslovakia or Eastern Germany or Peking, and
come back because they believe that we are tired and that the Communist system represents the way to the future. I think
we represent the way to the future. But the reason that Franklin Roosevelt was able to be a good neighbor to Latin
America was because he was a good neighbor in the United States, because we were on the move here in America. The
reason that Woodrow Wilson was able to extend his 14 points was because they were a logical extension of his New
Freedom, which carried the day here in this country. The same is true of the Truman Fair Deal which had its partnership
in the Marshall plan abroad.
I speak of the 1960's as a New Frontier, and I don't speak of the 1960's or my own candidacy in the sense of promising
that life will be easy if I am elected. The New Frontier of which I speak is the opportunity for all of us to be of service to
the great Republic in a difficult and dangerous time.
During the campaign of 1860, Lincoln wrote to a friend, "I know there is a God and that He hates injustice. I see the
storm coming and I know His hand is in it. If He has a place and a part for me, I believe that I am ready." Now, 100
years later, we know there is a God and that He hates injustice, and we see the storm coming. But if He has a place and a
part for us, I believe we are ready. Thank you. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Raleigh, North

Carolina, September 17, 1960
Here in North Carolina - in 1585 - one hundred and eight brave men established the first English-speaking colony of the
New World. When the next settlers arrived that colony had disappeared. But the daring of those men - the spirit which
conquered America's first frontier - has never disappeared from North Carolina or from America. And I come here today
to summon those same qualities of courage and strength and determination to the conquest of America's New Frontier -
the frontier of the Sixties.
The pioneering of America's first settlers - from Roanoke Island in North Carolina to Plymouth Rock in Massachusetts
forms a historic link between your state and mine - between North and South. But there is another tie that binds us
together just as firmly - and that is the Democratic Party. For it was two great Southerners, Thomas Jefferson and James
Madison, who, in 1791 sailed up the Hudson River - on what they described as a "botanical expedition" - to find new
plants and catch butterflies - and there they met with New York political leaders, and founded the most enduring, the
most progressive, and most effective political alliance in American history - the alliance of men of faith and foresight
from the urban industrial North and the rural South - the alliance which was to become the only truly National party in
our history - the Democratic Party. And I am not here to catch butterflies either - but to reaffirm that historical alliance -
and lead it to a great victory in 1961. But I am not in search of victory alone. For, as Woodrow Wilson reminded us,
"The success of a party means little except when the nation is using that party for a large and definite purpose." Today,
in 1960, I believe that the Democratic Party has such a purpose.
I believe that our success in November will mean the fulfillment of that purpose. And I believe that all America - North,
South, East and West - can unite to carry out that purpose. For we intend to build a strong and growing and prosperous
America which can be the protector of freedom for all the world. That is the goal of the Democratic Party - that is the
goal of North Carolina - and that is why we are going to have a democrat in the White House in 1960.
And America needs a Democratic victory. We are a great and strong country - perhaps the greatest and strongest in the
history of the world. But greatness and strength are not our natural right. They are not gifts which are automatically ours
forever. It took toil and courage and determination to build this country - and it will take those same qualities if we are
to maintain it. For, although a country may stand still, history never stands still.
Thus, if we do not soon begin to move forward again, we will inevitably be left behind. And I know that Americans
today are tired of standing still - and that we do not intend to be left behind.
But effort and courage are not enough without purpose and direction. For, as Socrates told us, "If a man does not know
to what port he is sailing, no wind is favorable." But today we Democrats know to what port we are sailing - we have
mapped our destination and we know what kind of America we want the Sixties to bring.
First, we want an America which is using all its resources - the natural wealth and skills of every region - to stimulate
our free enterprise economy to new heights of production and abundance. Today our economy is growing more slowly
than that of almost any other industrial nation in the world. We have more than four million unemployed - small
businesses are failing at a record rate - and there is poverty and distress on our farms. These are failures of the
Republican Party - a party which lacks faith in our capacity to grow - and which has adopted policies designed to protect
what we have rather than to add to our abundance. These failures must and will be reversed.
And America can find the model for its future growth here in the South. For the most dramatic economic advance of the
past decade has been the steady expansion of the modern, vigorous south - the growth of industry - and the steady rise in
your standard of living. Today the South is determined to continue that advance - to add to its industry - and restore
prosperity to its farms. That is why the South has such a great stake in our desire to build a growing America - for if
America grows, the South will also grow - and our programs for developing natural resources, low interest rates,
expanding markets, expanding purchasing power, and all the rest are programs which will bring new prosperity, new
jobs, and new income to the South, as well as to all America.
Secondly, we want an America whose ability to meet its responsibilities at home makes it a model for all the nations of
the world. Today our slowed-down economy, our overcrowded schools, our poor and our unemployed, our spreading
slums and our thousands of abandoned farms are visible, tangible evidence of our failure to meet those responsibilities.
And those failures are defeats for the cause of freedom. For today the Communists are determined to convince the
emerging and developing nations of Asia and Africa and Latin America that only Communism will eliminate their
poverty and hunger and disease - that the Communist road is the only road to a better life. We know that this is not true -
for our own greatness is living proof that the road to abundance is freedom's road. And we intend to build a still greater
America where every man has a chance to work, a decent house to live in and decent schools for his children because
we believe in a decent life for all our citizens - and because we who first lit man's hope for the good life are determined
that freedom shall continue to show the way to progress.
Third, we want an America which has a military strength second to none-strength sufficient to convince any enemy that
an attack would bring disaster. To do this we need two things: an invulnerable atomic striking force which can survive
an enemy attack and still remain in possession of its ability to retaliate - and a modern conventional force of sufficient
strength, fire power and mobility to intervene quickly and effectively to halt Communist aggression in any quarter of the
globe. Only when we attain both of these objectives - and our enemies know and respect our strength - can we hope to
talk successfully with Mr. Khrushchev about peace.
Fourth, we want an America whose qualities of initiative and leadership have earned the respect of the entire Free World
- not merely because of our size or strength, but because we stand for freedom and progress and the pursuit of peace.
This means that we must help the developing and newly emerging nations of the world to achieve the economic progress
on which their political freedom depends. We must be sure that they are strong and stable enough to resist the steady and
ruthless infiltration of Communist subversion. We must be ready with bold and imaginative new programs to help
eliminate poverty and hunger throughout the world.
We must also be ready to reassume the initiative in the conduct of our foreign affairs - or act to spread freedom as well
as to react against the spread of Communism. We must propose new and workable programs for disarmament, for
banning nuclear testing, for reducing tensions in the many trouble spots around the world from Berlin to the Formosa
Straits. For only an America which is applying its full resources of imagination and thought and strength to the
resolution of the world's great problems - only such an America will be able to maintain its position as the champion of
peace and the protector of freedom everywhere.
These are our goals for America - this is the large and definitive purpose toward which our victory is directed. And if we
pursue these goals with energy and determination then the next decade will see a still greater America - an America
whose strength is unchallenged.
And only a stronger America can hope to maintain its freedom and the freedom of the world. We are faced with an
enemy which now commands a vast empire from the Formosa Straits to Berlin - an enemy whose agents of subversion
are penetrating into Africa, into Asia, and now stand only ninety miles from our shores in Cuba - an enemy which is
convinced of its ultimate victory - which believes, to quote Mr. Khrushchev, "that the old and the rotten will always
fight with the newly emerged, but it is a law of history that the new will always win." But it is freedom that is new, and
despotism and tyranny that is as old as civilization is - and it is freedom that will win - not because of any law of history
- but because we will have the strength and the determination that will bring the victory.
But to do so we must begin moving again. We must reverse the drift and complacency which has slowed down our
growth at home and permitted our prestige and our strength to decline abroad. We must reverse the failures of
imagination which have allowed the Russians to be the first on the moon - and the first to return passengers safely from
outer space. We must reverse the policies which have confined Mr. Khrushchev to Manhattan - but which have not kept
him from moving in Africa and Asia and Latin America.
And we cannot do this by trading insults with Mr. Khrushchev or by arguing against his policies - or by talking tough.
We talked tough when the people of Hungary revolted - but he crushed the revolt. We talked tough when Communism
began to grow in Cuba - but Cuba is a Communist satellite today. We have talked tough about the need for disarmament
- but the arms race is more intense than ever. We have a magnificent record of talking tough - but we do not have a
magnificent record of halting the advance of Communism and strengthening the spread of freedom. That will be done
through the strength which alone can answer Mr. Khrushchev's threats and ambitions.
I come here to North Carolina to set before you the goals for America and to ask you to join with me in rebuilding our
strength in leading America across its New Frontier. For, as a New Englander, I recognize that the South is still the land
of Washington, who made our Nation - of Jefferson, who shaped its directions - and of Robert E. Lee who, after gallant
failure, urged those who had followed him in bravery to re-unite America in purpose and courage.
I cannot assure you that the road ahead is an easy one - because I know it will not be easy, and our journey will require
effort and sacrifice. But I believe that the people of this State - and the people of all America - are ready to work
together so that America can again begin its forward march. For I believe that we all share the faith of a great son of
North Carolina, Thomas Wolfe, when he wrote:
"I think the true discovery of America is before us."
"I think the true fulfillment of our spirit, of our people, of our mighty and immortal land, is yet to come."

Chemical Workers Convention, Ambassador Hotel,
Atlantic City, New Jersey, September 19, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. One text of the speech, a
press release transcript, exists in the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Officers of the Chemical Workers, ladies and gentlemen: I am delighted to be here today, and I
am delighted to be in the company of my colleague in the Congress of the United States, my colleague on the Labor
Committee, your next speaker, Congressman James Roosevelt. (Applause) And with the distinguished Governor of the
State of New Jersey, Robert Meyner. (Applause)
I come here today not only as the candidate of the Democratic Party in this most vital election, but I come here as
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor of the Senate, after having served for over 14 years on the Labor Committees
of the Congress. The United States is faced today with a difficult and dangerous period of history, and I think that in the
coming week or two, the greatest sense of responsibility, the greatest restraint will be placed upon all of us, those of us
who conduct the campaigns in this difficult time, upon the President of the United States, upon the Secretary of State. So
that when the present period of tension which now exists at the United Nations shall be over, we shall find, I hope, the
United States in a stronger position rather than in a weaker position. Therefore, what I say to you today is devoted to
what we can do in our own area of competence in order to strengthen the United States.
I think that those of you who are members of this important union recognize that the 1960's are going to bring you union
problems because it is going to bring the United States many industrial changes, and many problems which will affect
your union, and also affect the men and women who work in the chemical industry.
In your paper, the Chemical Workers, which is distributed here and which I was just looking at, there is an article on
Page 9 which I would like to see the next President of the United States study very carefully, whoever he may be, and
that is the article which says, "Automation turns from blue to white." (Applause)
I have traveled in the last two years to every state in the United States. I spent a month in West Virginia, and I saw not
only the coal mines of West Virginia and the coal miners who had been displaced - I spent some days in McDowell
County, West Virginia, which mines more coal than it ever has in history and has more families receiving surplus food
packages than any county of the United States. But I also traveled in the Ohio Valley, and in the Kanawha Valley, which
has two great industrial complexes which particularly feature chemical production, and there we would drive for yard
after yard or walk yard after yard and every 100 yards we would see one worker or two workers, and this tremendous
industrial complex, administered by relatively few men when I am sure 15 or 20 years ago in a comparable output we
would have seen dozens and hundreds of men and women working in those plants.
The task which faces you as a union is to adjust yourselves to these tremendous industrial changes which are going to
bring white collar workers where blue collar workers once dominated. The problem for us as citizens of the United
States, the problem for us, those of us who serve in the government, in the Congress or in the Executive Branch, is how
we can maintain full employment, how we can absorb the production of our industries, how we can provide for the
orderly transition from present production methods into new production methods without displacing our workers, how
we can in short in the steel industry, in the chemical industry, in the oil industry, in the newspaper industry, how we can
provide labor-saving machinery at the same time maintaining full employment, at the same time making sure that those
machines produce a better life rather than a life of unemployment for so many of our citizens. (Applause)
I consider that to be in agriculture and industry the No. 1 domestic problem which the next President of the United
States is going to have to face. I don't think this administration really has thought about it at all. I do not recall except
occasional speeches, spaced months apart, where this government has turned its attention to the problems of automation,
to the problems of employment, to the problems of maintaining full employment in a technological revolution here at
home as well as around the world.
I would think that one of the first things that the next President of the United States must do is to call a conference of the
Federal Government of the basic industries, the managers of the basic industries, the leaders of organized labor in the
basic industries, to consider what steps can be taken to provide for the orderly transition of new machinery into our
government, into our industry. In other words, to address ourselves as a national problem, not as an industry problem,
not as a company problem, but as a national problem to the problem of automation in the early 1960's. I think it is an
entirely new problem, it is a problem which did not disturb the Administrations of Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman.
It is a problem which is now on the horizon no bigger than a man's hand. But it is a problem which will disturb the lives
of all of us in the next decade unless we move to it at once. I can assure you that if I am elected to the office of the
Presidency, or if I maintain my position as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, that I think it is a problem to which
we must address ourselves early in 1961. We will require the cooperation of the members of the Chemical Union. We
will require the cooperation of the leadership of this union – the kind of studies which you are undertaking today, in
cooperation with management in these companies, and in other industries stretching across the United States.
It is the kind of new problem which I think our Party, which I am a member of, the Democratic Party, is best equipped
to meet. (Applause)
If there is one contribution or one quality for which the Democratic Party has been noted since its earliest beginnings,
since the time of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, stretching through the Administrations of Wilson and
Roosevelt and Truman, it has been its willingness to break new ground, to look ahead, not to stand still. No Democrat
has ever run for the Presidency with a motto, "You never had it so good." Every Democratic President who has served
this country in times of crisis has looked to the future. The slogans of our party in this century tell the story of our party;
Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, Harry Truman's Fair Deal, Adlai Stevenson's New
America, and now I talk today in 1960 about the New Frontiers of the 1960's. (Applause)
No Democrat has ever run for the Presidency standing pat with McKinley or returning to normalcy with Harding, or
keeping cool with Coolidge. (Applause) Those who are satisfied with things as they are, those who wish to stand still,
those who look back to the good old days, I don't think they should come with us in the 1960's. (Applause) But those
who want to move this country, those who think we can do better, those who think that there are better days still ahead,
those who think that it is time that the government and the people devoted themselves to the great unfinished business of
our society – as Franklin Roosevelt did in his administration, and Woodrow Wilson in his, and Harry Truman in his – I
hope they will come with us. (Applause)
We don't promise an easy future at home and abroad because there is no easy life for a citizen of the United States who
bears his responsibilities in 1960. But we can say to you that the Democratic Party as it has so often in the past is
prepared to lead, and if we are successful this country will move again. Thank you. (Standing ovation.)
Interview of Senator John F. Kennedy by Walter

Cronkite, September 19, 1960
This is a transcription of this interview made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A copy of the interview
MR. CRONKITE: How are you, Senator?

SENATOR KENNEDY: Walter, I'm glad to see you.
MR. CRONKITE: It's good to be with you.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Thank you very much. Won't you sit down and perhaps we can talk right here.
MR. CRONKITE: Thank you. Is it convenient?
SENATOR KENNEDY: Certainly.
MR. CRONKITE: Senator, you know we feel sometimes that the candidates get lost behind the campaign posters, so we
thought we'd just talk to you today about Kennedy, the man, if that's all right with you, sir.
SENATOR KENNEDY: All right.
MR. CRONKITE: Your grandfather, Mayor John Fitzgerald, of Boston, is once supposed to have said, "Come in first;
second place is failure." You certainly seem to have lived up to his maxim so far. At 26 - I mean, at 29, in 1946, you
were elected to Congress, and in 1952, that upset when you defeated Senator Lodge, now the Vice Presidential
candidate, on the Republican side, for his Senate seat, in Massachusetts. And, of course, your sensational string of
primary victories leading to your nomination in July.
Now, if you are elected, at 43, you will be the youngest man ever elected to the Presidency of the United States. And of
course this whole matter of maturity has come up somewhat in the campaign.
I'm just wondering if you don't feel you've aged a little bit in these last three weeks of active campaigning.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Yes. Well, we've been campaigning for a long time. I ran in seven primaries and of course the
responsibility is much greater and therefore the pressures are greater. Theodore Roosevelt was younger than I was when
he became President, but of course he became because of the death of the President, and he was Vice President.
I've been in Congress for 14 years, which is a long time, particularly compared to the amount of time that other
Presidents have served.
It's always interesting to realize that Lincoln was in the House, but when he ran for the Senate in 1858, he was defeated.
Yet he emerged, I suppose, as one of the two or three greatest Presidents we have had. So, it really depends, in the final
analysis, on the competence and responsibility of the individual.
MR. CRONKITE: Senator, do you ever wish that you looked older?
SENATOR KENNEDY: Well, I suppose you have what - I've gotten along reasonably well. As it is, I think the people
can make a judgment as to whether the candidate is able to meet the responsibilities of whatever office he holds. I ran
against Senator Lodge back in '52, which was eight years ago; and I met some of the same problems then. But of course
this is the great test.
MR. CRONKITE: Senator, there's one little item that has come up I've always wondered about, and stop me if you've
heard this one, but the change of the hair style to get away from the forelock, was that a considered political opinion or
is that your own?
SENATOR KENNEDY: No, I've been cutting it the same way for about six or seven years, but - even longer, but
unfortunately, when you run for the Presidency your wife's hair or your hair or something else always becomes of major
significance. I don't think it's a great issue, though, in 1960.
MR. CRONKITE: Senator, Mrs. Kennedy said, in one interview, that you prefer, rather than social engagements, to prop
up in bed and read, biographies being your favorite reading, she said; and some of your biographers have noted, that you
are not necessarily the gregarious type. I wondered if you, yourself, feel any sort of sense of shyness about meeting large
crowds and the constant handshaking which is part of the political decorum.
SENATOR KENNEDY: No, I don't. My grandfather, I guess, was a much more natural politician than I was, I'm told.
When I was at school I never thought of going into politics. I always wanted to write or practice law. But now I've run
and I don't - people are very - particularly in recent years I think they are interested in politics in the sense of being
concerned about the issues which affect them and their lives, and so they are friendly and interested and I don't find it
difficult to go around. But I'm not, in fact I would say, looking over the United States Senate, that the old-time image of
a back-slapping politician is faded. Most of them are quiet and serious and interested in their work. It's a very - the
issues we deal with, compared to the issues which were before us in the Nineteenth Century, Daniel Webster and
Calhoun, all the great figures in the Nineteenth Century, really dealt with about four or five great issues in their whole
career - tariff, the expansion of the West, slavery; and we deal with matters which are extremely technical and
sophisticated, they come across our desk day by day and week by week. I think the needs of politicians have changed. I
think there has to be a good deal of serious interest in the complexities of the problems which face the United States and
people aren't as interested in back-slapping politicians.
MR. CRONKITE: Senator, you said that you hadn't planned on being a politician. And we, of course, have heard the
story many times, occasionally from your own lips I believe, but that you got into politics sort of take the place of your
other brother, Joe, who was killed during the war.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Yes. He was going to be a politician I think. In fact he was a delegate to the 1924 - 1940
Convention when he was only 24. And then he was killed in the war and I came back from the war and I was in the
hospital for a while and his seat became vacant. I worked for a newspaper for a while and I decided to run, and - here we
are.
MR. CRONKITE: Was it a conscious feeling on your part of taking Joe's place?
SENATOR KENNEDY: No, but I - I never would have run for office if he had lived. I think he was - destined to be
very successful in politics. But, I was, at the end of the war I was interested in politics, at least in the issues the country
faced. I had been a reporter at the United Nations Conference and then at the Pottsdam Conference in Germany in '45.
And when the Congressional seat became vacant, as I had grown up in an atmosphere where government and politics
were followed by both my grandfathers and my father and my brother, and there I was so that I never would have
imagined before the war that I would have become active in politics but everything seemed to point to it in '46.
MR. CRONKITE: You don't have any sense of being a stand-in for Joe in this Presidential race?
SENATOR KENNEDY: No, I don't. Time has moved on. I once said that I thought that - I think he would have done
very well and would have been very successful, but I have sort of made my own career now. But then I always feel that
he would have done very well indeed.
MR. CRONKITE: Senator, actually, the Presidency has been mentioned around the Kennedy family for quite a while.
Joe, Jr.'s stated ambition, even before Harvard, was that he wanted to be President of the United States. And, of course,
your father was mentioned quite prominently in the 1940 campaign before Roosevelt decided to run for a third term.
SENATOR KENNEDY: That's right.
MR. CRONKITE: You were 23 in that year of the '40 campaign.
MR. CRONKITE: Did you have any great ambitions for your father to become President? Do you remember your
emotions at the time?
SENATOR KENNEDY: No. Actually I don't think he ever would have thought he would be nominated. There were
other potential candidates for the Democratic nomination and of course there was no indication that President Roosevelt
would not run. So that while his name appeared in the paper, I don't think he ever inhaled the atmosphere.
MR. CRONKITE: Visions of those famous Kennedy touch football games on the White House never danced through
your head?
SENATOR KENNEDY: No - no - no.
MR. CRONKITE: Senator, you mentioned that if Joe had lived and become a politician you possibly wouldn't have.
And yet now we find your brother Bob quite prominent in government affairs in Washington, and your younger brother,
Teddy, is talking about a political career.
MR. CRONKITE: Do you have any concern about the effect on the electorate of the possibility of an incipient Kennedy
dynasty?
SENATOR KENNEDY: No, no. Neither one of them have run. If my brother Teddy does into politics, I think he is
going to move out West and start on his own. Politics or really government work is, I think, the most fascinating career.
In the first place, all of us are concerned about what is happening to our country and all of us have strong feelings about
what our country should do and should be and therefore the decisions of government are going to affect the security of
us all and it's natural that any young man who has been exposed to government life and who is deeply concerned would
want to play a part in it. So that - but neither one of them have run and I don't think my brother Bobby will run, but he
did work for the Rackets Committee. He worked for the Department of Justice before that. And I think he continues to
like to devote his life to some kind of public service.
MR. CRONKITE: Would you feel any restriction against naming a member of the family to the Cabinet, for instance?
SENATOR KENNEDY: I think it would probably be unwise. But I would hope that if I were successful that they would
contribute - be able to contribute their services. I think they are both very able and they both worked extremely hard. My
brother Bobby was my campaign manager in '52, and he has been my campaign manager since I started to run and he is
terribly single-minded in his interest in public affairs and being of service and I would hope he could be. Merely because
I happened to hold office I don't think should bar him. We are going to need all the people of dedication we can get.
MR. CRONKITE: Senator, what about the part that the family's quite enormous riches have played in your life? Could
you say how you feel they have influenced your life?
SENATOR KENNEDY: Well, I suppose that they've made it - my primary interest of course is to work in the
government. I think my father did well in this country, he started out with - without any resources and he has done
extremely well. I would like to have worked in the government, to be of some service. So that I feel that probably his
success in business has made me more anxious to be of some - to work in the government.
MR. CRONKITE: Do you feel that financial independence gives you political independence?
SENATOR KENNEDY: Oh, there isn't any doubt, of course, that it's a great deal of help to anyone, but I don't know
whether it follows necessarily. I don't think of it - after all, poor man, rich man, middle-income men have succeeded.
Some have succeeded and some have failed. I don't think there is a common denominator, tracing the history of our
Senate, Governors, and the Presidency, that you can find any one ingredient. Financial resources, Franklin Roosevelt
had financial resources and did well, Harry Truman had none and did well. While Eisenhower was in the service all his
life, and he has done well. So I don't think that that is a common denominator.
MR. CRONKITE: Senator, regarding the whole Kennedy family history, all of your brothers and sisters have succeeded
in their own lives, in their personal lives and in the public image. Do you have an idea of what the thread is that runs
through the Kennedys that makes - that gives you this success?
SENATOR KENNEDY: Well, I grew up in a very strict house, and one where - there was no, there were no free riders,
and everyone was expected to do, give their best to what they did. And I think that that spirit has been built into all my
brothers and sisters. I hope we do well, but I think the idea of making, putting your best effort into whatever you do has
been pretty deeply ingrained. And I think, I hope that - I think my brothers and sisters are trying to do the same in their
families. There is no sense in trying to do anything unless you give it your maximum effort. You may not succeed, but at
least the effort and dedication and interest should be there.
MR. CRONKITE: The thing has been mentioned quite frequently of a sense of competition within the family, friendly
competition quite obviously. Do you think this has been a major ingredient?
SENATOR KENNEDY: No, actually the family has been tremendously mutually supporting, but I do think that there
was constantly drilled into us, as I say my mother and father were both very strict and firm, the necessity of doing each
task in the most competent and effective manner, so that that - there was a constant drive for us for self-improvement.
MR. CRONKITE: Senator, since we are mentioning the family, if I may throw a parenthetical thing out here, those of us
who were watching the Conventions carefully and narrating them as they went along, were somewhat surprised that
your father was not present for your acceptance speech. Could you tell us why that was?
SENATOR KENNEDY: Well, Friday he had gone - he went to Europe the next morning, he was at the Convention the
night I got nominated, and I think he felt that was probably the climax. He was in Los Angeles watching on television. I
think he thought that was the climactic moment. I think he is anxious to see us all make good on our own. He has been
successful and wants us to have a chance to do it ourselves, but his interest is constant.
MR. CRONKITE: What single person has been most influential in the development of your own personal philosophy?
SENATOR KENNEDY: Well, I think the family atmosphere has been, my mother and father, I think, have been, in the
sense that I have already described. I think they've had a great influence. Once I came into politics and political life, then
of course you are on your own, and your judgments are your own. My brother has been a great support to me, but I will
say finally that you have to decide, yourself.
MR. CRONKITE: Speaking of judgments being your own, I just happen to have a quote on that that you made in your
biography. And you said, "There comes a point in your life when you know your judgment is the only judgment for
you."
That point in your life you mentioned, have you, I assume, reached that point?
SENATOR KENNEDY: Yes. I think that no one is ever right all the time, but you have to have some confidence in your
own judgment. You ask people for advice but you get as many different pieces of advice as you ask different people,
ordinarily, especially if it seems difficult. So if you have reasonable confidence in your own judgment, you probably
have given the matter more thought, I would say that you, by and large, in the final analysis, have to stick to your view. I
think it's good to get other opinions, but you have to choose what opinion you want to go with.
MR. CRONKITE: Can you pinpoint any moment when you came to this decision that it had to be your decision and
yours alone?
SENATOR KENNEDY: After you go into politics, I probably voted on thousands of issues, making decisions every day
that Congress was in session one way or another and in a decision that was very close involved many factors, so I think
you begin to feel that - I find that the more people you ask for advice the more confusing it finally becomes, so I think
you do better making up your own mind.
MR. CRONKITE: Senator, within the framework of your own personal and political philosophy, do you have any ideas
now as to how we can deal with these people of other nations who don't have the same ethic and moral code that we
have in this country?
SENATOR KENNEDY: Do you mean the Soviet Union or the -
MR. CRONKITE: Primarily, of course.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Well, I think that if the United States is strong, I would say that, of course, militarily so that it
can't be challenged successfully in any military action, or at least there is not much hope of success, if we make our
commitments very clear and precise - I think World War I and World War II showed the great danger of not making
very precise commitments. If the Germans had realized in World War I that the British would come to war if they
invaded Belgium, or if they had realized ultimately we would have come in, I don't think we might have had a war in
World War I, and might not have had in World War II. So that I would say that commitments have to be very clear, you
have to draw the line of where you will protect your interests and where you won't in a very responsible manner and
maintain your commitments with the strength to back them up, and then I think you ought to try to indicate your desire
to live in peace, once you have that strength. Theodore Roosevelt's "speak quietly and carry the big stick," I think
sometimes we have reversed that, and speak loudly and our strength isn't as big as it should be.
Now, that's as it applies to the Soviet Union. In addition, of course, we are going to have a competition between our two
systems in Latin America, Africa, and Asia for these people who are newly emerging to determine which way they will
go, will they go with the Communists as a way to the future, or will they come with us. I think we have to hold out the
hand of friendship and we just can't attempt to enlist them in a cold war, but demonstrate an interest in their problems.
What concerns me now is not only the Castro in Cuba, but the spread of Castroism among the young groups, the
intelligentsia, and the intellectuals, the students through many countries of Latin America. The candidates who are
running in Brazil now are running on an anti-American platform. Why should we who desire their freedom and
independence become the adversary while the Communists who are the real imperialists attract the country of the future.
I think one of the problems has been that the United States has not given off an image of vitality here at home and
abroad.
MR.CRONKITE: Senator, do you feel that we have time to convince people of the moral strength behind their
commitments, though at this time - that is if their -
SENATOR KENNEDY: - physical and moral strength. But you know, I am Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa of
the Foreign Relations Committee and we have really given very little attention to Africa and now suddenly 25 per cent
of all countries in the General Assembly are going to be African. The reason, in my opinion, that Khrushchev, in fact
more than any other, is coming to the United States is because he realizes that they stand in a very powerful position
today, and we have ignored them for years, and yet they will be voting on all these matters and he wants to extend his
influence to them. But you can't treat people with indifference, in Latin America, which we have for the last years, or in
Africa, and then suddenly expect in a moment of truth that they are going to feel that you're their friend.
MR.CRONKITE: In regard to convincing the Soviet Union of the moral strength behind our commitments, here is a
nation that hasn't any moral standards -
SENATOR KENNEDY: I don't think - I don't think the word "moral" applies to the Soviet Union, as I think they have
to feel that we have the physical power and will - the will. They are not going to be interested in our, they may be
impressed by the moral force of the United States and so will other countries and that is a very important part of our
strength. But I do think it's the will, the sense of public support for, public willingness to serve the country and to
maintain our commitments and to recognize that we live in a hazardous world.
Any politician who runs for office now saying if they are elected, life will be easy, is just not telling the truth.
MR.CRONKITE: Senator, there's an awful lot of mudslinging and charges and counter charges and truths and
falsehoods and something in between in a political campaign. What accusation against you has hurt you most
personally?
SENATOR KENNEDY: My skin has gotten thicker over the years and I don't really - I can't say that I've been
particularly, I don't think I've been unfairly treated in the last months. I think the religious issue is frustrating in that I've
made my views clear month after month and year after year. I've answered every question. My public record is spread
out over 14 years and yet, I spoke about it again in my acceptance speech, spoke about it in Houston, but it seems
difficult to ever give some people the assurances that they need that I'm as interested in religious liberty as they are. It's
frustrating, but after all, the Presidency is a powerful office, and I'm asking their support. I'm the first person of my faith,
the second one to ever run and they have a right to ask me questions and to have reassurance. But after giving the
answers and after my public record indicates that what I say I mean, then it becomes somewhat disappointing that I am
not able to get it across more effectively. However, I haven't been - on the whole, I've been fairly treated.
MR.CRONKITE: Does the thing that used to come up occasionally about softness towards McCarthyism, does that
bother you at all - personally?
SENATOR KENNEDY: No, because I - (inaudible).
MR.CRONKITE: This one rolls off?
SENATOR KENNEDY: I've been against nearly every legislative act that came up, so I don't - but those things, they
say everything about everybody. I just don't feel that, on the whole, I don't feel that I have been - the people make the
judgment, and I have been fairly judged so far.
MR.CRONKITE: Senator, one final question: What single quality do you think will be the most important that you take
to the White House?
SENATOR KENNEDY: Well, I think I've had - a historical view of the United States and of its relations through the
world. I've been interested in it really since I was very young, and I think a sense of the past where we have been in this
country, the relations in Europe, will be a great help in the future. I remember a story about many of the papers prepared
by some talented young men at the Versailles Conference, on the future of Europe, were based on recommendations by
Tallyrand at the end of the Napoleonic Wars at the meeting at Vienna. I think that Lincoln said, "Until you know where
you have been, you don't know where you are going." And that's the way I feel. I think a, of course, a sense of
responsibility, and a sense of great interest in our country, and also a sense of the historical past here and through the
world, I think are very valuable for the future.
MR.CRONKITE: Thank you much, Senator John Kennedy, for spending this time with us.
SENATOR KENNEDY: It's been good to have you with us. Thank you.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Sheraton Park
Hotel, Washington, DC, September 20, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: Governors and Senators, fellow Democrats, ladies and gentlemen: One hundred years ago this
year, the American people were engaged in a great Presidential campaign. One of the nominees, Abraham Lincoln, put
the issue to the country as to whether the country could exist half slave and half free. Today, one hundred years later, we
are now engaged in another Presidential campaign, and the great question confronting the country today is can the world
exist half slave and half free. Will it begin to move in the direction of freedom - (applause) - will it move in the direction
of freedom in the next half decade? Will it move in the direction of slavery? Or will the world be destroyed in another
nuclear war? That is the question which faces our generation, and it is the most solemn question that this nation or the
world has ever faced.
On my way to visit Russia in 1939, I passed through Poland and Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Czechoslovakia and
Hungary. They were free and independent nations, while the Soviet Union was isolated in its tyranny. But in 1955, I saw
the people of Eastern Europe again. Their freedom was gone and in its place was the most cruel change that one nation
ever had applied to another. No man could speak his mind. No home was save and there was no freedom of religious
worship. Mr. Khrushchev is in our country now, as he was a year ago, confident that all is going his way, smug in his
recent successes, and piously talking about peace, colonialism and disarmament.
But how can you talk of peace, Mr. Khrushchev, when you and your Chinese Communist friends are undermining the
peace every day, creating disorder and danger wherever you move? How can you talk of colonialism when you are
surrounded by your puppet dictators and when you hold in an iron grip a great empire stretching from East Berlin to
Viet Nam? How can you talk of the achievements of your system, even if you beat us again by putting a man into outer
space? For we know that while you may bring a man back from outer space, you rarely bring one back alive from
Siberia. (Applause) And that is why this nation and the next President must dedicate every effort of mind and spirit to
the fight for peace and freedom.
Shaking our finger at Mr. Khrushchev is not enough. Debating him at the United Nations is not enough. Restricting him
to Manhattan Island this week is not enough - (applause) - because this does not confine him in Asia, Africa or Latin
America. (Applause)
This is no ordinary enemy and this is no ordinary struggle. Extraordinary efforts are called for by every American who
knows the value of freedom and who believes that this country still has its greatest contributions to make to that cause.
Some people say it is wrong to say that we could be stronger, it is dangerous to say that we could be more secure. But in
times such as these, I say it is wrong and dangerous for any American to keep silent about our future if he is not satisfied
with what is being done to preserve that future. (Applause) For I am not satisfied when the President of the United States
is insulted by a dictator in Paris, or by a mob in Tokyo. I am not satisfied to be second in outer space and second to the
moon. I have heard all the excuses, but I believe not in an America that is "First, but," "First, if," or "First, when," but
"First," period. (Applause)
Finally I am not satisfied to have the hand of the Communists move 3,000 miles from East Berlin to our former good
neighbor in Cuba, only 90 miles from the coast of Florida, only eight minutes by jet. (Applause) Three years ago when I
was in Cuba, the American Ambassador was the second most influential man in Cuba. Today the Soviet Ambassador is.
These are not problems to be set aside in a neat compartment called foreign policy. My opponent says that he is a risk-
taker abroad and a conservative at home. I am neither. I am not a risk-taker abroad and I am not a conservative at home,
(Applause) if by being a conservative means that we say "No" to the next decade, if it means we look back instead of
ahead, if it means we lack the passion for our own people and lack vigor in our policies. When we waste food in this
country, when we condemn millions of our older citizens to live out their lives without security and without medical
care, when we condemn millions of our children to live in inadequate housing or go to schools part time, taught by
teachers inadequately paid, when we fail to make full use of our steel and our coal and our lead and our zinc, when we
permit racial or religious discrimination in any part of our country, what effect does that have on the rest of the world
where we are a small minority? This nation, if it is not to stand alone, has to earn the trust and respect of others.
The reason why Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman were successful in their policies around
the world, the reason that Franklin Roosevelt was greeted as a good neighbor in Latin America was because he was a
good neighbor in the United States. (Applause) And because the world knew that they practiced at home what they
preached abroad. (Applause)
But today the Communists stir up their troubles, their anti-American resentment that festers in too many countries,
particularly among the people who are hungry, sick and poor, and almost every area of crisis in the last years has been in
countries where the people are poor, Laos, and Cuba, and the Congo and Algeria and Iraq and Guatemala and all the
rest. These nations know that we are against Communism, but they want to know are we also for the people. They judge
us abroad by what we do here at home, by what our two great parties stand for here in the United States. A party that
opposes decent medical care for our older citizens, that opposes building classrooms for our children, that says though it
is the richest and most prosperous country in the world that it cannot afford the best educational system, that it opposes
paying a minimum wage to women who work long hours in some of our stores, we cannot on that basis appeal to people
in less fortunate countries that grew up reading Lincoln and Wilson and Roosevelt. (Applause)
They were the Presidents of the United States who led, and I think in the next eight years the United States is going to
have to lead again. We cannot be bound by the last eight years. We cannot be committed by a party of the past. We
cannot wait for Mr. Khrushchev's words, for the Communists are not satisfied with their gains of the last months, with
their lead in missiles and space, and their foothold in Cuba, and half of Indochina, and their new influence in Laos and
Africa and Asia. They will keep on driving and expanding and gaining without regard to all the kitch debates and
without regard to what goes on in the United Nations unless we have a President and a country in the 1960's that acts
first and acts fast. (Applause)
Much can be done in the next four years, but the Administrations of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt show that
the first 90 days of the next President's administration will be the crucial days. (Applause) Therefore, I think the next
President of the United States must assert leadership on three fronts:
First, on the military front. The next President must promptly send to the Congress a special message requesting the
funds and the authority necessary to give us a nuclear capacity second to none, making us invulnerable to any attack,
and have conventional forces so strong and so mobile that they can stamp out a brush fire war before it spreads. Only
then can we get Mr. Khrushchev and the Chinese Communists to talk about disarmament, because having the second
best defensive hand in the 1960's will be like having the second best poker hand. (Applause)
Secondly, on the non-military front, the next President must promptly request our more prosperous NATO allies, and I
hope Japan and others, to join with us in approaching each under-developed nation of the world, Latin America, Africa,
the Middle East and Asia, to request the establishment, either multilaterally, bilaterally or through the United Nations, of
regional development plans, coordinating and stimulating the flow of those areas of long term public and private capital,
surplus foods and technical assistance, with special emphasis on assisting those countries to educate their citizens so that
they can be prepared for self-government. (Applause)
Third, the next President of the United States must be prepared in the first three months of his office to send to the
Congress messages that will deal with wiping out poverty here in the United States, which will deal with the problems
of full employment, of a higher minimum wage, of better social security for our older citizens, more slum clearance, and
aid to depressed areas, more help for the marginal farmer and the sharecropper, a concentrated drive on illiteracy,
improved distribution of surplus foods because over 4 million Americans wait every month for those surplus food
packages, and a better economic break for all Americans regardless of where they live and regardless of their economic
status. (Applause)
The effect of an economic drive on poverty here in the United States, of going to work in this country, of moving our
country again, can have the greatest possible repercussions abroad in the security of the United States. (Applause)
These are, of course, only three items on a long agenda that will face the country and the President and the next
Congress in January 1961, and I do not pretend that we in the Democratic Party have all the answers to most difficult
questions. Senator Johnson and I do not run for the office of the Presidency and Vice Presidency promising that life is
going to be easy in the future. We do not campaign stressing what our country is going to do for us as a people. We
stress what we can do for the country, all of us. (Applause) We stress the point that if we meet our public and our private
responsibilities and obligations, if we recognize that self government requires qualities of self-denial and restraint, then
future historians will be able to say, "These were the great years of the American Republic, these were the years when
America began to move again."
But there is very little time. The enemy is lean and hungry and the United States is the only strong sentinel at the gate.
This is no time to say that we can out-talk our out-shout Mr. Khrushchev. I want to outdo him, to out-produce him.
(Applause)
I think we must prove to a watching world that we are the way of the future and that the Communist system is as old as
the Pharaoes. I think this nation will rise to the test, and when we do, Mr. Khrushchev will know that a new generation
of Americans is taking over this country, a generation that did not fight for world freedom at Anzio or the Solomons in
order to see it ripped away. (Applause) And he will know that America is once more on the move.
In 1780 in Hartford Connecticut, the skies at noon turned one day from blue to gray, and by mid-afternoon the city had
darkened over so densely that in that religious age men fell on their knees and begged a final blessing before the end
came. The Connecticut House of Representatives was in session, and many of the members clamored for immediate
adjournment. The Speaker of the House, one Colonel Davenport, came to his feet, and he silenced the din with these
words: "The Day of Judgment is either approaching or it is not. If it is not, there is no cause for adjournment. If it is, I
choose to be found doing my duty. I wish, therefore, that candles may be brought."
I hope that all of us in a difficult and somber time in our country's history may also bring candles to help illuminate our
country's way. Thank you. (Standing ovation.)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at State Fair,
Nashville, Tennessee, September 21, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: Governor Ellington, Senator Gore, members of Congress, ladies and gentlemen: I want to
express my great appreciation to you all and to the Governor for the generous invitation to come today. This fair is an
evidence of the traditional desire of Americans to improve themselves and improve their work. In the past two weeks, I
have been in the fairgrounds in Portland, Maine, in Palmer, Alaska, and in the States of Oregon and California. In every
fair we see Americans collecting themselves together and preparing themselves for a better future. I am particularly glad
to come to this fair on Farmers Day. I have been in the Congress for 14 years and I come from a section of the United
States which does not directly depend on agriculture. But if the economy and experience of our country has told us
anything, if the lesson of the 20's and the lesson of the 50's has any meaning for us today, it is that we cannot be
prosperous as a nation unless agriculture is prosperous also. (Applause)
I must say that I wholly disagree with the programs put forward by this administration for the support of American
agriculture, because it has brought the dairy farmer of this country to an average income across the nation that he had
between 1939 and 1941. The only program which has worked well in recent years has been the program on tobacco, and
the reason has been because we have had a high support price and an effective balance between the supply and demand.
(Applause) My judgment is that a new administration must put forward an agricultural program which has two basic
ingredients: First, a balance between supply and demand. A determination must be made as to how much we can
usefully consume here in the United States, how much we need for our surplus foods to take care of our own people, and
how much we can usefully distribute in the cause of peace around the world. And then we should put a limit on the
production. Five per cent surplus production in milk or in cheese or butter or tobacco or wheat or corn breaks the market
price 15 or 20 per cent. I think effective control with a high support price is the common denominator which must affect
all agricultural programs across the United States, if we are going to have security for the American farmer. (Applause)
Therefore, though I come from a section which is not agricultural, I know enough about the experience of our country to
know that if our agriculture is prosperous, we will be prosperous in our cities. If our cities are prosperous, we will be
prosperous; we will be prosperous in our country. A rising tide lifts all boats, and I preach the doctrine of the
interdependence of the American economy: A strong America from one shore to another, north and south, east and west,
in which all Americans share their prosperity. I want to express my appreciation. I come as the Democratic nominee for
the office of the President, and I come to this area of Tennessee which was the home of Andrew Jackson, who helped
found the Party which I now lead. I therefore am honored to come to this state, and I am grateful to you all for the
courtesy in permitting me to say hello. Thank you. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Municipal
Auditorium, Sioux City, Iowa, September 21, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: Ladies and gentlemen: I want to express my appreciation to all of you, to my friend Mr. Green
from Nebraska, who I understand spoke for two hours and 45 minutes tonight and filled in most of the program, and to
all of you for being willing to wait so long. We were in Tennessee all day by way of Washington, and, therefore, we
were on a good cause. I want to express my appreciation at your coming to this hall tonight and filling it for a
Democratic rally. (Applause) I want to express my appreciation for the generous introduction of your distinguished
Governor, Governor Loveless. I think that there is every prospect that I would not be here tonight, that I would not be
the Standard Bearer of the Democratic Party, that I would not have the opportunity to present the issues on behalf of the
Democratic Party this year, if it had not been for the support given to me at the convention by your distinguished
Governor and the members of the Iowa delegation. (Applause)
So I am here tonight to express my appreciation to him and to all of you, an in addition he has been kind enough to serve
as Chairman of our Advisory Committee on Agricultural Policy. I must say that if we are successful, and if he is
advising, the American farmer I think will get a better deal than they will get from being advised by the advisors that
Mr. Nixon has appointed, especially the ones from this district. (Applause)
That is a long sentence, but you do get the idea. (Laughter) I want to also say that the State of Iowa, even though I come
from a different state - this is one country - I think the State of Iowa has an opportunity to continue the same kind of
responsible government which Governor Loveless has given this state, when you elect Dick McManus the next
Governor of the State of Iowa. I have known him for a great many years, and I think he can do a good job. (Applause)
I hope that you will send a young man - this ticket is well balanced, O'Brien, McManus and Kennedy - (Laughter) - I
hope you will send a young man - and Loveless - I hope you will send a young man down there to represent this district.
I thought he made in a short time about as concise and effective a political speech as I have heard. The only thing is that
he stopped too soon. He was about to suggest the remedies for the agricultural problems and I would have liked to have
heard him. But we will hear him on television. I think that he deserves the support of this district, because you cannot
live in Iowa, you cannot depend on a good agricultural economy, and possibly be satisfied with the kind of leadership
which this administration and the Republicans in the House and Senate have given in the search for a new and effective
program. I hope you elect Congressman O'Brien, and I don't hold his name against him. (Laughter and applause)
I come from a non-agricultural State, Massachusetts, and therefore, I am sure that there are some farmers in Iowa and
South Dakota and North Dakota who say, "Why should we elect someone from New England? Why shouldn't we elect a
farmer?" Well, there is no farmer up for the office this year. Whittier, California, is not one of the great agricultural
sections of the United States. (Laughter) But I think there is more to it than that. That is that I consider the agricultural
income to be the No. 1 problem that the United States faces. It is not just a problem for Iowa, Indiana, or the Dakotas,
but it is a problem for the United States of America. I don't think that there is any accident that the farm income which
has declined over the past few years has also seen Detroit, Michigan, have a relatively secondary year in the sale of
automobiles, because farmers are the No. 1 market for automobiles in the United States. I don't think it is entirely
unconnected that we find a country which has the greatest capacity to produce steel in the world, producing steel at 50
percent of capacity. The economy of the United States is interconnected. It is interdependent. It is interrelated. When
there is a recession on the farm, sooner or later, and the Twenties taught us it was sooner, there is a recession in the
cities.
So I speak tonight as the Standard Bearer for a national party which is represented east and west, north and south whose
strength has been for much of its history, has been the support it has received from the O'Briens and others from the
western United States who spoke for the farmer and the small businessman. I come here tonight pledging that if I am
successful in this campaign that I will speak as an American to try to solve what is at one time the most fruitful and
promising opportunity we have, and on the other hand, it represents the greatest technological revolution the world has
ever seen. An American said to me the other day that if Mr. Khrushchev could have 50 American scientists or 50 of the
best American farmers he would take the American farmers and he would be right, because the solution to the
staggering problem of a shortage of food which faces the world, which requires 70 and 80 and 85 per cent of the world's
population to spend their day searching for food we have solved here in the United States, and we consider it out No. 1
problem - surpluses which are, in effect, blessings from the Lord on this country at a time when, as Congressman
O'Brien, to be, said, we are fighting a battle for men's minds. We have in Iowa more wealth than we ever mined in the
gold of California, and it comes out of the ground. I do not say the solution to the problem of a balance between supply
and demand is an easy one. But I do say that this administration has not had the answer. A reporter asked President
Eisenhower about a month ago what suggestions and ideas Mr. Nixon had had, and the President said, "Give me a week
and I will let you know."
Well, after the next week, the press conference was called off, and another week went by. Then at the next press
conference, no one asked the President what the idea was, but I am here to say what the idea was, and it was described
by Mr. Benson earlier this year. Mr. Benson may not be the most unusual Secretary of Agriculture in history, as Mr.
Nixon once described him, but he is a truthful man. He said early this year that Mr. Nixon was one of the architects of
his farm program. There it is. I am ready to give it to you. Here is the answer we have been waiting for a month, one
idea suggested by the Vice President; and we have it in the Benson farm program. (Applause)
People of this state will have to make a judgment in the next six weeks as to which party and which candidate they
should support. I speak tomorrow at the Plowing Contest in South Dakota, and the Vice President of the United States
speaks the next day. I cannot predict how different our messages will be. The same phrases perhaps will be used, cost-
price squeeze, the necessity of a good income for the farmer, the necessity of distributing our surplus food, all the rest. I
think a better judgment from any speeches which may be made by any candidates during the next six weeks is written in
the record of the last eight years, and written in the record of the Democratic Party in the last 25 years, and written in the
Republican Party during the same period of time, by their fruits you shall know them. And I think the farmers of this
state can make a judgment based on vote after vote in the Congress in the last five or six years on every effort made to
increase income for our farmers, five vetoes - an attempt made, effort after effort, to try to improve a difficult situation,
without success. I think the speeches weighed on that scale may count for little. I think the record is clear. I think there is
an entirely different philosophy which motivates the Republican Party from the Democratic Party in its history, and not
just in agriculture. During the session of August, when we tried to get medical care for our older citizens, we got 44
Democrats and one Republican. Governor Rockefeller was right when he rejected today the program that the Congress
finally passed, and that the President signed. It is a useless and wasteful bill. Far better it would have been to have put
that under social security as we recommended it. We were threatened with a veto and we were defeated. (Applause)
I spend today in Iowa and Tennessee. The great issue in this campaign, of course, is the struggle for peace. I think in
Tennessee, and Iowa, we have learned a wise lesson. I spent today in the Tennessee Valley and I received a letter tonight
on the plane from one of the men who built the Tennessee Valley. He described how project after project had sprung up
in the southeast Persia, in the Indus River, in Colombia, and all over the world, modeled after what we did in the
Tennessee Valley. Because we could do it, they wanted to do it. Because we showed them that a free society was able to
organize its resources, other countries wanted to come to our country and learn how to do it and follow our example, the
most effective blow in the struggle for peace that we could have waged. I see the same thing in Iowa. Here in this rich
and productive state, which has seen this extraordinary revolution in agricultural production in the last fifty years, we
show people around the world how to do it.
The reason Mr. Khrushchev comes here is because he knows in our own country, almost unknown to our people, we
have had a revolution in the last 50 years which can have more significance and bring more happiness and more well-
being to people than Sputnik or any other scientific discovery, almost, in this century - how to produce food with a few
people and feed them well. That is the secret of Iowa, just as the secret of Tennessee is how to harness the resources of
the land and use it for the benefit of the people. These programs, I think, are the kind of programs which in the past and
again in the future the Democratic Party has been identified. It is a source of pride to me that I am able to represent this
party on this occasion, because the more I look at the record, the more I study the leadership which our parties have
given, the more study the record of the men whom the Democrats have produced in the last 50 years to lead this country,
Wilson, Roosevelt, and Truman, and the men who have been produced to lead the Republican Party, since the end of
Theodore Roosevelt's administration, how glad I am that I am a Democrat and how proud I am to carry our banner.
(Applause)
A strong America is our objective, a strong country, which can live in peace, and set an example to men all over the
world. We wish to show men and women all over the world that we are able to harness the resources of our society, that
what we have done they can do, and be strong in the meantime to protect ourselves against any action so that we can
keep the peace. Beneath that great shield and beneath that umbrella, beneath that wall, build the kind of society which
can serve as an inspiration to people around the world, to cause people to think that the people of this country are on the
move, that they are solving their problems, that they are feeding their people, that they are building better cities, that
they are using their natural resources, that they are cleansing their water, that they are developing their power, that they
are on the move, that they are a vital society which represents the future, not the past.
We are not finished. We are on the way in this country. We have more to offer than any society ever developed. The
Communist society is hostile to the basic aspirations of the people of Latin America, Africa and Asia, and Eastern
Europe, and it is hostile to the aspirations of the Russians. If we can maintain our strength, if we can maintain those
qualities of character and restraint and self-discipline and will, if we bring imagination and energy to the solution of the
problems that we face, it we mobilize ourselves for the public interest I believe this country will not only endure, but
prevail. I think the future can be bright. I ask your support in this campaign because I think we have a chance to serve
our country in a difficult and dangerous period. It requires the best from all of us. It requires your best in this district and
in this state and in this country. But the country is worth it. We have our chance in our generation to contribute to the
welfare of our country. I think it is a chance that all of us welcome. We want to lead, and we want this country to move
again. Thank you. (Standing ovation.)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Sioux City, Iowa,

September 22, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: Governor Loveless, Mrs. Price, ladies and gentlemen. I want to express my appreciation to you
for your hospitality. One of the interesting things in running for the Presidency is that you have to be prepared to speak
at 11 o'clock at night or 8 in the morning. I am delighted to come. You have all contributed heavily. You have been
touched deeply by coming to this breakfast. But it is most useful and most worthwhile. (Laughter) I don't think it is
presumptuous in thinking that this is an important election. The Congress has vast powers. I suppose really since the
Administration of Franklin Roosevelt, every decision of government affects the lives of all of us. I would say that that is
more true in the Sixties than it has ever been before. It deserves some of our attention, it deserves some of our lives,
whether you be farmers or small businessmen or professional men or housewives. There is not any doubt that the
decisions of the next President and the next Senate and the next Congress, and the Governor of this state, will affect for
good or for bad not only your lives, but the lives of your children, your education, your health, your income, your taxes,
you security, the peace of the world, housing, the kind of business we have in this country.
We have been successful in maintaining a free society at the same time the government, state and national, plays a great
role in our lives. The question that is before us in the Sixties is whether a free society can compete unsuccessfully with a
totalitarian society. When the Communists, both Chinese and Russian, are able to mobilize all of the resources to serve
the state, when they operate a garrison state, when they are fully mobilized for the cold war, whether we can pursue a
free society and pursue our own lives, and yet have sufficient public purpose to maintain our freedom, I think that is the
big question that is before the United States, which transcends party differences.
I think it is to that question that the next administration and the next Congress will have to devote itself. How can we
survive in a dangerous world and still maintain our freedom? I think we can. I think the free system happens to fit the
best with the desires of the people very place [sic]. I think the experience in many ways of Africa in the last three or four
years, and the experience of Eastern Europe, gives me the most encouragement, in spite of all the difficulties in the
Congo, and that is because of the desire of these people to be free and independent. In the last two or three months we
have had eight countries, or more, break away and become independent. We had a tremendous number join the United
Nations the other day. In other words, there is a basic, strong passion running through the world to be free and
independent. We saw it in East Germany, we saw it in Hungary, we saw it in Poland, and we saw it in Africa. In Eastern
Europe it was operating against the Communists. In Africa it was operating against the colonial powers. We have seen it
in our own history. We have seen it in Latin America. How can people who desire to be free and independent, who will
stop at nothing to gain their own independence, how can they possibly submit themselves to the tyranny of the
Communists in the next three or four years? I consider this desire to be independent the strongest force for freedom of
our security in the world. We support that cause or at least we should.
One of the real criticisms that I have of the United States foreign policy has been that we have not associated ourselves
strongly enough since the end of World War II with this tremendous force which is sweeping the world. I thought we
should have in Indochina. I thought we should have in North Africa. I think we should in all of Africa. These people
may not be able successfully to maintain the kind of democracy that we have, but their desire to be free is our most
valuable weapon. We do not wish to dominate them; the Communists do. Therefore, I look to the future with some
trepidation and concern, but also with some hope. I think this is the strong force that I think is going to favor the cause
of freedom with which we are intimately associated. I think we need an administration, which is alert to these kinds of
changes. When the Congo difficulty began, and I don't know why I am talking about Africa at Sioux City, except this is
the kind of problem we will have to deal with, we offered 300 scholarships to the Congo, for young men to come over
here, even though there are less than 15 college graduates in all of the Congo, to operate a free society. Why should we
suddenly offer 300 scholarships to the Congo when we have not offered nearly that number to all of Africa? We do it in
the point of turmoil. Proposals are made for the relief of Latin America because of our difficulties with Castro; proposals
are made for aid to the Congo because of our difficulties with Lumumba. Couldn't we look to the future? Couldn't we
look through the veil of tomorrow and make some decision which would make it possible for us to foresee events?
The number of students here from Africa, by the government, number less than 200. There are a number here on private
scholarships, many more than that. But it indicates a handful of students from all of these countries where the need is for
greater education. I think this administration has not looked to the future and recognized the kind of needs we will have
to have in foreign policy.
And what is true of foreign policy is true in domestic policy. Therefore, while I feel these are sophisticated issues, and
while people talk about foreign policy and the issue of peace and security, and that is the basic issue, nevertheless, to get
peace, to get security, I think we have to have an administration with imagination, and with a consuming interest in the
problems that face us.
I hope that if we are successful - and it is not, as I said before, a fight merely between Mr. Nixon and myself, we lead
two parties, two forces, two sources of energy. I happen to think that the Democratic Party has the kind of vitality,
curiosity, that attracts people who happen to have new ideas and be associated with the future. It always has.
If you are a standpatter, you don't join the Democratic Party; you go over to the Republican Party. And they have, for
the last 100 years, since Lincoln's death, with the exception of Theodore Roosevelt. But if you look to the future, if you
have concern, if you have a vague sense of satisfaction with what is going on and a feeling we can do better, I think you
should be with our party, whether it is the agricultural policy in this country, whether it is the needs of the State of Iowa,
whether it is the problems facing the United States, I happen to think that the Democratic Party has a contribution to
make in the Sixties.
Your presence here indicates that you feel the same I think Iowa and this district, this state, are gifted with exceptional
candidates. Governor Loveless' record is known. I have no doubt he is going to be successful. Mr. McManus has been
an exceptional young figure who has come out of the state, and I think he will carry on strong. Mr. O'Brien, I think, will
speak strongly for this district and the country. And I hope that if I am elected I will speak for this district, Iowa, the
United States, and the course of freedom. Thank you. (Standing ovation)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Airport Rally,

Fort Dodge, Iowa, September 22, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: Merwin, I am very grateful for the generous introduction of Merwin Coad, with whom I served
in the Congress for several years, and who has been an advisor and a friend of mine, particularly on the subject of
agriculture. So I am most grateful to be his guest today. I am confident that this district, which is forward-looking, is
going to have the sound judgment on behalf of its own interests and those of the United States to send him back to
Congress with a warm majority. (Applause) And he can renew his service there with a Senator from Iowa, who will
speak as the former Governor of this state, who was Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Agriculture to the
Democratic Party prior to the convention, and who is now Chairman of Farmers for Kennedy and Johnson, your
distinguished Governor, and your next United States Senator, Herschel Loveless. (Applause) The way is clear now for
Herschel Loveless to be succeeded as Governor by your Lt. Governor and your next Governor of the State of Iowa, Nick
McManus. (Applause)
We are about to depart and go to South Dakota, where I am supposed to speak this afternoon on behalf of the
Democratic Party on Agriculture. I think the farmers of the United States have a serious decision to make. I remember
hearing President Truman, and undoubtedly you heard him make this speech, that the farmers maybe deserved what they
got because they voted Republican in 1952. (Laughter)
I am not sure that that judgment is not somewhat harsh, because if you recall the farmers voted in 1952 because they
were informed by the Republican Party in 1952 that they were going to get 100 per cent parity support prices in the
market. (Applause)
Well, now we have had eight years. The farmer in 1960 is not the farmer of 1952. He has had eight years to study the
fruits of his judgment of 1952. (Applause) We have heard a good deal about Operation Consume and Operation
Distribution and Operation Production, and will hear more tomorrow when the Vice President of the United States
addresses the farmers on his farm program. But I do not come to the farmers today, nor does the Vice President come to
the farmers tomorrow, out of the blue. This matter before us has been before us not merely for eight years, but for 25
years. I think the farmers of the United States can make a clear and precise judgment as to which party, day in, day out,
month after month, year after year, has been more concerned with the income of the farmers of this country, and I have
no doubt that when all the speeches are separated, when all the promises of this campaign are analyzed, I think that we
should look at the record. The Bible says, "By their fruits you shall know them." One hundred per cent parity in 1952,
and I don't know what we are going to hear tomorrow. But we have the record of the last eight years. We have Mr.
Benson's own statement that Mr. Nixon was a major participant in the development of the Benson program, and Mr.
Benson may not be, as Mr. Nixon says, the greatest Secretary of Agriculture in history, but he is a truthful man.
(Laughter and applause)
I don't say there is any easy answer, but I do say that the government and the farmers, working together, recognizing that
surpluses which are unconsumed by our own people and by people around the world, break the price. The balance
between supply and demand, useful supply, supply to our own people, and the hungry people around the world, I think
to bring that kind of supply into balance with that kind of demand, I think can bring us a successful farm program.
I spent a month in West Virginia, and I saw 100,000 families that wait for surplus food packages which include some
grain, cornmeal, rice and this summer they are going to add lard. Why should they have to wait to add lard in the richest
country on earth? Operation Consume I did not see in West Virginia, and there are 4 million people in the United States
who wait every month for surplus food packages to sustain their lives. Yet this administration has opposed a food stamp
program. It has opposed any worthwhile and realistic way of distributing our food to our people. I would like to see the
next President of the United States take 100 acres of farm land and say, "This percentage can be grown for distribution
at a decent price in the market place for our people here at home. This percentage can be sold in the market places of the
world for a decent price. This percentage of that 100 acres will be for our own people, for school children, for surplus
food, for our older people who get surplus food packages; that percentage will be used for the American people. This
percentage will be used and not called a surplus, but will be used as an asset in the great struggle of the Sixties to decide
whether the underdeveloped world, where people starve by the millions, will come with us or with the Communists."
I said last night if Mr. Khrushchev had the choice between 50 scientists and 50 American farmers, he would take the
farmers and be right, because the secret of growing food with only a small percentage of the population is the great asset
which we have in the Sixties, and an asset greater than Sputnik and more meaningful in the long run than any other asset
that this country has - to grow, therefore, the remaining percentage, to determine which part of that percentage of the
100 acres can be used to distribute food usefully through the United Nations and by our own agreements, food for peace.
Everyone talks about it, but it has not been sustained and supported since we put it forward in 1956 and 1957. Hubert
Humphrey and Orville and the others put it forward as a program to spread the message around the world that the
American people were not interested just in the cold war, not just in the fight against the Communism, but were
interested in people for people's sake. That is the spirit which motivated Franklin Roosevelt and Wilson and Truman,
and if we are going to have influence, if we are going to stand up to Mr. Khrushchev, it isn't just a question of arguments
in the kitchen or out of the kitchen; it is having policies which move this country and make it stand for something
around the world.
I ask your support in the campaign, not because I am the candidate, but because I think that this country has a great
chance in the Sixties, and because after 14 years in the Congress, and after 18 years in the service of our country, all of
us want the best for our country, and I think this year we can do better. Thank you. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Airport Rally,

Fargo, North Dakota, September 22, 1960
This is a transcription of this press conference made for the convenience of readers and researchers. Two copies of a
single version of the text exist in the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. The
version in the Pre-Presidential papers is apparently a verbatim transcript from a contemporary recording.
SENATOR KENNEDY: My friend and colleague, Senator Burdick, State Chairman Abner Lawson, Mrs. Knudsen, the
next Congresswoman from Minnesota, Mr. Anderson, the next Congressman from this district, distinguished guests,
ladies and gentlemen: I want to express my appreciation to all of you for being kind enough to wait at the airport for my
sister and myself, and also my regret for being so late. In case any of you wanted to run for the Presidency, I would say
we started this morning in Iowa, we spoke in South Dakota, we speak now in North Dakota, we speak at a dinner
meeting in Montana and end up in Wyoming tonight. I think that my election chief thinks that the election is October 8
rather than November 8. (Laughter)
In any case, we are delighted to be here. I am glad to be here, but there is no doubt also that I would probably not be
here if it were not for the support that the Democrats gave me at the National Convention. I doubt very much that I
would be nominated. (Applause) So I come here tonight with the hope that having gotten me so far that North Dakota
would be willing to help me along the rest of the way. (Applause)
The sun is setting and I understand there are no lights - the lights are going out for the Republican Party all over the
United States. (Laughter) But I want to say one or two things. I spoke this afternoon at the plowing contest on what I
consider to be the No. 1 domestic problem which the United States faces, and that is the sharp decline in agricultural
income. I think the farmers of North Dakota and the farmers of South Dakota and of Minnesota and Montana have a
very clear choice. The question is which party and which candidate can meet their problems in this state, and meet their
problems in this country. They have heard from this Democratic Party and they have heard from the Republican Party. I
remember when President Truman used to say that the farmers had themselves to blame for their difficulties because
they voted Republican in 1952. But I don’t hold that view wholly, because in 1952, the farmers were informed that the
Republican Party stood for 100 per cent parity not once but at least three times.
In this general geographical area, the Republican candidate for the Presidency, joined by the Republican candidate for
the Vice Presidency, assured the farmers that they were in favor of 100 per cent parity in the market place. Now it is
eight years later. Now when the Republican candidate for the Presidency comes out with campaign assurances and
campaign promises, you have the right to make a judgment, based on the experience of the last eight years, as to which
candidate and which party, and members of which ground stand strongest for agricultural income in the United States at
this time. I think the Democrats do, in this state, in Minnesota, in South Dakota and in Montana. (Applause)
I described the type of agricultural program which we wanted and I applied to wheat, and I would like to have you listen
to it exactly. It is very short. And that is here is the way we would handle the problem facing the wheat growers, and I
think comparable programs could be worked out for other commodities.
Under this wheat program, the Secretary of Agriculture would determine the amount of wheat that would be consumed
here and abroad at parity income prices. This quota would be distributed among farmers on the basis of their historical
record of production, and they would be issued marketing certificates, permitting them to market their share of the
national quota. All wheat sold for primary use must be accompanied by marketing certificates. As a condition of
receiving a certificate, each farmer would be required to retire a small fixed percentage of his wheat acreage. This is not
a production control program. It does not tell any farmer how much he can produce or in what manner, but it does limit
his marketing for primary use. This is the kind of program which has been endorsed and originally worked out by the
National Association of Wheat Growers, and I have endorsed it fully.
I think your distinguished Senators from this area of the United States have supported it, and I think it offers far more
sense than the programs which this administration has worked out and offered the American framer during the past eight
years, 100 per cent of parity in the market place in 1952 and corn at 65 per cent of parity in 1960.
I think the record is clear. I would like your support in this campaign. I ask your help, not just as farmers, and not just as
citizens of North Dakota. I ask your help as fellow Americans in a difficult time in the life of our country. I don't think
any candidate for the office of the Presidency can possibly run in 1960 saying that the problems are easy, or that the
solutions are easy. The problems are difficult, the solutions are difficult, and the burden that will be placed on the
shoulders of the Americans in the Sixties will be heavier than they have been for 100 years. But I do think it is possible
to move in this country. I don't say what we are doing now is as good as we can do. This is a great country, but I think it
must be a greater country. We occupy a position of leadership in the world, but I think we can do far better, than our
record of the past two or three or four years.
Can you tell me anywhere in a crisis, from Cuba to the Congo to Laos, where the United States has been ahead of
events? We have held out our hands of friendship to the people of Latin America before we had to, where we did it at
our own free will rather than at the point of Castro's pistol? We go now and offer a program of Africa to the United
Nations. We offer a program of aid. We offer scholarships to the Congo. Did anyone in this administration talk about
Africa before six months ago? I am Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I
can tell you they did not.
Next January or February India will face a major financial crisis unless she receives some financial assistance. Does
anyone in the administration talk about India today? Does anyone look to the future? Does anyone make a judgment that
such and such a thing will happen in six months and let's do something about it now? Is it necessary for a country to go
Communist, or an area, before the United States begins to look at it? That isn't the way foreign policy was conducted
under the administration of Franklin Roosevelt. We looked ahead, whether it was in agriculture here in this state, or in
foreign policy around the world.
We must not react; we must show some leadership, some judgment of events, before they hit us. That is what leadership
is; not a response but a judgment of the future, and an indication of what policies will bring the most secure future.
The Democratic Party is the oldest party on earth that is still functioning, but I think in many ways its common
denominator has been its willingness to break new ground, to look to the future. The problems we face now are entirely
new. Nothing that has happened in the last two or three decades gives us any assurances for the future. Therefore, I put
my confidence in those who are ready and who have shown their willingness to face the future and to seed it and to
make it ours.
I ask your help in this campaign, not merely as citizens of North Dakota, or citizens of the central United States, but as
citizens concerned about the future of freedom in the United States, and the future of freedom around the world. We can
do better. That is the issue. Those who feel we can do better, those who feel we can make a better life in this country,
those who feel that the United States can re-establish its leadership, as a strong and vital country, who can stand for
strong image in a world in doubt, I would like their help. I would like them to join Senator Johnson and myself, and
Senator Burdick and others, in trying to fight for a stronger and freer country. Thank you very much. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Cheyenne,

Wyoming, September 23, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. One text of the speech, a press
release transcript, exists in the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library.
SENATOR KENNEDY: My friend and colleague, Senator McGee, your distinguished Governor, Governor Hickey,
Secretary of State Jack Gage, your State Chairman, Teno Roncalio, your National Committeeman, Tracy McCraken and
Mrs. McCraken; your next United States Senator, Ray Whitaker, your next United States Congressman, Hep Armstrong,
ladies and gentlemen: I first of all want to express on behalf of my sister and myself my great gratitude to all of you for
being kind enough to have this breakfast and make it almost lunch. (Laughter) I understand from Tracy that some of you
have driven nearly three or four hundred miles to be here this morning. Yesterday morning we were in Iowa, and since
that time we have been in five states, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Colorado, and now Wyoming. We have
come, therefore, all of us, great distances, and I think we have come great distances since the Democratic Convention at
Los Angeles. I know that Wyoming is a small state, relatively, but it is a fact that Wyoming, which was not talked about
as a key state in the days before the convention, when they were talking about what California and what Pennsylvania
and what New York, and Illinois would do at the convention, not very many people talked about what Wyoming would
do, and yet, as you know Wyoming did it. (Applause)
So you can expect in other days, other candidates, will all be coming here. I don't know whether it is going to be that
close in November. I don't know whether Mr. Nixon and I will be three votes apart, but it is possible we will be. If so,
Wyoming having gotten us this far, we would like to have you take us the rest of the way on November 8. (Applause)
My debt of gratitude, therefore, to everyone in this room and everyone at the head table, goes very deep. As Gail said, I
have been to this state five times. My brother, Teddy, has been here ten times, and I think that the Kennedys have a high
regard and affection for the State of Wyoming. (Applause)
Bobby has been here, I guess, several times. We have been here more than we have been to New York State. I don't
know what the significance is, but in any case, I am delighted to be back here this morning. (Applause) I am delighted to
be here because this is an important election, and because Wyoming elects not only a President of the United States this
year, but it elects a United States Senator and a Congressman. The Electoral College and the organization of the states is
an interesting business. New York has 15 million people, Wyoming has 300,000 people; you have one Congressman,
they have many Congressmen – you have more than that? (Laughter) Odd people? Well, they have a few in New York, I
guess. (Laughter) But in any case, you have two Senators and New York has two Senators. This causes a great deal of
heartburn in New York but it should be a source of pride and satisfaction to you that when Wyoming votes, it votes the
same number of United States Senators as the State of New York, and the State of Massachusetts, and the State of
California. All states are equal, and, therefore, the responsibility on the people of Wyoming is to make sure that they
send members to the United States Senate who speak not only for Wyoming, who serve not only as ambassadors from
this state, but also speak for the United States and speak for the public interest, and that, I think has been the
contribution which Senator O'Mahoney has made to the United States Senate and Gail McGee now makes. They speak
for this state, they speak for its interests, they speak for its development, they speak for its needs, but they also speak for
the country. And, therefore, our system works, and Wyoming and the United States flourish together. (Applause)
I think we have a chance to carry on that tradition. To send as a successor to Senator O'Mahoney, who grew up in
Chelsea, Massachusetts, and who saw the wisdom and came west, I think we have a chance to carry on that tradition
when you elect Ray Whitaker as United States Senator next November 8. (Applause)
Actually, as you know, the Constitution of the Untied States confines and limits the power of Senators. We are given the
right to approve Presidential nominations, and to ratify treaties. But the House of Representatives is given the two great
powers which are the hallmark of a self-governing society: One, the power to appropriate money, and the second is the
power to levy taxes. If you don't like the way your taxes are, if you don't like the way your money is being spent, write
to the House of Representatives, not to the United States Senate, because our powers and responsibilities are somewhat
different. Therefore in sending a man to fulfill these two functions, we want a man of responsibility and competence and
energy. I therefore am sure that the people of this state will send to the House of Representatives to share in the great
constitutional powers given to that body, Hep Armstrong, with whom I served in the Navy and hope to serve in the
Government of the United States next November. (Applause)
During this campaign, there are many efforts made to divide domestic and foreign problems and I don't hold that view. I
think there is a great interrelationship between the problems which face us here in the United States and the problems
which face us around the world. I think if the United States is moving ahead here at home the United States power and
prestige in the world will be strong. If we are standing still here at home, then we stand still around the world. I think in
other words, as Gail McGee suggested, that the 14 points of Woodrow Wilson were the logical extension of the New
Freedom here in the United States. (Applause) And the Good Neighbor Policy of Franklin Roosevelt had its counterpart
in his domestic policy of the New Deal. And the Marshall Plan and NATO and the Truman Doctrine carried out in
foreign policy under the administration of Harry Truman and Point IV, all had their logical extension in the domestic
policy of President Truman here in the United States. I say that because I think that there is a direct relationship between
the efforts that we make here in the Sixties, here in the West, here in the State of Wyoming, here in the United States,
and what we do around the world.
Two days ago I spent the day in Tennessee. I think that there is a direct relationship between what was done in the
Tennessee Valley by Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic Party in the Thirties, and what other countries in Africa
and the Middle East and Asia are attempting to do to develop their own natural resources. I stand and you stand today in
the middle of the Great Plains of the United States. There are great plains in Africa, and in my judgment Africa will be
one of the keys to the future. The people of Africa want to develop their resources. They want to develop their resources
of the great plains of Africa and they look to see what to do here to develop the resources, of the Great Plains of the
United States.
I don't think that there can be any greater disservice to the cause of the United States and the cause of freedom than for
any political party at this watershed of history to put forward a policy for developing the resources of the United States
of no new starts. I don't say that we can do everything in the Sixties, but I say we can move and start and go ahead, and I
think it is that spirit which separates our two parties. (Applause)
I come from Massachusetts, but it is a source of satisfaction and pride that the two Americans who did more to develop
the resources of the West both came from New York, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt, and they did it
because they saw it not as a state problem, not as a regional problem, but as a national opportunity, and it is in that spirit
that I look to the future of the Great Plains of the United States in the Sixties.
We are going to have over 300 million people living in this country in the year 2000. Many of them will live in this
state. We are going to have to make sure that we pass on to our children a country which is using natural resources given
to us by the Lord to the maximum; that every drop of water that flows to the ocean first serves a useful and beneficial
purpose; that the resources of the land are used, whether it is agriculture or whether it is oil or minerals; that we move
ahead here in the West and move ahead here in the United States. I think that there is a direct relationship between the
policy of no new starts in developing our water and power resources, and irrigation and reclamation and conservation,
and the fact that our agricultural income has dropped so sharply in the United States in recent years, and the fact that we
are using our steel capacity 50 per cent of capacity. Pittsburgh, Wyoming, Montana, Wisconsin are all tied together. A
rising tide lifts all the boats. If we are moving ahead here in the West, if we are moving ahead in agriculture, if we are
moving ahead in industry, if we have an administration that looks ahead, then the country prospers. But if one section of
the country is strangled, if one section of the country is standing still, then sooner or later a dropping tide drops all the
boats, whether the boats are in Boston or whether they are in this community.
I can assure you that if we are successful that we plan to move ahead as a national administration, with the support of the
Congress, in using and developing the resources which our country has. This is a struggle, not only for a better standard
of living for our people, but it is also a showcase. As Edmund Burke said about England in his day, "We sit on a
conspicuous stage", what we do here, what we fail to do, affects the cause of freedom around the world. Therefore, I can
think of no more sober obligation on the next administration and the next President and the next Congress than to move
ahead in this country, develop our resources, prevent the blight which is going to stain the development of the West
unless we make sure that everything that we have here is used usefully for our people.
The Tennessee Valley in Tennessee, the Northwest Power Development, the resources of Wyoming, all harnessed
together, the Missouri River, the Columbia River, the Mississippi River, the Tennessee River - all of them harnessed
together serve as a great network of strength, a stream of strength in this country which is going to be tested to its
utmost. So I come here today not saying that the future is easy, but saying that the future can be bright. I don't take the
view that everything that is being done is being done to the maximum. I think the difference between the Republicans
and the Democrats in 1960 is that we both think it is a great country, but we think it must be greater. We both think it is
a powerful country, but we think it must be more powerful. We both think it stands as the sentinel at the gate for
freedom, but we think we can do a better job. I think that has been true of our party ever since the administration of
Theodore Roosevelt, and I think we can do a job in the Sixties. (Applause)
I have asked Senator Magnuson, who is the Chairman of our Resources Advisory Committee, to hold a conference on
resources and mineral use here in the City of Casper in the State of Wyoming during the coming weeks, because I think
we should identify ourselves in the coming weeks with the kind of programs we are going to carry out in January. If
there is any lesson which history has taught of the administrations of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, it is the
essentiality of previous planning for successful action by a new administration. Unless we decide now what we are
going to do in January, February, March and April, if we should be successful, we will fail to use the golden time which
the next administration will have. I come here today speaking not for Wyoming or Massachusetts, but speaking for a
national party which believes in the future of our country, which will devote its energies to building its strength, and by
building our strength here we build the cause of freedom around the world. Thank you. (Applause) (Standing ovation)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Denver Hilton
Hotel, Denver, Colorado, September 23, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: Senator Carroll, Governor McNichols, National Committeewoman and Mrs. Price, members of
the Congress, Senators from neighboring states, ladies and gentlemen: I am very grateful for the generous remarks made
by Steve McNichols and John Carroll, and I am grateful to all of you. I could say I am deeply touched, but not as deeply
touched as you have been in coming to this luncheon. (Laughter) But this is what makes a man go. (Applause)
I know it would be nice to run this campaign on something else besides funds, but I do appreciate the contributions you
make to the Party in this state. President Truman told me about two weeks ago that his train ran out of gas and finances
about three times in the 1952 campaign. I would hate to be in the middle of a speech in Erie, Pennsylvania, and have to
send for carfare back to Washington. So you are helping and I know all the candidates, Bob Khous and members of the
Congressional delegation, people who are running in the state, all of us appreciate your help very much indeed.
John and Steve McNichols made an important point. This is not really a contest, in a great sense, between just the Vice
President and myself. The Vice President and I did not suddenly emerge on the scene after the two national conventions.
We have both been in the Congress and in Government now for 14 years. But more significant than that, I think, is the
fact that it is a contest between two political parties, and between two political philosophies. It is a contest between the
intellectual vitality, the willingness to break new ground which has characterized our party since its earliest days, and
the Republican Party's stand pat viewpoint, which I think has characterized itself in the Fifties, the Forties, and the
Thirties, during the great administration of Wilson. I think the fact that Theodore Roosevelt, and as you know Theodore
Roosevelt ultimately broke with his party - I cannot recall a single piece of our new social legislation sponsored by the
Republican Party since 1912, with the exception of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, both sponsored by two Republicans who
had left their party.
On the great domestic issues of resource development, minimum wage, housing, aid to education, social security, aid for
the aged - all the rest, it has been a history of the Democrats proposing, the Republicans opposing, and then at least in
the last eight years fighting for an unsatisfactory compromise.
The Senate is Democratic, and we could not mathematically lose control of the Senate. The House of Representatives is
Democratic by a wide margin, and I doubt that the Democrats in the House of Representatives will lose control.
Therefore, the prospect of four or eight years of a divided government, a government manned by a highly partisan
figure, manned by a highly partisan party in the Executive Branch, and we have seen evidence of it in the last few days,
how can we hope at a time when we need action, how can we hope to possibly move ahead when on the one hand we
say yes with the Democrats, and on the other hand we say no with the Republicans? The experience of the month of
August in the Congress when both parties were vocally committed to great programs, housing, education, minimum
wage, care for the aged - every program fell between the two opposing philosophies of the two parties.
Medical care for the aged was defeated; minimum wage of $1.25 an hour defeated; federal aid to education after passing
the Senate did not come to the floor of the House because we could not get the vote of a single Republican on the House
Rules Committee to vote for it to go before the people in the House; the Housing bill, defeated, because we could not get
a single Republican on the House Rules Committee to vote to send it to the House. I think we happen to move in a
period where the competition is very sharp between our system and the Communist system, were the future is very
hazardous. There are enough checks and balances in the American system of government, devised by able men,
Madison, Adams, Franklin and the rest, without adding an additional check and balance of a Congress Democratic and
an administration Republican, and, therefore, a divided government at a time when responsibility should be cast upon
one party or the other.
We seek to serve our country. We seek to do it by presenting in the next six weeks an alternative course of action to the
present administration's policy of drift, and I think we can do it. I look with great confidence because I cannot believe
that in November of 1960 the American people are going to endorse the experience of the Vice President of the United
States. (Applause)
It is difficult enough for us to compete with a monolithic society, a garrison state that is able to mobilize the resources of
the state for the service of the state, both human and material, but for us in a free society which has, we believe, an
ultimate energy which they cannot possess, for us to divide the government instead of saying yes, I think would be a
great mistake.
Secondly, I criticize this administration's policy and foreign policy particularly, because I think it has shown no ability
to make a judgment as to what tomorrow is going to bring. Our aid to Latin America, in spite of the speech made by Mr.
Nixon in 1959, to which John Carroll referred, our aid to Latin America presented at the Bogata conference, and it is
merely an authorization, did not come from the administration until July of this year, after we had broken off our
economic relations with Cuba. It was a direct result, unfortunately, of that disaster which brought about a whole new
concept of American needs in Latin America.
I would like to have seen the United States a year ahead or two years or eight years ahead, not attempt to carry out a
policy of assistance to a good neighbor at the point of Mr. Castro's pistol, but to do it because we believed that their
security and ours are closely tied together. (Applause)
The United States this summer offered 300 scholarships for students from the Congo. Has the United States ever spoken
about the Congo and its needs in spite of the fact that they have less than 15 people with college educations in the whole
of the Congo? To offer them 300 scholarships which is twice as many as we have offered to all of Africa during the past
two years from the Federal Government, to do it in a moment of crisis when we should be building for a long future?
We face in January, February and March a difficult situation in India, as India attempts to finance her third five year
plan. If India fails, Asia will fall. If India fails, Africa will fall. 35 per cent of all the people of the under-developed
world live in India. Has this administration spoken at all about what we and the western powers are going to do about
India in January, February and March, outer space, Africa, Latin America, Asia, disarmament, rearmament? We have
been blind day by day, week by week, month by month. We have followed the course of events, and I agree with a
distinguished Republican that as the challenges are new, we must disenthrall ourselves from the past. Lincoln was right;
unless we can, with some certainty, make a judgment of what the needs of our country are, what our resource
development must be, what our economic programs must bring, what our economic growth must be if we are going to
sustain the kind of society we must sustain, unless we can make a judgment about what our role will be in the world,
then we merely are spectators, sitting on a most conspicuous stage.
I think the Democratic Party can do better. I think its great contribution is the talent it has in the United States, men and
women who have intellectual vitality and curiosity and experience, and who look to the future with enthusiasm and not
merely feel themselves caretakers of the status quo administration. I leave now for Utah. I have been promised a haircut
by John Carroll's barber, but I am giving up the opportunity. (Laughter)
I am going on to Utah to speak there tonight. But I do say you have been very generous to us. I hope we can do well in
Colorado. Candidates move in and out like ships in the night, and you stay on. So for the next six weeks the campaign of
the Presidency and the Senate and the House of Representatives here in Colorado is in your capable hands. I would
appreciate it if you would take care of the matter. Thank you.
I would like to say before we leave that my obligation to Colorado is great for the support we had at the convention and
also for the fact that the Chairman of our National Citizens Committee is a distinguished citizen of this state who has
taken on the responsibilities in 50 states. I must say that I hold him in the same high regard as the people of this state do,
your distinguished citizen, Byron White. Thank you. (Standing ovation.)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Hotel Utah,

Salt Lake City, Utah, September 23, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: My friend and colleagues in the Senate, Ted Moss, Congressman King, Senator McGee of
Wyoming, and your next Governor of Utah, Governor-to-be Barlocker - (Applause) - your next Congressman to be
Blain Peterson - (Applause) - Mrs. Price, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen: I want to express my appreciation
to all of you for your kindness and generosity to the Democratic Party and its candidates. I am deeply touched - not as
deeply touched as you have been by coming to this dinner, but nevertheless it is a sentimental occasion. (Laughter)
I wish there were some other way to have a party run, but there is no substitute than to call on our friends. I was in New
York last week. We were trying to raise some support for the Party and President Truman told me that in 1948 his train
was pulled off the tracks three times because they could not get up the carfare to keep it moving. (Laughter) But they got
it up finally and they won.
I think we are going to win and we are grateful to you for your help. (Applause) In the last two days, we have traveled
from Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and tonight Utah, and we leave later tonight for
Chicago. I don't think we have increased the wisdom, probably, of any of the audiences that have listened, but,
nevertheless, I do feel that here in the western United States there is a great recognition of what we are talking about,
and that is our great interest in seeing these states and our country strong. We have engaged in some debate in recent
weeks. We have been criticized because the argument has been made that we are downgrading the United States. We
don't downgrade the United States. We have faith in the United States. We feel it can do better and we feel it must do
better if it is going to maintain its own freedom and the freedom of those who look to us for leadership.
I think this is an important election. In a sense, of course, every election is important. But I do think the election of 1960
is particularly important, because what we are and what we do, and the kind of leadership which we give, can make a
decisive difference not only to our own security, but also to those who look to us for friendship and help. We have
serious problems that are facing us in the Sixties in the United States, but far more serious problems facing us around the
world. My chief disagreement with the Republicans in the field of foreign policy has been that they have not been able
to pierce the veil of the future, to make a judgment as to what problems are coming, and then to offer solutions.
I was impressed and admired the speech that the President of the United States made at the United Nations, and I have
been impressed by the effort that has been made in recent months to provide a more effective policy towards Latin
America. But in the case of both Africa and Latin America, the hour is late, the world is moving fast, our role and our
position has changed, and I do think it is vitally important in those areas and in other areas that we precede events; that
we do not move after them. In other words, I do not like to see the United States offer assistance to Latin America as a
result of difficulties in Cuba. I would like to see us offer the hand of friendship to Latin America because of a traditional
conviction that the United States cannot maintain its freedom unless Latin America is a strong and viable and growing
hemisphere. (Applause)
The same is true of Africa. I am Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa of the Foreign Relations Committee. We have
given comparatively few scholarships to students who come over from Africa each year, less than 200 for the whole
continent. If there is any great need, far exceeding any great shortage, it is in educated men and women who can
maintain a free society. You are familiar with what has happened in the Congo. But what is happening in the Congo is
happening in every country in Africa. Called on to maintain their freedom, there are eight new countries in Africa in the
last two months. The United States does not have yet an ambassador in any of them. Four of them are represented by
one man, a charge d'affaires who is a former consul. Four of them have no representatives of the United States, even
though they have been independent for the last two months.
The world is moving and changing and I do not think we have demonstrated an ability to keep up with it. 200
scholarships for all of Africa, and yet when the crisis began in Africa as a result of the Belgians leaving, we suddenly
offered 300 scholarships to the Congo alone. Couldn't it have been possible for us to make a determination that freedom
was moving through Africa, as it is through the rest of the world, that self-government was going to eventually come,
and that the United should hold out the hand of friendship to these people so that they could be prepared to maintain
their freedom? What is true of Africa, Latin America and Asia, I think has been true of the conduct of our foreign policy
in the last eight years. I think there is a basic difference between us. It is that the domestic policies which great
Democratic Presidents have offered in this century, have had their logical application in successful foreign policy.
Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom had its logical application in the 14 points. Franklin Roosevelt's Good Neighbor
Policy was the foreign partner of his domestic policy, the New Deal, and Harry Truman's Fair Deal had its application in
foreign policy in Point IV and the Marshall Plan and NATO and the Truman Doctrine. If a country is moving ahead here
at home if it is solving its own problems, if it has been able to attract people of imagination and vigor to the government,
then I think its foreign policy is also on the move, because the same problems that face us here at home face us in
different forms abroad. The ability to predict with some degree of certainty the problems that are just over the horizon,
that will be upon us six months from now or a year from now. I think through its history, though there have been
exceptions through its history, this is a contribution which the Democratic Party has made, from the time of Jefferson,
through Jackson's Administration, through that of Grover Cleveland, through Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt
and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson's candidacy, I think the Democrats have looked to the future. They have spoken
not for private interests but for the general good.
I think we are called on, I hope, for further service in the coming days. This is not just a contest between Mr. Nixon and
myself. It is a contest between two parties. It is a contest between your United States Senator, Ted Moss, and Senators
who do not share his progressive views. It is a contest between members of the House, Dave King and the things he
stands for, and the things which the Republican Party has stood for. It is a contest between our intellectual vitality and
curiosity and a point of view that I think has dominated the thinking of this administration for too many years in both
domestic and foreign policy. We think the best of this country and we want to do the best for it. We talk about a lack of
leadership only because we know that this country has unbounded energy and a desire to be of service.
So I come tonight as the candidate for the Democratic Party, asking your help in this state, in this campaign. Ted Moss
and Dave King have shown what can be done. The primary in this state was most encouraging. I don't give any stakes to
Mr. Nixon in this campaign. They are all going to be fought over, and I think that Utah, which played a great role in the
Convention last July, which was most helpful and generous to me in nominating me, I think that his contest may be
close enough so as goes Utah, so goes the Nation, and if that is so, we want to have it go in the right direction. Thank
you. (Applause)
I suppose campaigns are really like parades; the music and a lot of confetti and dust and then the candidates pass and
move on to another state. We are leaving you here so the contest is really in your hands in this state. Six weeks to go. I
hope that it is possible for us to try to communicate our desire to serve, our strong faith in this country, our feeling on
domestic policy and foreign policy; we can do better, our feeling that the greatest days of this country are still ahead,
and that though we move through a difficult future, we are identified with the best of causes.
My optimism for the future for the country and for the United States and the cause of freedom really goes to our
experiences of the last few years in Eastern Europe, in Asia and Africa. If there is any lesson, which the last ten years
has shown to me, and it is a lesson that I have been particularly interested in in Algeria and Indochina, it is that the
strongest force in the world today is the desire to be independent. This is going to cause us all kinds of trouble in the
next ten years. People ho used to support us will be neutral. But in the final analysis it is our greatest source of strength.
We desire to be independent; so do they. They desire to be independent of us. They desire to be independent of Western
Europe, but they also desire to be independent of the Soviet Union and the Chinese Communists. We do not desire to
dominate them. They do.
Therefore, if we can associate ourselves with this great tide, and it has been a source of regret to me since the end of
World War II that we have not associated ourselves with it, then I think we can move with history and we can help form
it and help shape it, and by the year 2000 the tide will have turned against the Communists and in the direction of
freedom. We, in other words, fit in with the basic movement of our time. The Communists do not. Therefore, while
there are a great many clouds on the horizon, and there are a great many uncertainties about Africa, Latin America and
Asia, and Eastern Europe, I think that we represent the way to the future. If we associate with it, if we are identified with
it - and that is why I was particularly pleased with what the President said yesterday - if we associate with it, if we
become part of it, then our security is assured and our leadership is assured. And I think that is a contribution which the
Democratic Party can make in the field of foreign policy and the security of the United States. Thank you. (Standing
ovation.)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Hotel

Hollenden, Cleveland, Ohio, September 25, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: Ray Miller, ladies and gentlemen: This is the third year in a row that I have been honored by
being invited to this Steer Roast, and I hope that it is going to be possible for me to come back next year, in a somewhat
different capacity. (Applause)
I want to say just one point about Ohio. In the 1948 election, you will recall, President Truman carried the State of Ohio
by 7200 votes. He carried Illinois by 17,000 votes, and it was the victory in this state and in Illinois which permitted him
to maintain his office of the Presidency. I think the Presidency is a great office. It is enshrined in the Constitution, and it
is also by the force of events and by the greatest possible influence over the lives of us all. Therefore, as I believe that
there are sharp differences between the two candidates and great issues which divide historically the two political
parties, I do hope it is possible for all of you in the next six weeks to give us all the help you can. My judgment is that
the winner of this Presidential election will carry Ohio, and I think it is possible for us to carry Ohio. (Applause)
It is possible for us to win Ohio and it is possible for us to lose Ohio. My judgment is that it is a very close, tight race in
this state, in Illinois, in Pennsylvania, in New Jersey and New York. These are the key states. Whoever carries these
major industrial states from Illinois east, quite obviously will be elected the next President of the United States.
Ohio is very important. That and Michigan and these other states must be carried by the Democratic candidate, and the
Democratic Party. So I come here today asking all of you who work in the field for the Party in this county, for many
years, and in the state, I come hear asking your help. This election will be close, and the extra effort that you can put in
this in the coming six weeks, in the next three days to get people registered, to make sure that when they are registered
they come to vote, to make sure that this is not merely a contest between to names, but it is a contest between two parties
and two individuals, one of whom says "Yes" to the next ten years and the other says "No." I say yes, and I think the
country says yes. (Applause)
In short, I thank you for your past help to the Party, but I must say I think in 1960 the tide can rise and we can carry
Ohio. Thank You. (Applause)

Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America
Special Convention, Chicago, Illinois, September 26,
1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: Mr. Hutcheson, Mr. Lee, officers of the Carpenters Union, ladies and gentlemen: I appreciate
very much your generous invitation to come here today. I have served on the Labor Committees of the House and the
Senate for over 14 years. I am now Chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor of the Senate, and I hope in that time I have
come to have some idea of the problems that you face, the opportunities that are yours, and the responsibilities that are
common to us as citizens of this country. This has been billed tonight as a great debate. But in effect the Carpenters
Union today have heard one phase of the so-called Great Debate. (Laughter and applause)
This morning you heard from the Vice President of the United States, who spoke on behalf of his party and his views,
and I speak today as the Standard Bearer for the Democratic Party. The fact of the matter is that though we may debate
tonight, and though we may discuss issues, which face the United States in the domestic sphere, we have been debating
in a very real sense these issues through all of the 20th Century. I think since the beginning of Woodrow Wilson's
administration, the two parties have taken different positions on the domestic problems that face the United States. I
think the Democratic Party has said "Yes" to the future. I think the Democratic Party has recognized that there are
obligations which the people have to serve the people, that the function of the government is to serve the public interest,
and I think it is for that reason that the Democratic Party nominated Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry
Truman. I think the Republicans have had a different conception of their public responsibility, and I think it is because
of that reason that they nominated McKinley, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Landon, Dewey and we now have today.
(Applause and laughter) The Vice President stated the issue as a simple one. He said the question is whether the private
sector or the public sector moves ahead. He said the question is whether those of us who come with promises for the
future that we are going to be taking money out of the pockets of people that we promised to help. I don't see it that way
at all. I don't think that there will be many carpenters working in the United States, and I don't think that there will be
many homes built in the United States if there was not federal guarantees for the building of those homes. Do you think
many GI's would have come back at the end of World War II and bought new homes which your people helped to build
unless they had been given guarantees of federal credit? Do you think that there would be enough homes built in the
next 15 years, and we are going to have to build more homes every year for the next 25 or 30 years, than we have ever
built in the past - do you think they could possibly be done without federal credit, without urban renewal, without home
loan guarantees? I don't think they could be at all.
I think there is a great place and a major place for private responsibility and for individual enterprise. It is the system
upon which our country is founded. It provides great prosperity, and it provides great freedom. But there is also a
responsibility for the people, working as a whole, if they are going to develop the resources of our country, if they are
going to provide employment for our people, if they are going to provide homes for our people, and federal policy
affects that program as sharply as any other factor. Do you think that your people will work as much when interest rates
go to the highest they have been in 20 years? Frank Church said at the Democratic Convention that Rip Van Winkle
could go to sleep and could wake up and tell whether the Republicans or Democrats were in control of the government
by asking how high the interest rates were.(Laughter and applause)
Now, let us get it clear on the record, because there are sharp differences between our two parties. The Democratic
Congress passed a housing bill last year which I think would have met the needs of our economy, the needs of our
people, and that bill was vetoed. This year, the Democratic Congress in the Senate passed another bill and it went to the
Rules Committee of the House, and we could not get a single Republican in the House Rules Committee to vote to send
it to the floor. They joined with three Democrats who were opposed to the program and they killed the housing bill this
year which our people need and which will cause your people to work.
So the record is very clear. I support the affirmative policy, which will move this country's economy ahead, which will
build homes, which will keep our people working, and provide an unparalleled level of prosperity. If that is the issue, let
us join it, because I never voted against any program which I felt would serve the people, which was soundly financed,
soundly based, which was within the means of our people to afford, and which would sustain our prosperity. If the
housing industry fails to move ahead, we not only find our people badly housed, but we don't find our people working.
The automobile industry, the steel industry and the housing industry are the three industries that must move if the
economy of our country is going to move. And I don't think you can possibly feel satisfied when there are 15 million
American families living in substandard housing, when there are 5 million American homes in the cities of the United
States which lack plumbing of any kind, when at our present rate of constructing homes of any kind, when at our present
rate of constructing home you are going to have more slums by the year 2000 than you have today, when urban renewal,
which is the hope of the older cities of the East from where I come, our only hope of sustaining ourselves, when urban
renewal is opposed, and vetoed and blocked, and when interest rates are so high that if a man buys a 20 thousand dollar
house today, he pays over a 30 year mortgage nearly $8,000 more than he might have paid in 1952. So I would just as
soon join the issue, and I would just as soon debate this matter, and I would just as soon have the American people make
their decision. I am no Johnny-come-lately to picketing, either. (Laughter and applause)
I don't know what that means - (laughter) I will tell you what my position is. I am in favor of amending the Denver
Building Trade Case, and so introduced a bill, so supported it, so tried to get it out of the subcommittee and did, so tried
to get it out of the full committee where it was filibustered to death in the last session of the Congress. So while we may
not be Johnny-come-latelies, I would like to know what our individual position is on this question. I want to make it
clear what my position is. It is my understanding that when the Taft-Hartley Act was passed; it was very clear by the
remarks of Senator Taft that he did not envision that there would be a prohibition against the union activities at a
primary site in order to protect its working standards. It would not be called when there were subcontractors involved, it
would not be called a secondary boycott. That is what I mean by changing the Denver case. And I think that the next
Congress of the United States, and whether I sit in the Office of the Presidency or whether I continue as Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Labor, we are going to move again on that next January, and we invite all those, early or late, to come
and join us. (Applause)
Finally, let me say that I know Mr. Khrushchev, too, but Mr. Khrushchev is not the enemy. Mr. Khrushchev could pass
from the scene. He is 65 or 66 years of age, and all men are mortal, and he could pass as Stalin passed, and the enemy
would remain the same. The enemy is the Communist system, and the enemy of the Communist system, the chief
adversary of the Communist system is our system. Therefore, the question before us is not the question of comparative
growth and statistics, compared to what we did ten years ago or 15 years ago or 20 years ago. The question for the
American people to decide in the Sixties is are we doing enough to defend ourselves, are we doing enough to sustain
ourselves, are we strengthening ourselves and the cause of freedom around the world? This is the question before us.
Not arguments with Mr. Khrushchev. The system that is opposing us is strong and powerful, both because of its
ideology and because of the productive power of the Soviet Union. We are strong and powerful and I think stronger and
more powerful because we believe that freedom, and because of our productive capacity in the United States, and
therefore the people of this country have to decide by November 8 which way they want to go; whether they feel that
everything that could be done is being done, whether the program offered by the Republican Party offers hope to the
people, whether in 1964, at the end of the next President's administration, our power and prestige will be increasing
relative to that of the Communists or whether we will be standing still and the world will begin to move in the direction
of the East rather than in the direction of the West. That is the issue and it cannot be dismissed, and it cannot be put
aside by saying we need an argument in a kitchen or out of a kitchen. What we need is strength. (Applause)
I don't care how skilled Mr. Khrushchev is or how skilled the next President is in debate. What counts is the power of
the two systems, and where they are going, and what they stand for, and how they associate themselves with the people
of the world. I am confident we have the greatest system. I am confident that what we want they want. I am confident
that the future can belong to us. But it can only be done so by recognizing the realities of the struggle that face us, and
that can only be done by our willingness to recognize the unfinished business that faces our society, the unfinished
agenda which Franklin Roosevelt set before the American people in the Thirties, the next President of the United States
must set before the American people in the Sixties. When he does so, I think this country will move again. Thank you.
(Standing ovation)
Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice

President Richard M. Nixon First Joint
Radio-Television Broadcast
Monday, September 26, 1960
Originating CBS, Chicago, Ill., All Networks carried.
Moderator, Howard K. Smith.
MR. SMITH.. Good evening.
The television and radio stations of the United States and their affiliated stations are proud
to provide facilities for a discussion of issues in the current political campaign by the two
major candidates for the presidency.
The candidates need no introduction. The Republican candidate, Vice President Richard M.
Nixon, and the Democratic candidate, Senator John F. Kennedy.
According to rules set by the candidates themselves, each man shall make an opening
statement of approximately 8 minutes' duration and a closing statement of approximately
three minutes' duration.
In between the candidates will answer, or comment upon answers to questions put by a
panel of correspondents.
In this, the first discussion in a series of four joint appearances, the subject matter, it has
been agreed, will be restricted to internal or domestic American matters.
And now, for the first opening statement by Senator John F. Kennedy.
MR. KENNEDY. Mr. Smith, Mr. Nixon.
In the election of 1860, Abraham Lincoln said the question was whether this Nation could
exist half slave or half free.
In the election of 1960, and with the world around us, the question is whether the world
will exist half slave or half free, whether it will move in the direction of freedom, in the
direction of the road that we are taking, or whether it will move in the direction of slavery.
I think it will depend in great measure upon what we do here in the United States, on the
kind of society that we build, on the kind of strength that we maintain.
We discuss tonight domestic issues, but I would not want that to be-- any implication to be
given that this does not involve directly our struggle with Mr. Khrushchev for survival.
Mr. Khrushchev is in New York, and he maintains the Communist offensive throughout the
world because of the productive power of the Soviet Union, itself.
The Chinese Communists have always had a large population but they are important and
dangerous now because they are mounting a major effort within their own country; the kind
of country we have here, the kind of society we have, the kind of strength we build in the
United States will be the defense of freedom.
If we do well here, if we meet our obligations, if we are moving ahead, then I think
freedom will be secure around the world. If we fail, then freedom fails.
Therefore, I think the question before the American people is: Are we doing as much as we
can do? Are we as strong as we should be? Are we as strong as we must be if we are going
to maintain our independence, and if we're going to maintain and hold out the hand of
friendship to those who look to us for assistance, to those who look to us for survival? I
should make it very clear that I do not think we're doing enough, that I am not satisfied as
an American with the progress that we are making.
This is a great country, but I think it could be a greater country; and this is a powerful
country but I think it could be a more powerful country.
I'm not satisfied to have 50 percent of our steel-mill capacity unused.
I'm not satisfied when the United States had last year the lowest rate of economic growth of
any major industrialized society in the world--because economic growth means strength
and vitality. It means we're able to sustain our defenses; it means we're able to meet our
commitments abroad.
I'm not satisfied, when we have over $9 billion dollars worth of food, some of it rotting
even though there is a hungry world and even though 4 million Americans wait every
month for a food package from the Government, which averages 5 cents a day per
individual.
I saw cases in West Virginia, here in the United States, where children took home part of
their school lunch in order to feed their families because I don't think we're meeting our
obligations toward these Americans.
I'm not satisfied when the Soviet Union is turning out twice as many scientists and
engineers as we are.
I'm not satisfied when many of our teachers are inadequately paid, or when our children go
to school part-time shifts. I think we should have an educational system second to none.
I'm not satisfied when I see men like Jimmy Hoffa, in charge of the largest union in the
United States, still free.
I'm not satisfied when we are failing to develop the natural resources of the United States to
the fullest. Here in the United States, which developed the Tennessee Valley and which
built the Grand Coulee and the other dams in the Northwest United States, at the present
rate of hydropower production--and that is the hallmark of an industrialized society--the
Soviet Union by 1975 will be producing more power than we are.
These are all the things I think in this country that can make our society strong, or can
mean that it stands still.
I'm not satisfied until every American enjoys his full constitutional rights. If a Negro baby
is born, and this is true also of Puerto Ricans and Mexicans in some of our cities, he has
about one-half as much chance to get through high school as a white baby. He has one-
third as much chance to get through college as a white student. He has about a third as
much chance to be a professional man, and about half as much chance to own a house. He
has about four times as much chance that he'll be out of work in his life as the white baby. I
think we can do better. I don't want the talents of any American to go to waste.
I know that there are those who want to turn everything over to the Government. I don't at
all. I want the individuals to meet their responsibilities and I want the States to meet their
responsibilities. But I think there is also a national responsibility.
The argument has been used against every piece of social legislation in the last 25 years.
The people of the United States individually could not have developed the Tennessee
Valley; collectively they could have.
A cotton farmer in Georgia, or a peanut farmer or a dairy farmer in Wisconsin and
Minnesota-- he cannot protect himself against the forces of supply and demand in the
marketplace, but working together in effective governmental programs he can do so.
Seventeen million Americans, who live over 65 on an average social security check of
about $78 a month--they're not able to sustain themselves individually, but they can sustain
themselves through the social security system.
I don't believe in big government, but I believe in effective governmental action, and I
think that's the only way that the United States is going to maintain its freedom; it's the
only way that we're going to move ahead. I think we can do a better job. I think we're going
to have to do a better job if we are going to meet the responsibilities which time and events
have placed upon us.
We cannot turn the job over to anyone else. If the United States fails, then the whole cause
of freedom fails, and I think it depends in great measure on what we do here in this
country.
The reason Franklin Roosevelt was a good neighbor in Latin America was because he was
a good neighbor in the United States, because they felt that the American society was
moving again. I want us to recapture that image. I want people in Latin America and Africa
and Asia to start to look to America to see how we're doing things, to wonder what the
President of the United States is doing, and not to look at Khrushchev, or look at the
Chinese Communists. That is the obligation upon our generation.
In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt said in his inaugural that this generation of Americans has a
"rendezvous with destiny." I think our generation of Americans has the same "rendezvous."
The question now is: Can freedom be maintained under the most severe attack it has ever
known? I think it can be. And I think in the final analysis it depends upon what we do here.
I think it's time America started moving again.
MR. SMITH.. And now the opening statement by Vice President Richard M. Nixon.
MR. NIXON. Mr. Smith, Senator Kennedy. The things that Senator Kennedy has said
many of us can agree with. There is no question but that we cannot discuss our internal
affairs in the United States without recognizing that they have a tremendous bearing on our
international position. There is no question but that this nation cannot stand still, because
we are in a deadly competition, a competition not only with the men in the Kremlin, but the
men in Peking. We're ahead in this competition, as Senator Kennedy, I think, has implied.
But when you're in a race, the only way to stay ahead is to move ahead, and I subscribe
completely to the spirit that Senator Kennedy has expressed tonight, the spirit that the
United States should move ahead.
Where then do we disagree?
I think we disagree on the implication of his remarks tonight and on the statements that he
has made on many occasions during his campaign to the effect that the United States has
been standing still.
We heard tonight, for example, the statement made that our growth and national product
last year was the lowest of any industrial nation in the world.
Now last year, of course, was 1958. That happened to be a recession year, but when we
look at the growth of GNP this year--a year of recovery--we find that it's 6 9/10 per cent
and one of the highest in the world today. More about that later.
Looking then to this problem of how the United States should move ahead and where the
United States is moving, I think it is well that we take the advice of a very famous
campaigner, "Let's look at the record."
Is the United States standing still?
Is it true that this administration, as Senator Kennedy has charged, has been an
administration of retreat, of defeat, of stagnation?
Is it true that, as far as this country is concerned, in the field of electric power, and all of
the fields that he has mentioned, we have not been moving ahead?
Well, we have a comparison that we can make. We have the record of the Truman
administration of 7 years, and the 7 years of the Eisenhower administration.
When we compare these two records in the areas that Senator Kennedy has discussed
tonight, I think we find that America has been moving ahead.
Let's take schools. We have built more schools in these 7 years than we built in the
previous 7, for that matter in the previous 20 years.
Let's take hydroelectric power. We have developed more hydroelectric power in these 7
years than was developed in any previous administration in history.
Let us take hospitals. We find that more have been built in this administration than in the
previous administration. The same is true of highways.
Let's put it in terms that all of us can understand.
We often hear gross national product discussed, and in that respect may I say that when we
compare the growth in this administration with that of the previous administration, that
then there was a total growth of 11 percent over 7 years; in this administration there has
been a total growth of 19 percent over 7 years.
That shows that there's been more growth in this administration than in its predecessor. But
let's not put it there; let's put it in terms of the average family.
What has happened to you?
We find that your wages have gone up five times as much in the Eisenhower administration
as they did in the Truman administration.
What about the prices you pay?
We find that the prices you pay went up five times as much in the Truman administration
as they did in the Eisenhower administration.
What's the net result of this?
This means that the average family income went up 15 percent in the Eisenhower years as
against 2 percent in the Truman years.
Now, this is not standing still, but, good as this record is, may I emphasize it isn't enough.
A record is never something to stand on, it's something to build on and in building on this
record, I believe that we have the secret for progress.
We know the way to progress and I think first of all our own record proves that we know
the way.
Senator Kennedy has suggested that he believes he knows the way.
I respect the sincerity with he--which he makes that suggestion, but on the other hand,
when we look at the various programs, that he offers, they do not seem to be new. They
seem to be simply retreads of the programs of the Truman administration which preceded
him and I would suggest that during the course of the evening he might indicate those areas
in which his programs are new, where they will mean more progress than we had then.
What kind of programs are we for?
We are for programs that will expand educational opportunities, that will give to all
Americans their equal chance for education, for all of the things which are necessary and
dear to the hearts of our people.
We are for programs, in addition, which will see that our medical care for the aged is much
better handled than it is at the present time.
Here again, may I indicate that Senator Kennedy and I are not in disagreement as to the
aim. We both want to help the old people. We want to see that they do have adequate
medical care. The question is the means.
I think that the means that I advocate will reach that goal better than the means that he
advocates.
I could give better examples but for whatever it is, whether it's in the field of housing or
health or medical care or schools, or the development of electric power, we have programs
which we believe will move America, move her forward and build on the wonderful record
that we have made over these past 7 years.
Now, when we look at these programs might I suggest that in evaluating them we often
have a tendency to say that the test of a program is how much you're spending. I will
concede that in all the areas to which I have referred, Senator Kennedy would have the
Federal Government spend more than I would have it spend.
I costed out the cost of the Democratic platform. It runs a minimum of $13.2 billion a year
more than we are presently spending to a maximum of $18 billion a year more than we're
presently spending.
Now the Republican platform will cost more too. It will cost a minimum of $4 billion a
year more, a maximum of $4.9 billion a year more than we're presently spending.
Now, does this mean that his program is better than ours?
Not at all, because it isn't a question of how much the Federal Government spends. It isn't a
question of which government does the most. It's a question of which administration does
the right things, and in our case, I do believe that our programs will stimulate the creative
energies of 180 million free Americans.
I believe the programs that Senator Kennedy advocates will have a tendency to stifle those
creative energies.
I believe, in other words, that his programs would lead to the stagnation of the motive
power that we need in this country to get progress.
The final point that I would like to make is this: Senator Kennedy has suggested in his
speeches that we lack compassion for the poor, for the old, and for others that are
unfortunate.
Let us understand throughout this campaign that his motives and mine are sincere. I know
what it means to be poor. I know what it means to see people who are unemployed.
I know Senator Kennedy feels as deeply about these problems as I do, but our disagreement
is not about the goals for America but only about the means to reach those goals.
MR. SMITH.. Thank you, Mr. Nixon.
That completes the opening statements, and now the candidates will answer questions or
comment upon one another's answers to questions, put by correspondents of the networks.
The correspondents:
MR. VANOCUR. I'm Sander Vanocur, NBC News.
MR. WARREN. I'm Charles Warren, Mutual News.
MR. NOVINS. I'm Stuart Novins, CBS News.
MR. FLEMING. Bob Fleming, ABC News
MR. SMITH.. The first question to Senator Kennedy from Mr. Fleming.
MR. FLEMING. Senator, the Vice President in his campaign has said that you are naive
and at times immature. He has raised the question of leadership.
On this issue, why do you think people should vote for you rather than the Vice President?
MR. KENNEDY. Well, the Vice President and I came to the Congress together in 1946.
We both served in the Labor Committee. I've been there now for fourteen years, the same
period of time that he has, so that our experience in government is comparable.
Secondly, I think the question is "What are the programs that we advocate?"
What is the party record that we lead?
I come out of the Democratic party, which in this century has produced Woodrow Wilson
and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, and which supported and sustained these
programs which I've discussed tonight.
Mr. Nixon comes out of the Republican party. He was nominated by it. And it is a fact that
through most of these last 25 years the Republican leadership has opposed Federal aid for
education, medical care for the aged, development of the Tennessee Valley, development
of our natural resources.
I think Mr. Nixon is an effective leader of his party. I hope he would grant me the same.
The question before us is: Which point of view and which party do we want to lead the
United States?
MR. SMITH.. Mr. Nixon, would you like to comment on that statement?
MR. NIXON. I have no comment.
MR. SMITH.. The next question--Mr. Novins.
MR. NOVINS. Mr. Vice President, your campaign stresses the value of your 8-year
experience, and the question arises as to whether that experience was as an observer or as a
participant or as an initiator of policymaking.
Would you tell us, please, specifically what major proposals you have made in the last 8
years that have been adopted by the administration?
MR. NIXON. It would be rather difficult to cover them in eight and--in two and a half
minutes.
I would suggest that these proposals could be mentioned:
First, after each of my foreign trips, I have made recommendations that have been adopted.
For example, after my first trip abroad, I strongly recommended that we increase our
exchange programs particularly as they related to exchange of persons, of leaders in the
labor field and in the information field.
After my trip to South America, I made recommendations that a separate inter-American
lending agency be set up which the South American nations would like much better than a
lend--than to participate in the lending agencies which treated all the countries of the world
the same.
I have made other recommendations after each of the other trips.
For example, after my trip abroad to Hungary, I made some recommendations with regard
to the Hungarian refugee situation which were adopted, not only by the President but some
of them were enacted into law by the Congress.
Within the administration, as a chairman of the President's Committee on Price Stability
and Economic Growth, I have had the opportunity to make recommendations which have
been adopted within the Administration and which I think have been reasonably effective.
I know Senator Kennedy suggested in his speech at Cleveland yesterday that that
committee had not been particularly effective. I would only suggest that while we do not
take the credit for it, I would not presume to, that since that committee has been formed,
the price line has been held very well within the United States.
MR. KENNEDY. Well, I would say in the latter that the--and that's what I found somewhat
unsatisfactory about the figures, Mr. Nixon, that you used in your previous speech. When
you talked about the Truman administration, you--Mr. Truman came to office in 1944, and
at the end of the war, and the difficulties that were facing the United States during that
period of transition, 1946, when price controls were lifted, so it's rather difficult to use an
overall figure taking those 7 years and comparing them to the last 8 years. I prefer to take
the overall percentage record of the last 20 years of the Democrats and the 8 years of the
Republicans to show an overall period of growth.
In regard to price stability, I'm not aware that that committee did produce recommendations
that ever were, certainly, before the Congress from the point of view of legislation in
regard to controlling prices. In regard to the exchange of students and labor unions, I am
chairman of the subcommittee on Africa and I think that one of the most unfortunate
phases of our policy towards that country was the very minute number of exchanges that
we had. I think it's true of Latin America also. We did come forward with a program of
students for the Congo of over 300, which was more than the Federal Government had for
all of Africa the previous year
So that I don't think that we have moved at least in those two areas with sufficient vigor.
MR. SMITH.. The next question to Senator Kennedy from Mr. Warren.
MR. WARREN. Senator Kennedy, during your brief speech a few minutes ago you
mentioned farm surpluses.
MR. KENNEDY. That s correct.
MR. WARREN. I'd like to ask this: It's a fact, I think, that presidential candidates
traditionally make promises to farmers. Lots of people, I think, don't understand why the
Government pays farmers for not producing certain crops or paying farmers, if they
overproduce for that matter. Now, let me ask, sir:
Why can't the farmer operate like the businessman who operates a factory? If an auto
company overproduces a certain model car Uncle Sam doesn't step in and buy up the
surplus. Why this constant courting of the farmer?
MR. KENNEDY. Well, because I think that if the Federal Government moved out of the
program and withdrew its support, then I think you would have complete economic chaos.
The farmer plants in the spring and harvests in the fall. There are hundreds of thousands of
them. They really don't--are not able to control their market very well. They bring their
crops in or their livestock in, many of them, about the same time. They have only a few
purchasers that buy their milk or their hogs, a few large companies, in many cases, and,
therefore, the farmer is not in a position to bargain very effectively in the marketplace.
I think the experience of the 20's has shown what a free market could do to agriculture.
And if the agricultural economy collapses, then the economy of the rest of the United
States sooner or later will collapse.
The farmers are the No. 1 market for the automobile industry of the United States. The
automobile industry is the No. 1 market for steel. So, if the farmers' economy continues to
decline as sharply as it has in recent years, then I think you would have a recession in the
rest of the country.
So I think the case for the Government intervention is a good one.
Secondly, my objection to present farm policy is that there are no effective controls to
bring supply and demand into better balance. The dropping of the support price in order to
limit production has not worked, and we now have the highest surpluses, $9 billion worth,
we've had a higher taxload from the Treasury for the farmer in the last few years with the
lowest farm income in many years. I think that this farm policy has failed. In my judgment,
the only policy that will work will be for effective supply and demand to be in balance, and
that can only be done through governmental action.
I, therefore suggest that in those basic commodities which are supported, that the Federal
Government, after endorsement by the farmers in that commodity, attempt to bring supply
and demand into balance, attempt effective production controls so that we won't have that 5
or 6 percent surplus which breaks the price 15 or 20 percent.
I think Mr. Benson's program has failed, and I must say, after reading the Vice President's
speech before the farmers, as he read mine, I don't believe that it's very much different
from Mr. Benson's. I don't think it provides effective governmental controls. I think the
support prices are tied to the average market price of the last 3 years, which was Mr.
Benson's theory. I, therefore, do not believe that this is a sharp enough breach with the past
to give us any hope of success for the future.
MR. SMITH.. Mr. Nixon, comment?
MR. NIXON. I of course, disagree with Senator Kennedy insofar as his suggestion as to
what should be done with re--on the farm program.
He has made the suggestion that what we need is to move in the direction of more
government controls, a suggestion that would also mean raising prices that the consumers
pay for products and imposing upon the farmers controls on acreage even far more than
they have today.
I think this is the wrong direction. I don't think this has worked in the past; I do not think it
will work in the future.
The program that I have advocated is one which departs from the present program that we
have in this respect.
It recognizes that the Government has a responsibility to get the farmer out of the trouble
he presently is in because the Government got him into it, and that's the fundamental reason
why we can't let the farmer go by himself at the present time. The farmer produced these
surpluses because the government asked him to, through legislation during the war.
Now that we have these surpluses, it's our responsibility to indemnify the farmer during
that period that we get rid of the farmer--the surpluses. Until we get the surpluses off the
farmer's back, however, we should have a program, such as I announced, which will see
that farm income holds up. But I would propose holding that income up, not through a type
of program that Senator Kennedy has suggested that would raise prices, but one that would
indemnify the farmer, pay the farmer in kind from the products which are in surplus.
MR. SMITH.. The next question to Vice President Nixon from Mr. Vanocur.
MR. VANOCUR. Mr. Vice President, since the question of executive leadership is a very
important campaign issue, I would like to follow Mr. Novins' question.
Now, Republican campaign slogans--you'll see them on signs around the country as we did
last week--say it's experience that counts (that's over a picture of yourself; sir), implying
that you've had more governmental, executive decisionmaking experience than your
opponent.
Now, in his news conference on August 24, President Eisenhower was asked to give one
example of a major idea of yours that he adopted. His reply was, and I'm quoting:
"If you give me a week, I might think of one. I don't remember."
Now that was a month ago, sir, and the President hasn't brought it up since, and I am
wondering, sir, if you can clarify which version is correct, the one put out by Republican
campaign leaders or the one put out by President Eisenhower?
MR. NIXON. Well, I would suggest, Mr. Vanocur, that if you know the President, that that
was probably a facetious remark. I would also suggest that insofar as his statement is
concerned, that I think it would be improper for the President of the United States to
disclose the instances in which members of his official family had made recommendations,
as I have made them through the years to him, which he has accepted or rejected.
The President has always maintained, and very properly so, that he is entitled to get what
advice he wants from his Cabinet and from his other advisers without disclosing that to
anybody, including as a matter of fact, the Congress.
Now, I can only say this: Through the years I have sat in the National Security Council. I
have been in the Cabinet. I have met with the legislative leaders. I have met with the
President when he made the great decisions with regard to Lebanon, Quemoy, Matsu, other
matters.
The President has asked for my advice, I have given it; sometimes my advice has been
taken, sometimes it has not. I do not say that I have made the decisions, and I would say
that no President should ever allow anybody else to make the major decisions. The
President only makes the decisions. All that his advisers do is to give counsel when he asks
for it. As far as what experience counts and whether that is experience that counts, that isn't
for me to say.
I can only say that my experience is there for the people to consider, Senator Kennedy's is
there for the people to consider.
As he pointed out, we came to the Congress in the same year; his experience has been
different from mine, mine has been in the executive branch, his has been in the legislative
branch.
I would say that the people now have the opportunity to evaluate his as against mine, and I
think both he and I are going to abide by whatever the people decide.
MR. SMITH.. Senator Kennedy?
MR. KENNEDY. Well, I'll just say that the question is of experience and the question also
is what our judgment is of the future and what our goals are for the United States and what
ability we have to implement those goals.
Abraham Lincoln came to the Presidency in 1860 after a rather little known session in the
House of Representatives and after being defeated for the Senate in '58, and was a
distinguished President. There is no certain road to the Presidency. There are no guarantees
that if you take one road or another that you will be a successful President.
I have been in the Congress for 14 years. I have voted in the last 8 years, and the Vice
President was presiding over the Senate and meeting his other responsibilities; I have met
decisions over 800 times on matters which affect not only the domestic security of the
United States, but as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The question really is: which candidate and which party can meet the problems that the
United States is going to face in the '60's?
MR. SMITH.. The next question to Senator Kennedy from Mr. Novins.
MR. NOVINS. Senator Kennedy, in connection with these problems of the future that you
speak of and the program that you enunciated earlier in your direct talk, you call for
expanding some of the welfare programs, for schools, for teacher salaries, medical care,
and so forth, but you also call for reducing the Federal debt, and I'm wondering how you, if
you are President in January, would go about paying the bill for all this. Does this mean--
MR. KENNEDY. I didn't advocate--I did not advocate reducing the Federal debt, because I
don't believe that you're going to be able to reduce the Federal debt very much in 1961, 2,
or 3.
I think you have heavy obligations which affect our security which we're going to have to
meet, and, therefore, I've never suggested we should be able to retire the debt substantially,
or even at all in 1961 or 2--
MR. NOVINS. Senator, I believe in one of your speeches--
MR. KENNEDY. No, never.
MR. NOVINS. (Continuing) . . . you suggested that reducing the interest rate would help
toward a reduction of the Federal debt--
MR. KENNEDY. No, no. Not reducing the interest-- reducing the interest rate.
In my judgment, the hard money--tight money policy, fiscal policy of this administration
has contributed to the slowdown in our economy, which helped bring the recession of '54
which made the recession of '58 rather intense, and which has slowed, somewhat, our
economic activity in 1960.
What I have talked about, however, the kind of programs that I talk about, in my judgment,
are fiscally sound. Medical care for the aged, I would put under social security. The Vice
President and I disagree on this. The program, the Javits-Nixon or the Nixon-Javits
program, would have cost, if fully used, $600 million by the Government per year, and
$600 million by the States.
The program which I advocated, which failed by five votes in the United States' Senate,
would have put medical care for the aged in social security and would have been paid for
through the social security system and the social security tax.
Secondly, I support Federal aid to education and Federal aid for teachers' salaries. I think
that's a good investment. I think we're going to have to do it. And I think to heap the burden
further on the property tax, which is already strained in many of our communities, will
provide--will make--insure, in my opinion, that many of our children will not be adequately
educated and many of our teachers not adequately compensated.
There is no greater return to an economy or to a society than an educational system second
to none.
On the question of the development of natural resources, I would pay-as-you-go in the
sense that they would be balanced and the power revenues would bring back sufficient
money to finance the projects, in the same way as the Tennessee Valley.
I believe in the balanced budget, and the only conditions under which I would unbalance
the budget would be if there was a grave national emergency or a serious recession.
Otherwise, with a steady rate of economic growth, and Mr. Nixon and Mr. Rockefeller, in
their meeting, said a 5-percent economic growth would bring by 1962 $10 billion extra in
tax revenues. Whatever is brought in I think that we can finance essential programs within
a balanced budget if business remains orderly.
MR. SMITH.. Mr. Nixon, your comment?
MR. NIXON. Yes. I think what Mr. Novins was referring to was not one of Senator
Kennedy's speeches, but the Democratic platform, which did mention cutting the national
debt.
I think, too, that it should be pointed out that, of course, it is not possible, particularly under
the proposals that Senator Kennedy has advocated either to cut the national debt or to
reduce taxes. As a matter of fact, it will be necessary to raise taxes.
Senator Kennedy points out that as far as his one proposal is concerned, the one for
medical care for the aged, that that would be financed out of social security. That, however,
is raising taxes for those who pay social security.
He points out that he would make pay-as-you-go be the basis for our natural resources
development, where our natural resources development, which I also support, incidentally,
however, whenever you appropriate money for one of these projects, you have to pay now
and appropriate the money and the--while they eventually do pay out, it doesn't mean that
you--the Government doesn't have to put out the money this year.
And so I would say that in all of these proposals Senator Kennedy has made, they will
result in one of two things: Either he has to raise taxes or he has to unbalance the budget. If
he unbalances the budget, that means you have inflation, and that will be, of course, a very
cruel blow to the very people--the older people--that we've been talking about.
As far as aid for school construction is concerned, I favor that, as Senator Kennedy did in
January of this year when he said he favored that rather than aid to teachers' salaries. I
favor that because I believe that's the best way to aid our schools without running any risk
whatever of the Federal Government telling our teachers what to teach.
MR. SMITH.. The next question to Vice President Nixon from Mr. Warren.
MR. WARREN. Mr. Vice President, you mentioned schools. It was just yesterday, I think,
you asked for a crash program to raise education standards, and this evening you talked
about advances in education.
Mr. Vice President, you said--it was back in 1957--that salaries paid to school teachers
were nothing short of a national disgrace. Higher salaries for teachers you added, were
important, and if the situation wasn't corrected, it could lead to a national disaster.
And yet, you refused to vote in the Senate in order to break a tie vote when that single vote,
if it had been "yes," would have granted salary increases to teachers. I wonder if you could
explain that, sir.
MR. NIXON. I'm awfully glad you got that question, because, as you know, I got into it at
the last of my other question and wasn't able to complete the argument. [Laughter].
I think that the reason that I voted against having the Federal government pay teachers'
salaries was probably the very reason that concerned Senator Kennedy when, in January of
this year, in his kickoff press conference, he said that he favored aid for school
construction, but at that time did not feel that there should be aid for teachers' salaries. At
least that's the way I read his remarks.
Now, why should there be any question about the Federal government aiding teachers'
salaries? Why did Senator Kennedy take that position then? Why do I take it now? We both
took it then and I take it now for this reason: We want higher teachers' salaries; we need
higher teachers' salaries; but we also want our education to be free of Federal control.
When the Federal Government gets the power to pay teachers, inevitably, in my opinion, it
will acquire the power to set standards and to tell the teachers what to teach. I think this
would be bad for the country; I think it would be bad for the teaching profession.
There is another point that should be made. I favor higher salaries for teachers, but, as
Senator Kennedy said in January of this year in this same press conference, the way that
you get higher salaries for teachers is to support school construction, which means that all
of the local school districts in the various States then have money which is freed to raise
the standards for teachers' salaries.
I should also point out this: Once you put the responsibility on the Federal Government for
paying a portion of teachers' salaries, your local communities and your States are not going
to meet the responsibility as much as they should. I believe, in other words, that we have
seen the local communities and the States assuming more of that responsibility. Teachers'
salaries, very fortunately, have gone up 50 percent in the last 8 years, as against only a 34-
percent rise for other salaries. This is not enough. It should be more. But I do not believe
that the way to get more salaries for teachers is to have the Federal Government get in with
a massive program.
My objection here is not the cost in dollars. My objection here is the potential cost in
controls and eventual freedom for the American people by giving the Federal Government
power over education, and that is the greatest power a government can have.
MR. SMITH.. Senator Kennedy's comment.
MR. KENNEDY. When the Vice President quotes me in January, '60, I do not believe the
Federal Government should pay directly teachers' salaries, but that was not the issue before
the Senate in February.
The issue before the Senate was that the money would be given to the State; the State then
could determine whether the money would be spent for school construction or teacher
salaries.
On that question the Vice President and I disagreed. I voted in favor of that proposal and
supported it strongly, because I think that that provided assistance to our teachers for their
salaries without any chance of Federal control and it is on that vote that Mr. Nixon and I
disagreed, and his tie vote defeated--his breaking the tie defeated the proposal.
I don't want the Federal Government paying teachers' salaries directly; but if the money
will go to the States and the States can then determine whether it shall go for school
construction or for teachers' salaries, in my opinion you protect the local authority over the
school board and the school committees. And, therefore, I think that was a sound proposal
and that is why I supported it and I regret that it did not pass.
Secondly, there have been statements made that the Democratic platform would cost a
good deal of money and that I am in favor of unbalancing the budget.
That is wholly wrong, wholly in error; and it is a fact that in the last 8 years the Democratic
Congress has reduced the appropria-- the request of the appropriation by over $10 billion.
That is not my view and I think it ought to be stated very clearly on the record.
My view is that you can do these programs--and they should be carefully drawn--within a
balanced budget if our economy is moving ahead.
MR. SMITH.. The next question to Senator Kennedy from Mr. Vanocur.
MR. VANOCUR. Senator, you've been promising the voters that if you are elected
President you'll try and push through Congress bills on medical aid to the aged, a
comprehensive minimum hourly wage bill, Federal aid to education.
Now, in the August postconvention session of the Congress--when you, at least, held up the
possibility you could one day be President and when you had overwhelming majorities,
especially in the Senate--you could not get action on these bills.
Now how do you feel that you'll be able to get them in January--
MR. KENNEDY. Let's take the bills--
MR. VANOCUR. (continuing) . . . if you weren't able to get them in August?
MR. KENNEDY. If I may take the bills.
We did pass in the Senate a bill to provide $1.25 minimum wage. It failed because the
House did not pass it and the House failed by 11 votes, and I might say that two-thirds of
the Republicans in the House voted against a dollar twenty-five cent minimum wage, and a
majority of the Democrats sustained it. Nearly two-thirds of them voted for the dollar
twenty-five.
We were threatened by a veto if we passed a dollar and a quarter.
It's extremely difficult, with the great power that the President does, to pass any bill when
the President is opposed.
All the President needs to sustain his veto of any bill, is one-third plus one in either the
House or the Senate.
Secondly, we passed a Federal-aid-to-education bill in the Senate. It failed to came to the
floor of the House of Representatives. It was killed in the Rules Committee and it is a fact
in the August session that the four members of the Rules Committee, who are Republicans,
joining with two Democrats, voted against sending the aid-to-education bill to the floor of
the House.
Four Democrats voted for it. Every Republican on the Rules Committee voted against
sending that bill to be considered by the Members of the House of Representatives.
Thirdly, on medical care for the aged: This is the same fight that's been going on for 25
years in social security.
We wanted to tie it to social security. We offered an amendment to do so; 44 Democrats
voted for it; 1 Republican voted for it; and we were informed at the time it came to a vote
that if it was adopted the President of the United States would veto it.
In my judgment, a vigorous Democratic President supported by a Democratic majority in
the House and Senate, can win the support for these programs; but if you send a
Republican President and a Democratic majority and the threat of a veto hangs over the
Congress, in my judgment you will continue what happened in the August session, which is
a clash of parties and inaction.
MR. NIXON. Well, obviously my views are a little different.
First of all, I don't see how it's possible for a one-third of a body, such as the Republicans
have in the House and the Senate, to stop two-thirds if the two-thirds are adequately led.
I would say, too, that when Senator Kennedy refers to the action of the House Rules
Committee, there are eight Democrats on that committee and four Republicans. It would
seem to me, again, that it is very difficult to blame the four Republicans for the eight
Democrats not getting something through that particular committee.
I would say further that to blame the President in his veto power for the inability of the
Senator and his colleagues to get action in this special session misses the mark.
When the President exercises his veto power, he has to have the people behind him, not just
a third of the Congress--because let's consider it:
If the majority of the Members of the Congress felt that these particular proposals were
good issues--the majority of those who were Democrats--why didn't they pass them and
send to the President and get a veto and have an issue?
The reason why these particular bills in these various fields that have been mentioned were
not passed was not because the President was against them; it was because the people were
against them. It was because they were too extreme; and I am convinced that the alternate
proposals that I have, that the Republicans have in the field of health, in the field of
education, and the field of welfare, because they are not extreme, because they will
accomplish the end without too great cost in dollars or in freedom, that they could get
through the next Congress.
MR. SMITH.. The next question to Vice President Nixon from Mr. Fleming.
MR. FLEMING. Mr. Vice President, do I take it, then, you believe that you could work
better with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate than Senator Kennedy could
work with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate??
MR. NIXON. I would say this: That we, of course, expect to pick up some seats in both in
the House and the Senate.
We would hope to control the House, to get a majority in the House in this election. We
cannot, of course, control the Senate.
I would say that a President will be able to lead, a President will be able to get his program
through to the effect that he has the support of the country, the support of the people.
Sometimes we--we get the opinion that in getting programs through the House or the
Senate it's purely a question of legislative finagling and all that sort of thing.
It isn't really that. Whenever a majority of the people are for a program, the House and the
Senate responds to it; and whether this House and Senate, in the next session is Democratic
or Republican, if the country will have voted for the candidate for the Presidency and for
the proposals that he has made, I believe that you will find that the President, if it were a
Republican, as it would be in my case, would be able to get his program through that
Congress.
Now I also say that as far as Senator Kennedy's proposals are concerned, that again the
question is not simply one of a Presidential veto stopping programs. You must always
remember that a President can't stop anything unless he has the people behind him, and the
reason President Eisenhower's vetoes have been sustained, the reason the Congress does
not send up bills to him which they think will be vetoed is because the people and the
Congress, the majority of them, know the country is behind the President.
MR. SMITH.. Senator Kennedy.
MR. KENNEDY. Well, now let's look at these bills that the Vice President suggests were
too extreme.
One was a bill for a dollar twenty-five cents an hour for anyone who works in a store or
company that has a million dollars a year business. I don't think that's extreme at all, and
yet nearly two-thirds to three-fourths of the Republicans in the House of Representatives
voted against that proposal.
Secondly was the Federal aid to education bill. It - it was a very--because of the defeat of
teacher salaries, it was not a bill that met, in my opinion, the needs. The fact of the matter
is it was a bill that was less than you recommended, Mr. Nixon, this morning in your
proposal.
It was not an extreme bill, and yet we could not get one Republican to join; at least, I think,
four of the eight Democrats voted to send it to the floor of the House, not one Republican,
and they joined with those Democrats who were opposed to it.
I don't say the Democrats are united in their support of the program, but I do say a majority
are and I say a majority of the Republicans are opposed to it.
The third is medical care for the aged, which is tied to social security, which is financed out
of social security funds, does not put a deficit on the Treasury.
The proposal advanced by you and by Mr. Javits would have cost $600 millions. Mr.
Rockefeller rejected it in New York; he said he didn't agree with the financing at all; said it
ought to be on social security.
So these are three programs which are quite moderate. I think it shows the difference
between the two parties.
One party is ready to move in these programs; the other party gives them lipservice.
MR. SMITH.. Mr. Warren's question for Senator Kennedy.
MR. WARREN. Senator Kennedy, on another subject:
Communism is so often described as an ideology or a belief which exists somewhere other
than in the United States. Let me ask you, sir:
Just how serious a threat to our national security are these Communist subversive activities
in the United States today?
MR. KENNEDY. Well, I think they're serious. I think it's a matter that we should continue
to give great care and attention to.
We should support the laws which the United States has passed in order to protect us from
uh - those who would destroy us from within.
We should sustain the Department of Justice in its efforts and the FBI and we should be
continually alert.
I think if the United States is maintaining a strong society here in the United States, I think
that we can meet any internal threat. The major threat is external and will continue.
MR. NIXON. I agree with Senator Kennedy's appraisal generally in this respect.
The question of communism within the United States has been one that has worried us in
the past. It is one that will continue to be a problem for years to come.
We have to remember that the cold war that Mr. Khrushchev is waging and his colleagues
are waging, is waged all over the world and it's waged right here in the United States.
That's why we have to continue to be alert.
It is also essential in being alert that we be fair--fair because by being fair, we uphold the
very freedoms that the Communists would destroy.
We uphold the standards of conduct which they would never follow and in this connection
I think that we must look to the future having in mind the fact that we fight communism at
home not only by our laws to deal with Communists, the few who do become Communists
and the few who do become fellow travelers, but we also fight communism at home by
moving against those various injustices which exist in our society; which the Communists
feed upon. And in that connection I again would say that while Senator Kennedy says we
are for the status quo, I do believe that he would agree that I am just as sincere in believing
that my proposals for Federal aid to education, my proposals for health care are just as
sincerely held as his.
The question again is not one of goals. We are for those goals. It's one of means.
MR. SMITH.. Mr. Vanocur's question for Vice President Nixon.
MR. VANOCUR. Mr. Vice President, in one of your earlier statements you said we have
moved ahead, we have built more schools, we have built more hospitals.
Now, sir, isn't it true that the building of more schools is a local matter for financing?
Were you claiming that the Eisenhower administration was responsible for the building of
these schools or is it the local school districts that provide for them?
MR. NIXON. Not at all. As a matter of fact, your question brings out a point that I am very
glad to make. Too often in appraising whether we are moving ahead or not we think only of
what the Federal Government is doing.
Now, that isn't the test of whether America moves. The test of whether America moves is
whether the Federal Government plus the State government plus the local government plus
the biggest segment of all, individual enterprise, moves.
We have, for example, a gross national product of approximately $500 billion. Roughly
$100 to $125 billion of that is the result of Government activity. Four hundred billion,
approximately, is the result of what individuals do.
Now the reason the Eisenhower administration has moved, the reason that we've had the
funds, for example, locally to build the schools and the hospitals and the highways, to make
the progress that we have, is because this administration has encouraged individual
enterprise and it has resulted in the greatest expansion of the private sector of the economy
that has ever been witnessed in an 8-year period, and that is growth. That is the growth that
we are looking for. It is the growth that this administration has supported and that its
policies have stimulated.
MR. SMITH.. Senator Kennedy.
MR. KENNEDY. Well, I must say the reason that the schools have been constructed is
because the local school districts were willing to increase the property taxes to a
tremendously high figure, in my opinion, almost to the point of diminishing returns, in
order to sustain these schools.
Secondly, I think we have a rich country. And I think we have a powerful country. I think
what we have to do, however, is have the President and the leadership set before our
country exactly what we must do in the next decade, if we're going to maintain our security
in education, in economic growth, in development of natural resources.
The Soviet Union is making great gains. It isn't enough to compare what might have been
done 8 years ago or 10 years ago or 15 years ago or 20 years ago.
I want to compare what we're doing with what our adversaries are doing, so that by the year
1970 the United States is ahead in education, in health, in building, in homes, in economic
strength.
I think that's the big assignment, the big task, the big function of the Federal Government.
MR. SMITH.. Can I have the summation time please?
We've completed our questions and, our comments, in just a moment, we'll have the
summation time.
A VOICE.. This will allow 3 minutes and 20 seconds for the summation by each candidate.
MR. SMITH.. Three minutes and twenty seconds for each candidate. Vice President Nixon,
will you make the first summation?
MR. NIXON. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Senator Kennedy, first of all, I think it is well to put in perspective where we really do
stand with regard to the Soviet Union in this whole matter of growth.
The Soviet Union has been moving faster than we have, but the reason for that is obvious.
They start from a much lower base.
Although they have been moving faster in growth than we have, we find for example today
that their total gross national product is only 44 percent of our total gross national product.
That's the same percentage that it was 20 years ago; and as far as the absolute gap is
concerned, we find that the United States is even further ahead than it was20 years ago.
Is this any reason for complacency?
Not at all Because these are determined men, they are fanatical men, and we have to get the
very most out of our economy.
I agree with Senator Kennedy completely on that score.
Where we disagree is in the means that we would use to get the most out of our economy.
I respectfully submit that Senator Kennedy too often would rely too much on the Federal
Government on what it would do to solve our problems, to stimulate growth.
I believe that when we examine the Democratic platform, when we examine the proposals
that he has discussed tonight, when we compare them with the proposals that I have made,
that these proposals that he makes would not result in greater growth for this country than
would be the case if we followed the programs that I have advocated.
There are many of the points that he has made that I would like to comment upon, the one
in the field of health is worth mentioning.
Our health program, the one that Senator Javits and other Republican Senators as well as I
supported, is one that provides for all people over 65 who want health insurance--the
opportunity to have it if they want it. It provides a choice of having either Government
insurance or private insurance, but it compels nobody to have insurance who does not want
it.
His program under social security would require everybody who had social security to take
Government health insurance whether he wanted it or not and it would not cover several
million people who are not covered by social security at all.
Here is one place where I think that our program does a better job than his.
The other point that I would make is this: This downgrading of how much things cost, I
think many of our people will understand better when they look at what happened when
during the Truman administration when the Government was spending more than it took in.
We found savings over a lifetime eaten up by inflation. We found the people who could
least afford it, people on retired incomes, people on fixed incomes, we found them unable
to meet their bills at the end of the month.
It is essential that a man who is President of this country, certainly stand for every program
that will mean for growth, and I stand for programs that will mean growth and progress.
But it is also essential that he not allow a dollar spent that could be better spent by the
people themselves.
MR. SMITH.. Senator Kennedy, your conclusion.
MR. KENNEDY. The point was made by Mr. Nixon that the Soviet production is only 44
percent of ours. I must say that 44 percent and that Soviet country is causing us a good deal
of trouble tonight. I want to make sure that it stays in that relationship. I don't want to see
the day when it's 60 percent of ours and 70 and 75 and 80 and 90 percent of ours, with all
the force and power that it could bring to bear in order to cause our destruction.
Secondly, the Vice President mentioned medical care for the aged. Our program was an
amendment to the Kerr bill. The Kerr bill provided assistance to all those who were not on
social security. I think it's a very clear contrast.
In 1935, when the Social Security Act was written, 94 out of 95 Republicans voted against
it. Mr. Landon ran in 1936 to repeal it.
In August of 1960, when we tried to get it again, but this time for medical care, we
received the support of one Republican in the Senate on this occasion.
Thirdly, I think the question before the American people is as they look at this country, and
as they look at the world around them, the goals are the same for all Americans; the means
are at question; the means are at issue.
If you feel that everything that is being done now is satisfactory, that the relative power and
prestige and strength of the United States is increasing in relation to that of the
Communists, that we are gaining more security, that we are achieving everything as a
nation that we should achieve, that we are achieving a better life for our citizens and greater
strength, then I agree. I think you should vote for Mr. Nixon.
But if you feel that we have to move again in the sixties, that the function of the President
is to set before the people the unfinished business of our society, as Franklin Roosevelt did
in the thirties, the agenda for our people, what we must do as a society to meet our needs in
this country and protect our security and help the cause of freedom--as I said at the
beginning, the question before us all that faces all Republicans and all Democrats, is: Can
freedom in the next generation conquer, or are the Communists going to be successful?
That's the great issue.
And if we meet our responsibilities, I think freedom will conquer. If we fail--if we fail to
move ahead, if we fail to develop sufficient military and economic and social strength here
in this country, then I think that the tide could begin to run against us, and I don't want
historians 10 years from now, to say, these were the years when the tide ran out for the
United States. I want them to say, these were the years when the tide came in, these were
the years when the United States started to move again. That's the question before the
American people, and only you can decide what you want, what you want this country to
be, what you want to do with the future.
I think we're ready to move. And it is to that great task, if we are successful, that we will
address ourselves.
MR. SMITH.. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
This hour has gone by all too quickly. Thank you very much for permitting us to present
the next President of the United States on this unique program.
I've been asked by the candidates to thank the American networks and the affiliated stations
for providing time and facilities for this joint appearance.
Other debates in this series will be announced later and will be on different subjects. This is
Howard K. Smith. Good night from Chicago.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Loraine

Stadium, Loraine, Ohio, September 27, 1960
Governor DiSalle, Senator Lausche, Mayor Celebrezze, Mayor Jaworski, Bill McCray, ladies and gentlemen: I want to
express my appreciation to all of you for a very generous welcome to Ohio. I must say I think Ohio is going Democratic
in November of 1960 and is going to lead the United States. (Applause)
I am grateful to your Governor and to your Senator for accompanying me today on a trip through northern Ohio. This
state symbolizes the opportunities and the responsibilities and the problems which face the United States as a whole - a
great industrial state, faced with the problem of growing, of finding schools for your children, of meeting the problems
of those who are old, of making sure that those who are old enough to work can find a job, of making sure that our
economy produces the things we need in this country, the things we need if we are going to be strong. I look to the
1960's with a good deal of confidence and hope, and I stand here today as the Democratic Standard Bearer of the oldest
political party on earth. I stand where Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman stood in their time.
(Applause)
I think the contrast between the two parties and the things for which they stand, and their approach to the future and
their record of the past, can be seen in the men and the slogans that they used in the 20th Century. No Democratic
candidate for the Presidency ever stood pat with McKinley, or kept cool with Coolidge, or returned to normalcy with
Harding, or had two chickens in every pot with Hoover, or ran in 1936, as Landon did, repealing social security, or ran
like Dewey did in 1944 and 1948 or runs in 1960 on the slogan "You never had it so good."
American Presidents who were Democrats in this century, Woodrow Wilson and the New Freedom, Franklin Roosevelt,
and the New Deal, Harry Truman and the Fair Deal - and now we run in 1960 on a program of the New Frontier.
(Applause)
The New Frontier represents all of the responsibilities which the American people must meet in the 1960's, and it
represents all of the opportunities that are before us as a country and as a people. Here in the State of Ohio and in the
United States, we have an opportunity to prove that freedom is not only the best system of government, but it is also the
strongest, that productivity is the hand maiden of liberty, that you can be free, that you can be strong, that you can solve
your problems, that you can build a defense second to none, that you can be first in space and first in education and first
in employment and first in steel production, that you can meet the problems that we face and still maintain our freedom.
That is the responsibility not of the next President, and not of the next Congress, and not of the House and the Senate - it
is a responsibility in which all of us participate, in which all of us share. We have seen in the last few days in New York
City Mr. Khrushchev and Kadar and Gromulko [sic] and Castro. They personify the Communist system, but they are not
themselves the great danger. The great danger is the Communist system, itself, and its relentless determination to
destroy us. If Mr. Khrushchev should pass from the scene, the Communist system would remain. So all the debates with
Mr. Khrushchev and all the things which we may say to him pale in significance to the relative power of the two
systems. Are we stronger or is the Communist system stronger? Are we going to be stronger in 1970 or are they going to
be stronger? Are we going to be stronger in 1980 or are they going to be stronger?
My argument with Mr. Nixon and with the Republican Administration is that they do not have sufficient vision,
sufficient vigor, sufficient imagination, sufficient foresight to see that the unfinished business before us calls for us not
merely to be first today, not merely to be strong enough today, but to be strong enough in 1970, in 1980, We protect not
only our own security, but the security of all those who look to us, and the security of our children. Therefore, I think it
is incumbent upon us to make the right decisions, to choose the strong way, to choose, if necessary, the hard way, for
ourselves and for those who depend upon us.
Here in Loraine, in Ohio, in the United States, this fight is going to be fought. We cannot possibly miss. We cannot
possibly fail, if we maintain our freedom and our strength, because our system represents in my opinion the basic
aspiration of people everywhere. The experience of Eastern Germany, of Hungary, of Poland, of Tibet, all these show
that people want to be free, and if they feel that we are strong, if they feel that events are moving in our direction, and
not in the direction of the Communists, I think they will come with us. And what is true of Eastern Europe is true of
Africa and Asia and Latin America. The big question in their minds, and the questions which we have to settle in the
next eight years is, is the world moving toward freedom or toward the Communists?
I think it can move towards us. I think that we can meet the challenge. I think we can demonstrate that we represent the
way of the future. The Communist system is as old as Egypt, and I think we have the greatest chance in our time and
generation to show Mr. Khrushchev that Americans who fought in Anzio and in the Pacific now have determined that
the United States will move and meet its responsibilities at home and abroad. Thank you. (Applause)
I just want to say one word about the importance of sending a good man to the House of Representatives. We need the
best people we can get in the House, the Senate and the Executive Branch, and I think this district has a great chance in
doing a service for itself and the country if you elect Bill McCray to Congress. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Armory, Akron,

Ohio, September 27, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A press release of the
speech, which appears to be a verbatim transcript, exists in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-
SENATOR KENNEDY: I want to thank that band. One more chorus of Anchors Aweigh and we will just float this
building right out. (Laughter and applause)
Governor DiSalle, distinguished guests, Mrs. Price, Vice Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, ladies and
gentlemen: I want to express my thanks to you for a very generous welcome tonight. I owe a good deal to Ohio.
Governor DiSalle endorsed me at a time that I had few supporters, away back last January, and there isn't any doubt that
without that support given to me on that occasion and later at the Democratic Convention I would not be standing here
tonight. (Applause)
I want to thank an old friend of mine, the Mayor of your city, for his warm welcome, he and Senator Dugan and the
Congressman to be, and others really turned out, and the reason they turned out was because they know it is important
for this district and it is important for the State of Ohio, and it is important for the United States that we get Democratic
leadership back in this country again. (Applause)
Forty years ago next month we returned to normalcy with Warren G. Harding of the State of Ohio and wages dropped
44 per cent two years later. Thirty two years [sic] later Herbert Hoover was elected and the next year the stock market
dropped out of sight.
(Response from the audience.)
Now we come to another election, with over 4 million Americans unemployed, many of them for longer than four
months, another 3 million that work part time; here in this one county of Ohio, which is a great industrial county we
have more than 10,000 unemployed and 11,500 on relief.
I know that this is a great and prosperous country, but I am not satisfied until we have everyone who searches for a job
able to find it, whether they live in Boston, Massachusetts, or Akron, Ohio, or San Francisco, California. (Applause)
The difference between Mr. Nixon and myself is the same difference that has existed for many years between the
Republican and the Democratic Parties. I said on Sunday in Cleveland that I could not think of a single idea which the
Republican Party had produced that constituted major new legislation on behalf of the people. The Cleveland paper
today attempted to correct the record, and they mentioned the child labor work that President Taft had done 50 years
ago.
(Response from the audience.)
They mentioned the antitrust suits that had been brought in at the time of Theodore Roosevelt. I think Theodore
Roosevelt was a great Republican President. But I want to know what they have done in the last four years that has been
of benefit to the people. (Applause) I don't mean that they have not come up with new legislation. The fact of the matter
is that every piece of major legislation which is the hallmark of Franklin Roosevelt's administration from social security
to minimum wage, from the Securities and Exchange Act to TVA, every one of those pieces of legislation was opposed -
at the time they were written - by the Republican Party. They say our goals are the same. Of course, the goals of all
Americans, since the beginning of this country, has been the same; a better life for our people. But it is a question of the
means by which we achieve those goals. I am not satisfied, and I don't think it is significant to say our goals are the
same. Our goals were the same in the Thirties and in the Twenties, and before that, and in the Fifties. What counts in a
country, what counts in a system, what counts in political parties is the means by which you achieve those goals, and I
think it is on that basis that the people of this country are going to select the Democratic Party once again. (Applause)
There is some value in brand names. When you buy something at the store, you buy something you know something
about. Mr. Nixon says, "Don't pay any attention to the party labels. Vote for the man." The party labels tell a story. They
tell a story of this country. They tell a story of the division between the Republicans and the Democrats on the great
issues of benefit to our people. Whether they are federal aid to education, whether they are better unemployment
compensation, whether they are fiscal and monetary policies which stimulate our economy, whether they are housing
legislation or roads or whatever it may be, I think our record is clear.
We have come down on behalf of the people, and I therefore am proud, as the Standard Bearer for a party which in this
century has produced Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman - I am proud to come to this city tonight
and ask your support. (Applause)
This contest is between those who say, "You never had it so good" and those who say, "We can do better". This contest
is between those who say that the power and prestige of the United States has never been higher and between those who
say we can do better around the world. We can stand as we used to stand, for freedom, for a better life for all people.
Franklin Roosevelt did not pour billions of dollars into Latin America and Africa, and yet every young man of those
countries who looked for a future for his country looked to Franklin Roosevelt, because they felt he served the people,
because the Democratic Party and Roosevelt were identified with the aspirations of people, regardless of their race or
their creed or their color. And what we are in this country speaks much louder than what we say we are. If we are
building a better society here, if we are meeting the problems here in the United States, if we are moving ahead, if we
demonstrate that a free society can be a productive society, then I think we serve ourselves and the cause of freedom,
and all those who are attempting to decide which road they will take.
I want people to say the way of the future is freedom. I want people to say that we want to travel on freedom's road. The
Communist system will be dead, we hope, if we meet our responsibilities by the turn of the century. It does not
represent, as we do, a basic aspiration of the human nature. The only thing they have been able to do is by organizing
their society by the police power of the state, they have been able to move their society ahead physically. Therefore, we
have to do the same; we have to do more. We have to be not only free but strong, and therefore I come to you tonight
asking your support, not saying that if I am elected life will be easy, but I can assure you that if I am elected, the light
which constitutes this country, the light which stands for freedom, the light which comes when a society moves, I think
will burn in the United States again. I ask your help in this campaign. (Applause)
During the American Constitutional Convention there was behind the desk of General Washington a picture of a sun low
on the horizon, and many of the delegates wondered whether it was a rising sun or a setting sun. At the conclusion,
Benjamin Franklin stood up: "Because of what we have done here because we have adopted the Constitution, we now
know it at it is a rising sun and the beginning of a great new day."
I think for us, for this country, for the cause of freedom, if we meet our obligations, it can be a rising sun, and the
beginning for us all of a great new day. Thank you. (Standing ovation.)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Municipal

Auditorium, Canton, Ohio, September 27, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: Governor DiSalle, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen: I want to express, as we leave
beautiful Ohio, I want to express my thanks to all of you. We have been campaigning from Painesville, this morning,
down through at least 50 per cent of the State of Ohio. I must say I share the view of Governor DiSalle. I think that this
state is going to go Democratic in November. (Applause)
Last night on television Mr. Nixon stated that we agreed on the goals but that we disagreed on the means. That is what
the argument has been for 25 years, how you move this country ahead, how do you provide full employment, how do
you provide housing, how do you provide education, how do you develop the natural resources. Of course we want these
things done, but the big argument is the means and the Democratic Party has provided the means. (Applause)
Franklin Roosevelt in accepting the second Presidential nomination before 100,000 people in Franklin Field in 1936, I
think said very clearly the differences between our two major parties. In that speech he said, "Governments can err,
Presidents do make mistakes, but the immortal Dante tells us that Divine Justice weighs the sins of the cold blooded and
the sins of the warm hearted in a different scale. Better the occasional faults of a government living in the spirit of
charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."
I think that is the issue. What does this country want? Does this country want a government frozen in the ice of its own
indifference, or do we want a government that will move, that will care for our people, that will set before the American
people the unfinished business of our society? (Applause)
After Franklin Roosevelt was elected in 1933, the new President's friend, Robert E. Sherwood, set it all down in a brief
sardonic poem:
"Plodding feet, tramp, tramp
The Grand Old Party breaking camp
Blare of bugles, din, din
The New Deal is moving in."
Today on every major crisis that faces the United States, from the crisis at Formosa to Berlin, in the plight of our cities,
of people out of work, we hear no blare of bugles, din, din; we see only plodding feet, tramp, tramp, and the Grand Old
Party breaking camp.
I am a Democrat and I am proud to lead the Democratic Party - (applause) - Mr. Nixon says that party labels don't mean
anything; vote for the man. Party labels tell us something. The Democratic Party would not have nominated Mr. Nixon
and the Republican Party never would have nominated me. We come out of the parties because the parties do stand for
something. They do stand for a long history, and the record is written in the last 25 years and in the last 50 years. A
Democratic Majority wrote the Social Security Act and a Republican Majority tried to kill it. (Applause) The
Democratic Party wrote Unemployment Compensation and the Republicans opposed it; a Democratic Party wrote the
Minimum Wage Law - a minimum wage of 25 cents an hour away back in the Thirties, and four-fifths of the
Republicans voted against it.
I think parties mean something. They tell something about the candidates and they tell something about what the
candidates will do if they are elected to office. Mr. Nixon never would have been the unanimous choice of his party
unless they felt they understood where he was going, what he believed, and that he believed what they believed, and I
don't. (Applause)
I believe what Wilson believed and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, that it is the function of government not to
dominate but to serve. I don't believe, as I tried to say last night, in big government, but I believe in government meeting
its responsibilities. When 50 percent of the steel capacity of the United States is unused, when we are building 200,000
homes less than we should, when there are 1,800,000 children who go to school part time, when teachers across the
United States are paid 15 per cent less for wages than they are in the manufacturing industries in the United States, then
I think it is still time for the Democratic Party, I think we still have a function. (Applause)
When the average wage of laundry women in five large cities of the United States is 65 cents an hour for a 48 hour
week, when the average Social Security check for people over 65 is $78 a month, and at least 9 million live on less than
$1,000 a year, I think there is still need for the Democratic Party. I think the Party - I think the next President of the
United States will face a difficult time, because our country faces a difficult time. He is going to be faced with the
problem of maintaining our position in Berlin, of maintaining our position all around the globe, of attempting to rebuild
the image of the United States as a vital and strong society, as a society that is moving ahead, and at the same time he is
going to be faced with serious problems here in the United States. He is going to be faced with the problem of trying to
maintain in the first months of his office full employment in the United States, and in 1961 we may face a difficult time.
That will be a matter of the greatest possible concern and the greatest possible importance to our people.
I think that this administration has not realized that when you have a recession in 1954 and when you have a more
serious recession in 1958, and then you begin to have a plateau in 1960, that it should be an indication that it is time that
our economy was stimulated rather than was held back by a fiscal policy and monetary policy which I think in the last
eight years, which has featured hard money, high interest rates, which I think has had a deflationary effect on our
economy at a time when we needed to stimulate it. I think the United States must address itself again to the Full
Employment Act of 1946. I think we must attempt to stimulate the growth of the United States. We are going to have to
find 25,000 jobs a week for the next ten years if we are going to find jobs for your children who are coming into the
labor market - 25,000 jobs a week, 52 weeks a year for ten years, if we are going to maintain full employment in the
United States, and it is going to be a matter that is going to be of concern to us all, Canton, Ohio, and the United States.
We want to make sure that any American who seeks a job, who honestly wants to work will have a chance to work. That
is our objective. (Applause)
And we must do this at a time when automation is throwing men out of work. I ran in the primary in West Virginia. I
spent some time in McDowell County in West Virginia. McDowell County mines more coal than it ever has in its
history, probably more coal than any county in the United States and yet there are more people getting surplus food
packages in McDowell County than any county in the United States. The reason is that machines are doing the jobs of
men, and we have not been able to find jobs for those men. I think this is not a problem for McDowell County nor is it a
problem for Canton, Ohio. It is a matter that should be of importance to the next Administration and to the next
President.
The problem of automation is to make sure that machines make our lives easier, not harder, for those who are thrown
out of work. (Applause)
I think we must develop our natural resources. You cannot bring industry into Ohio unless you have clean rivers. I think
the greatest asset that has happened to Ohio during the last few years, except for Governor DiSalle’s election, was the
building of the St. Lawrence Seaway, and I was proud, though I came from Massachusetts, to vote for it, because it is a
national asset and a rising tide lifts all boats. If Ohio moves ahead, so will Massachusetts. (Applause) Good water,
power, transportation, those are necessary to develop the economy of the United States in the 1960’s.
Sixth, I think we must formulate special programs which will be of assistance in those areas which are chronically hard
hit by unemployment, areas where it is 7, 8, 9 or 10 percent, and it may have gone on for two or three years. I had one of
them in my own state, Lawrence, Massachusetts, where the unemployment rate was 35 per cent for three years, and the
reason, of course, was because we lost our textile mills.
This Administration has opposed both area assistance bills. I am not interested in seeing people in the United States out
of work not for one month, four months or a year, but for two or three years, while they get a surplus food package from
the government of 5 cents a day in eggs, rice, and they are going to add lard this summer. (Applause)
This is an important election and we need your help in it. We cannot possibly succeed in this area or in this state unless
in the next six weeks we can carry the State of Ohio. Ohio is key and so is Illinois. This election will be decided in the
major industrial states of this country, and the question before the people of Ohio is do you think we can do better, do
you think a Democratic Administration with new people, with a sense of urgency about the affairs of this country, at
home and abroad, do you think we can move this country, or do you think - (applause) - or do think you have never had
it so good? I don’t think Khrushchev has had it so good as he has had it lately. He has been moving outward and he has
done it by unrelenting effort to demonstrate that his society represents the way to the future. That is the most powerful
weapon he has, because if the Soviet Union was first in outer space, that is the most serious defeat the United States has
suffered in many, many years. The reason - not merely because outer space is important militarily, but because as
George Adams, the head of the United States Foreign Service, said earlier this year, people around the world equate the
mission to the moon, the mission to outer space, with productive and scientific superiority. Therefore, in spite of all our
accomplishments, because we failed to recognize the impact that being first in outer space would have, the impression
began to move around the world that the Soviet Union was on the march, that it had definite goals, that it knew how to
accomplish them, that it was moving and that we were standing still. That is what we have to overcome, that
psychological feeling in the world that the United States has reached maturity, that maybe our high noon has passed,
maybe our brightest days were earlier, and that now we are going into the long, slow afternoon. I don’t hold that view at
all. I don’t hold that view at all, and neither do the people of this country. (Applause)
I hope if we are successful that at the end of the next President’s administration, people around the world will begin to
wonder what is the President of the United States doing, what is the United States doing, not merely what is Mr.
Khrushchev doing. I want to entertain him with a vision of the United States on the move. I am tired of reading every
day what he says and what Castro says. I want to begin to see the United States moving ahead. (Applause)
So we ask your help and assistance in this campaign. I will close by reminding you that in the election of 1860 one
hundred years ago, the issue was really comparable, the question of whether the United States could exist half slave and
half free. Now in this election I am reminded of a letter which Abraham Lincoln wrote to a friend during that election. In
that letter he said, "I know there is a God and I know that He hates injustice. I see the storm coming. But if He has a
place and a part for me, I believe that I am ready." Now, 100 years later, we know there is a God and we know He hates
injustice, and we see the storm coming. But if He has a place and a part for us, I believe that we are ready. Thank you.
(Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Airport, Erie,

Pennsylvania, September 27, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: Thank you very much. I want to say how much I appreciate your coming to the airport to meet
me tonight. I know the reason that you do it is because you share the view that I have that it is essential to this country
and to the State of Pennsylvania that the Democrats win this election. (Applause)
I think the issue is a plain one and I think we attempted to discuss it last night. (Applause) That is the question of
whether the United States can do better, whether this is a great country that must be greater, a powerful country that
must be more powerful. I do not run for the Presidency on the slogan "You never had it so good." I think we can do
better, and I hope that all those who share my views that this country has a most important destiny, to be the chief
defender of freedom at a time when freedom is under attack all over the world, I hope that you feel as I do, that the
Democratic Party which in this century produced Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as a
contribution, I ask your help in this campaign. I think here in this State of Pennsylvania this issue may well be decided.
It is my judgment that the next President of the United States will carry Pennsylvania on November 8. (Applause)
I would not have been nominated at the Democratic Convention if I had not secured the support of the Pennsylvania
delegation. Now that you have done that, I hope you will go the rest of the way. We have a chance to be of service. This
is a great country and I think it deserves the best of us.
I must say, looking back on the record of the past 25 years, that Mr. Nixon has said party labels don't mean much; what
counts is the man. I think party labels mean something. The Republicans never would have nominated me, and the
Democrats never would have nominated Mr. Nixon. (Applause) I believe in the Democratic Party because I think it has
been of service to the people. I think it looks to the future, and I think it recognizes that there must be placed before the
American people during the next ten years the unfinished business of our society, the things we must do to keep our
people working, to provide security for our old people, to provide good education for our children, to provide a defense
second to none. I hope it may be said at the end of the next President's first term that during those years the world started
to look to the United States again, and wondered what the United States was doing, and wondered what the President
was doing, not what Mr. Khrushchev was doing. I am tired of hearing of it. (Applause)
I will close by again expressing my thanks. I think we have a chance to really be of service now. I think that when we
serve our country, we serve not only our own people, but we serve the cause of everyone who wants to be free also.
During the American Revolution, Thomas Paine said, "The cause of America is the cause of all mankind." I think in
1960, the cause of all mankind is the cause of America. If we succeed here, the cause of freedom succeeds. If we fail,
the cause of freedom fails. That is why I run for office this year, feeling that we must do better, that we must be stronger,
because what we do I think depends upon the future of the world. This is a great opportunity for all of us. I think if we
can rewrite the history of the world in the next four or eight years, we can be of service to ourselves and all those who
look to us and historians will later write that these were the great years of the United States. Thank you. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Rally, Hotel

Lawrence, Erie, Pennsylvania, September 28, 1960
press release that is apparently a verbatim transcript, exists in the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the
John F. Kennedy Library.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Governor Lawrence, ladies and gentlemen: - doesn't anyone ever go to school in Erie?
(Laughter) I want to express my thanks to all of you for this morning's reception and also for last night. I don't think that
in the whole campaign we have had as high a turn out of the people who live in one community as we have had in this
community. (Applause) We have been traveling in this campaign from community to community, from state to state,
from region to region, and we travel by plane and by car, and there are bands and all the rest. But we are engaged in a
serious business, in a serious time in the life of our country. I lead on this occasion the Democratic Party which, in other
years and other occasions and other great crises, has produced Jefferson, Jackson and Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin
Roosevelt and Harry Truman. I think the Democratic Party has produced these men for two reasons: First, because the
party is a national party, it represents potato farmers in Maine and steel workers in Pennsylvania, and citrus growers in
California and fishermen in the State of Washington. It speaks for all the people and all interests, and, therefore, I think
looks to the future as the American people do.
The second reason is because we have had in every year of our great contribution, men and women of sufficient vitality
and vigor to look to the future: Woodrow Wilson in the campaign of 1912 on the New Freedom. The first two years of
his administration were the most productive since the administration of Abraham Lincoln. Franklin Roosevelt ran with
the New Deal. As Governor Lawrence said this morning, the first 100 days re-did the face of America, and we still
benefit from what he did in the first 12 months of his office. Harry Truman ran on the Fair Deal, to speak on behalf of
the people of this country. I think that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman were regarded as
great Presidents by the people of this country, and the world. They were regarded as good neighbors by the people of
Latin America, because they were good neighbors to the people of this country. You can not succeed abroad; you cannot
be strong abroad, you cannot have our prestige strong around the world unless you are moving here at home. What we
are speaks louder than what we say. What we are doing here carries its imprint across the face of the globe. Because
Franklin Roosevelt developed the Tennessee Valley, people all over the world thought they could do the same. They
wanted to imitate us. I want people to look again to the United States for leadership. I want them to know that we have
in this country not only a free society, but also a strong and productive society. I want people in this country working. I
want us developing our natural resources. I want us to demonstrate that we can be first; not, if or but or when, but first,
now, period. (Applause)
I think the people of this country should make a determination in making a decision as to who they should elect in
November. They should make a determination not only on what is best for the United States, but which party can lead
this country to a position of preeminence in the world.
A Gallup Poll taken some months ago showed that of the ten countries polled, a majority of the people in every country
thought the Soviet Union would be ahead of the United States; in 1970, both scientifically and militarily. If people think
it so, it may be so. I don't think it so. But I think the important thing is to let people know that it is not going to be so, to
let people know that we are on the move here in the United States. (Applause)
I am tired of reading what Khrushchev is doing. I would like the people of the world to be reading what the American
President is doing, and what the United States is doing, not merely what Castro is doing or Khrushchev is doing or
Kadar is doing or Gromulko is doing.
I make no pretence of saying that if we are elected life will be easier. I think the next President's responsibility in the
next six months will be extremely heavy. He will be faced with the problem of maintaining full employment here in the
United States, of maintaining our economy, of trying to stimulate sufficiently so that people who want to find work can
find it, and in addition he will be face to face with a serious situation in Berlin, in Formosa and around the world. He
will be face to face with a competition in Africa and Latin America.
I don't run for the office of the Presidency promising that if I am elected life will be easy for the people or for the
President. I think it is difficult time. But I think all of want to serve our country, all of us what the best for it, and I
happen to believe that the Democratic Party has sufficient energy and vitality, sufficient force, to lead the United States
through dangerous times. I ask your help in this campaign. I ask your support. (Applause)
Let me close by saying to you -
(Response from the audience)
I know that I am doing the work and when I stop you have to go to school, and then you have to work -
In any case, I want to express my thanks to you all. I think here in Pennsylvania you know as much about the issues as
you can know. You have a distinguished Democratic Governor. You have had serious problems which have faced this
state because it is a major industrial component of the United States. If our economy is moving ahead, then
Pennsylvania moves ahead. If our economy stands still or is on a plateau, then, Pennsylvania stands still. This is, in a
sense, a weathervane state, because if its basic industries are moving ahead, I think the future of this state will be
assured. What we want for this state we want for our country, and what we want for our country, we want for the free
world.
In the American Revolution of 1776, Thomas Paine said that the cause of is the cause of all mankind. I think in this case
the cause of all mankind is the cause of America. I think we have a great contribution to make, and I am satisfied that we
are going to make it. I want it said not in November but in a later date in our history, by 1965 or 1970 or 1975 or 1980,
when the world begins to move in the direction of freedom that we have met the enemy and they are ours. Thank you.
(Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Bell Aircraft

Company, Niagara Falls, New York, September 28, 1960
press release that is apparently a verbatim transcript, exists in the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the
John F. Kennedy Library.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to have you meet Mayor Wagner of New York, Arthur
Levitt, the Comptroller of the State, and Mr. Pendergast, the State Chairman. We do not come to Niagara to see the falls.
We come to see you and the people of Northern New York. I am a candidate, as you know, for the office of the
Presidency of the United States, and I run as a Democrat. (Applause)
Mr. Nixon has said that party labels don't matter so much this year, that the question is the man. I think it is also the man
and I think it is also the party. I think parties do stand for something. They ought to. Grover Cleveland, a Governor of
New York as well as a President, said what good is a politician unless he stands for something and what good is a party
unless it stands for something.
I want to make it very clear what we stand for in 1960. The Democratic Party stands for a stronger America; not strong
if, but, when or something, but strong this year; now, period. (Applause) I want to make it very clear that I consider it to
be a central responsibility of the man who is elected President of the United States in November 8, to send a message to
the Congress in the first three months of his office which will request appropriations which will make us in 1961, 1962
and 1963 in a position to stand up to the Soviet Union or the Chinese Communists or anyone else who wishes to
threaten our security. I think it is incumbent and I think it is primary, and I think it will provide us, and we can provide
the kind of security that we need.
Secondly, I stand for full employment in the United States. (Applause) There are more people out of work this August
than at any time except for the two recessions. Here in this county you have seen it. I think that the Federal Government
and the states and the companies have to devote themselves to the goal of providing work for men who want it, for men
who need it, and providing work under good conditions. That has been the goal of the party that I represent since
Woodrow Wilson, and it is the goal of the Democratic Party today.
I have served on the Labor Committees of the Congress for 14 years, and I have traveled in the last year to nearly every
state in the Union. I have been to parts of New York and to West Virginia and Pennsylvania, and Southern Illinois, and I
think that it is a problem which is going to face the next President of the United States in the first six months. I don't
think it is any secret for Mr. Khrushchev that the United States economy today is at a plateau, that our steel mills are
working 50 per cent, and I don't want to see the winter of 1961 slide as it did in the winter of 1959 and 1954 and 1949.
This country cannot maintain its leadership unless our people are working and our machines are working.
The Soviet Union last week produced as much steel as the United States, and the reason, of course, is because our steel
mills work 54 per cent of their capacity. What affects the steel mills affects this country. If this country is moving ahead,
if we have fiscal and monetary policies which stimulate employment, if we have a defense policy which provides not
only protection in the United States but strength for our economy, if we provide security for our people, then I think we
provide security for freedom.
My program is brief; that is to strengthen this country, because what we are in this country speaks far louder than what
we say. If we are building a strong society here, and a strong economy, if we are providing work for our people, there
isn't any question that we can out produce any country in the world, that our security will be assured. We only fail when
we don't measure up to our own potential. It is my policy, and I think the policy of the Democratic Party, and I think the
policy of this country, to start this country moving again. That is the program to which we commit ourselves. I will be
glad to answer any questions that anyone might have. (Applause)
Does anyone have a question?
(Question from the audience inaudible.)
SENATOR KENNEDY: The question was why are all the defense contracts going to California, to the West Coast?
They are going partly to Washington and partly to California. Of course, the West Coast of the United States has great
advantages in building the aircraft industry originally, No. 1, and No. 2, there were arguments at one time that they were
in a more secure position than the East Coast, particularly as the enemy was at one time in Europe. I think that defense
contracts should be fairly distributed. I represent a section of the United States, New England, which has had the same
problem that Upper New York has had, defense contracts leaving, industries laying off, and we have begun to bring
them back, particularly in electronics and in the Raytheon Company.
I think defense contracts should be fairly distributed across the nation. I also support the reestablishment of the Defense
Manpower Policy No. 4, which was thrown out in 1952, which provided that those defense contracts would go to those
areas which were able to meet the competitive price and had over 8 per cent unemployment.
I think we can use defense contracts to strengthen the economy as well as strengthen the country. In any case, if we are
successful, we will try to distribute defense contracts fairly so that it protects the United States and protects the
economy. (Applause)
I will say that parts of California have also been hard hit lately because of the transition from aircraft to missiles, and I
think the decision on the B-70 which I supported I think would do something for the aircraft industry as well as provide
us a lead in planes.
QUESTION: Senator Kennedy, can you tell us how you voted in 1957 on civil rights, particularly on Section 3?
SENATOR KENNEDY: The question is how did I vote in 1957 on civil rights, particularly on Section 3.
Section 4 of the Civil Rights Bill gave the Attorney General the right to institute suits in all parts of the country to
protect the right to vote. Section 3 gave him the right to institute suits in order to protect all other constitutional rights
with the exception of voting. I supported Title 3 in 1957, and in 1960, and we were defeated in both cases. I would say
we had about 33 Democrats supporting Title 3 in 1957 and about 9 Republicans and about the same figure in 1960, and
we were defeated both times. I think Title 3 ought to pass. (Applause)
Can I have one more question?
QUESTION: What are you going to do about the medical bill for the aged?
SENATOR KENNEDY: As you know, in the August session of Congress, we had a fight on this issue. The proposal
that we put forward was to provide that medical care for the aged would be tied into the social security system. In other
words, that your working you would contribute through the social security system, and then when you reached the age
of retirement, 65, you would receive assistance in paying your medical bills. That program was brought to a vote in the
United States Senate. We were defeated 44 to about 55. The Senate passed a bill which I consider to be wholly
unsatisfactory, and it is a fact that the State of New York as well as other states have not supported or sustained the
program which the Congress finally passed. On that vote, 44 Democrats voted aye and one Republican Senator voted
aye. I want to make it clear that in my judgment the only way you are going to protect the interest of the country, the
only way you are going to be able provide a program which pays for itself, the only way you are going to provide
medical care for the aged, is through the Social Security system which has worked for 25 years. (Applause)
Therefore, whether I am in the United States Senate next year or whether I hold the office of the Presidency, in my
judgment, the Congress and the President must pass a medical aid bill through social security which I think represents
the best hope for all of us. (Applause) Especially as we are all aging very fast these days. (Laughter)
Thank you very much for coming out, I appreciate it. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Treadway Inn,

Niagara Falls, New York, September 28, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: Mayor Wagner, Mr. Pendergast, Arthur Levitt, Mr. Jordan, ladies and gentlemen: I hope the
Mayor, who is a distinguished Republican, I understand - (laughter) - will not take my key away if I make a few unkind
remarks about his party. (Applause) I won't include him in them at all. (Laughter)
There is an old saying that you have not seen any falls until you have seen Niagara Falls. I hope they will also say that
we have not seen any victory until we see the Democratic victory on November 8th this year. (Applause)
Some of you who are here today are working on the power project, and I appreciate very much your coming over here
during this period of time. I think your presence here, and I hope my presence here, indicates that we take this election
seriously, and I think it is a serious election because the United States is moving in a serious time. I have never thought
that the President of the United States was in difficulty. I have always thought that the United States, itself, faced serious
problems and serious challenges. You cannot live in this country during the last two weeks and possibly feel reassured
about the course of world events, and you cannot live in Western New York and possibly feel confident that in the next
three, four and five years we are going to maintain the economic growth and full employment of this section of the state.
(Applause)
I think this state and the country have been made by people who were not satisfied.
Mr. Nixon has said that I am downgrading the United States. I am not at all. I could not possibly feel stronger about this
country and about what it can do. But I think the Republicans have put limitations on what we can do. We want to
upgrade the leadership. We want to make this country in a position of unmatched security, both at home and abroad.
I stand today as the Democratic nominee for the office of the President, and where I stand other Americans have stood,
Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman - (applause) - and I stand for the things for which they stood.
Mr. Nixon has said in recent weeks that party labels don't mean very much in 1960. Republicans say that every four
years, but in the intervening three years they never do anything in the Congress which would make you think that party
labels aren't important. (Applause)
During the August session of this Congress - I don't think a party label means anything unless the parties mean
something, and I think the parties do mean something. I think the Republicans do stand for something. It is not what I
stand for, but they do stand for something, and it is against these programs which I think are in the interest of the people
of this country. We don't have to go back to Franklin Roosevelt, and we don't have to go back to Harry Truman. We can
go back to the August session of this Congress when there were three bills, which I think tell very well what the issues
are in this campaign.
One was medical care for the aged tied to social security. 44 Democratic Senators supported it, only one Republican,
and it is a fact that in the last seven days the Governor of this state, a Republican, has attacked the program which was
passed in this last session of the Congress, because it was not tied to social security. Everybody here pays social
security, but everybody here when they retire can look forward to some assistance. If we can tie medical care to social
security, then when we are retired, when we are retired, when we do reach the age of 65 for men and 62 for women, you
do not have to worry about medical care. The fact of the matter is that older people in this country, and I am Vice
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Aged, are hard hit by the problem of finding decent housing and paying for their
medical bills.
Under the bill which the Congress passed, anybody before 65 who needs medical care who has $800 or $1,000 saved up
must first spend that money, exhaust their savings, take an oath that they are needy, and then they will get some
assistance. I believe the other way, and that is the way the Democratic Party favors it. (Applause)
The second bill that was up and which is an issue in this campaign was a bill to provide $1.25 minimum wage. Four-
fifths of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, including the Congressman of this District, who is Chairman
of the Congressional Committee for all Republicans, voted against the $1.25 minimum wage for a 40 hour week, not for
a business which is only 10, 15 or 25 thousand dollars a year, but for a business which makes more than $1 million a
year, we wanted to pay them $1.25 by 1962, not this year, but 1962, and to pay those that were not covered by 1964 a
$1.25, and four-fifths of the Republicans voted against it. I think these issues are important, not because the minimum
wage is maybe the most important issue in the United States today, and not because medical care for the aged itself may
be the most important issue, and not because aid to education itself may be the most important issue. I think the most
important issue is the security of the United States and the peace of the world. But I don't think we are going to be
secure, and I don't think we are going to maintain our freedom unless we are building in this country a strong society on
all fronts. As long as there are 15 million American homes in the United States substandard, as long as there are 5
million American homes in the cities of the United States which lack plumbing of any kind, as long as 17 million
Americans live on inadequate assistance when they get older, then I think we have unfinished business in this country. If
we build a strong society here, we are strong abroad. Franklin Roosevelt was a good neighbor to Latin America because
he was a good neighbor in the United States. People around the world want the same things that we want. They want
freedom, they want security for themselves and their families, they want opportunities and they want peace. If the
United States stands for freedom as we do, if the United States is strong as we are and can be, if the United States is
building a vigorous society and maintaining employment and solving its problems, the people in Latin America and
Africa and Asia, faced with Castro's example or our example, will come with us. But if Castro stands for a movement
forward, however abhorrent it is to us, and we stand still, then he raises the banner of revolt all over Latin America. We
want for other people what we want for ourselves, and I think that is the most effective foreign policy that we can carry
out. (Applause)
A hundred years ago during the election of 1860, Lincoln wrote to a friend, "I know there is a God, and that he hates
injustice. I see the storm is coming, but if He has a place and a part for me, I believe that I am ready." Now, 100 years
later, when the issue is still freedom or slavery, the same issue Lincoln fought, we know there is a God and we know He
hates injustice. We see the storm coming, but I think if he has a place and a part for us, I believe that we are ready.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, North

Tonawanda, New York, September 28, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Pendergast, Mr. Levitt, Mayor Wagner. The last
Presidential candidate to come into this particular area of New York was Al Smith in 1928. Governor Smith in that
campaign and in many campaigns preceding it used as his basic slogan the motto, "Let's look at the record," and he
compared what he had done in New York State and he compared the record of the Democratic Party over the preceding
years to that of the Republican Party. I say in 1960, let's look at the record.
Mr. Nixon has stated that party labels don't mean very much in 1960. I think they mean a good deal, because they tell
something about the candidates of both parties. The Republicans never would have nominated me, and the Democrats
never would have nominated Mr. Nixon. They nominated Mr. Nixon because they knew where he stood, because they
knew that he believed in the things for which they believed in, and I do not. I think that is the issue in this campaign.
Are we going to move forward or are we going to stand still? Are we going to send a green light to the 1960's? Are we
going to feel that everything is being done today is as good as we can do? I think the record of the Democratic Party
written in this century, written in the last 25 years, establishes a sound basis for us in the 1960's, and that is a record of
service to the people, of believing that however good this country may be, it can be better. This country has been made
by people who were not satisfied. The whole Western United States was developed by people who wanted to better
themselves. The United States was built by people who came from other sections because they thought they could have
a better life.
Mr. Nixon says I am running America down. I am not. I am trying to build America up. What I am saying is that with
vigorous leadership, with leadership which will realize the potential of this country, this country can maintain its own
freedom and the freedom of those who look to us for help.
This is an important election, and I come to you in 1960, in October and September, asking your assistance. This is not
merely a contest between Mr. Nixon and myself. It is a contest between two parties, and it is a contest between two
parties which have had a different philosophy during their political tradition. All through our history in this century, the
Democratic Party has looked to the future, with Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, and Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal
and Harry Truman's Fair Deal. We have looked ahead, and I ask you to look ahead in this country. We face an extremely
difficult and hazardous time. I don't think the office of the Presidency is going to be easy. I think in many ways the job
of the next President will be more difficult than any president since Abraham Lincoln, and it isn't merely the office of
the President – I think the job of an average citizen in the United States, the responsibilities that he will face, are more
difficult and burdensome than they have been ever in the past.
When Presidential candidates ran many years ago, they discussed only a few issues, because only a few issues disturbed
our tranquility. Now the issues which face us are not merely to maintain employment in Niagara County, not merely to
develop the resources of Northern New York, not merely to make a better life for our people in New York State and in
the United States. Now the President, and therefore the people, have to be concerned with the Congo and Cuba and
Laos, countries which most of us had never heard of ten years ago, and yet which will affect the lives of everyone here –
Guinea, Ghana, countries which were colonial countries two years ago now independent. What they do will affect the
security of your children in every school in this country. Therefore, we stand as the dominant force in the Coalition for
freedom which must move strongly in the next ten years.
I ask your support in this campaign, not merely because I think we can move this country here at home, but also because
I think if we do the things at home that must be done, I think it is possible for us to stand once again in the world, not as
a dominant power, but as the leader of a coalition of countries who wish to associate with us, Latin America, Africa, and
Asia.
I wish we could worry just about our own problems, but I do disagree strongly with those who say that they are
conservatives at home and risk takers abroad. I think that we have to move here at home. I think we have to carry a big
stick, and I think, as Theodore Roosevelt said, we should speak softly. We want peace. We want security for ourselves.
We want to maintain life in this continent and this planet. We want freedom to expand, and I think the best way we can
do it is to do our job here in this state and here in this country. Build a better life for our people and then what we do
here will speak far more loudly than what we say.
This is a contest of nerve and will. The next ten, fifteen or twenty years may determine the outcome. The Soviet system
and our system are on trial. The question will be which system has the longest staying power? Which can maintain itself
in good times and bad? Which can serve as an inspiration to people around the world? Do they want to move with them
or with us? Khrushchev and the President of the United States, only personify the two sides. The real question is which
system and which people have the power, the will, the determination and the conviction? I think we do. I think our
future can be assured, but I think we have a responsibility to ourselves and to those who look to us to move in this
country, to set before ourselves our unfinished business, and then get to it.
I ask your help in this campaign, and I can assure you that if we are successful, we are going to work to make the United
States not first if, but, or when, but first, period. And we are going to move. Thank you. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Senior Citizens’
Meeting, Kleinhan’s Music Hall, Buffalo, New York,
September 28, 1960
Twenty-five years ago Social Security became law.

But that is not the only anniversary we mark today. For twenty-five years ago the Republicans in the Congress voted 95
to one to kill Social Security, calling it an "extreme" measure.
Today, twenty-five years later, much has changed for older Americans - Social Security with its hope for a later life of
dignity and a decent standard of living is an accepted and admired part of the American way of life.
But one thing has not changed. This year again the Republican Party - as it always has in the past - is fighting every
single Democratic effort to advance the welfare of our people to relieve poverty and hunger and the burdens of illness.
This year again only a single Republican in the Senate voted for medical care for the aged. This year again Mr. Nixon,
as the spokesman for his party, speaking to 73 million people on our television debate, said that our efforts to provide
medical care through Social Security were "extreme."
But I don't believe it is "extreme" to help our older citizens get the medical attention they need. I don't believe it is
"extreme" to work through our tried and tested Social Security system. I don't believe it is "extreme" to relieve poverty
and illness and despair.
What is "extreme" is the fact of nine million Americans over the age of 65 trying to survive on incomes of less than $20
a week - the three million more living on $40 a week. What is "extreme" is the fact of millions of older Americans who
are unable to afford the medical care - the doctors and drugs and hospital rooms - which they so desperately need. And
what is "extreme" is the opposition of the Republican Party to every effort to bring help to our older citizens.
When the Republican Party nominated Mr. Nixon, they not only selected a leader, they selected a man whose record had
proven him to be a true heir and representative of this historic Republican tradition. A man who led the opposition to
medical care for the aged. And a man who was ready to carry on that opposition.
In 1935 the Republicans failed to block progress. This year they succeeded in destroying the hopes of Americans over
the age of 65 for relief from the crushing burden of medical bills - and for the opportunity to fully care for their health.
And they substituted for a soundly financed program under social security a bill which will cost the American taxpayer
over a billion dollars a year, is impossible to administer, which will not even be put into effect in many of our states,
which has been rejected by the governor of New York, and which will fail to bring relief where it does go into effect.
Why then did the Republicans fail to kill social security in 1935, and succeed in 1960? In 1935 we had a Democratic
president in the White House using all the many powers of that high office to ensure the passage of his program. This
year we had a Republican administration, using all its powers, to destroy our program.
The lesson is a clear one. Only with a Democratic president in the White House can we hope to bring help to poverty-
stricken older Americans. And in 1961 we will have a Democratic president. And in 1961 help will be on the way.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at State Capitol,

Albany, New York, September 29, 1960
This is a transcription made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A single copy exists in the Senate Speech
file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. The text appears to be a
verbatim transcript of Kennedy's remarks.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Mayor Corning, Congressman O'Brien, Mrs. Price, ladies and gentlemen, and fellow
government employees. (Laughter) I don't know how much work is being done in the City of Albany this morning, but I
do appreciate very much your generosity in coming out, and the Mayor's. (Applause)
165 years ago Thomas Jefferson and James Madison came up the Hudson River near here searching for butterflies and
fish, and then sailed down the Hudson River, met with some New York Democrats and formed the National Democratic
Party, the union between the rural United States and the cities of the United States, which has lasted 165 years.
(Applause)
I do not come here this morning chasing butterflies. I come here asking your help in this campaign. I come here asking
your support. (Applause) I stand where three distinguished Governors of the State of have stood, Theodore Roosevelt,
Al Smith, and Franklin Roosevelt, as candidates for the office of the Presidency. (Applause)
Theodore Roosevelt was a man of such understanding and such comprehension of the force of events that ultimately he
left the Republican Party or it left him. But Al Smith stood here on these steps and accepted the nomination in 1928. I do
not believe this is 1928. I believe this is 1932 and 1948, and I think the Democrats can win this election here in the State
of New York. (Applause)
The first American to ever to sail to and open up the China trade was Captain Dean, whose street is named after him,
Dean Street, and after he had gone to China and brought back a good many goods, the American paper here in this city
had written that he had given an exalted idea of the United States to the people of the world. It seems to me that in 1960
that is our function, to give an exalted idea of the United States to the world, even more importantly to give an exalted
idea of freedom to the world. There have been suggestions that during the United Nations meeting that the debates of
this election should be stilled. I hold a different view. I do not believe there is a more valuable exposition of the vitality
of freedom to Mr. Khrushchev and Gromulko [sic] than it is to see the United States involved in a great free election, to
have an opportunity to make a freedom of choice, to have the issues presented honestly to the American people, so that
they can make their judgment on November 8.
I think this is a serious election, in many ways the most serious in many years of this country's long history. The issue is
the same as it has been for many years. How can the maintain its freedom. How can it live in peace, how can it maintain
its security, how can it hold out a helping hand to those countries to the south of us who stand today on the razor edge of
decision, trying to determine which road they shall take. I believe that the responsibility of our generation of Americans
is to build a society here in this country so vital, so vigorous, so effective that it serves as an example to the world, that it
serves as an example to those who wish to decide which road they shall take. I think by the end of the next President's
administration the balance of power in the world will begin to change more or less in one direction or another. We have
seen in the last three or four years where several countries, once independent, have now passed into the Communist
orbit. The question is how many more in 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964. How many more in 1965, 1966, and 1967 will
begin to move in the direction of the Communist orbit or begin to move in the direction of freedom?
We do not sit here on a stage watching a slow glacial-like movement in history. I think these movements may take place
in five, ten or fifteen years. We have seen since 1945 enemies become friends, and friends become enemies. The world
is moving faster than it ever moved before, and therefore we are settling one of the great issues of history, whether the
Communist system will be successful in its charge to dominate the world, or whether freedom will spread.
It is an old struggle but it has a new form, and I think in the next ten years or the next 15 years, in the lifetime of nearly
everyone here, we will see an entirely different world picture than we see today. We will either see freedom on the
ascendancy around the world, or other countries of and Africa and Asia will begin to move in the direction of China
and . And, therefore, I think it incumbent upon us to concern ourselves with the problems in New York, with the
problems here in the United States, so that we build a stronger society, so that what we are speaks louder than what we
say.
But we should also frame every action with reference to the world around us. The security of the United States is the
basic responsibility now before us, and in my judgment that security can be maintained by the United States once more
standing as an example to all mankind.
I am Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa of the Foreign Relations Committee, and every African nationalist 20 or
25 or 30 years ago quoted Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt. How many of them quote
Marx; many of them are Marxist if not Communists. Many of them believe that that represents the way of the future.
What has happened to the vitality of the United States that they should feel that history moves in the direction of the
most reactionary system of government ever devised? Why is it that we who represent the final flowering of the human
experience in self government should be regarded as a tired country, as country which has seen its best days? I don't
hold that view. I think our high noon is yet to come. But I think if we devote ourselves to the public interest, if we are
willing to bear the burdens which go with self government and the maintenance of freedom in a country such as the
United States, if we say that we will have a defense second to none, if we concentrate ourselves on building our
economy so that we are the No. 1 productive power in the world and maintain that position, if we provide equality of
opportunity for our citizens, regardless of their religion and regardless of their race, then what we will be will speak far
louder than what the Communists say we are. I think that is the responsibility of this generation of Americans.
Franklin Roosevelt early in his administration said that "This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny." I
think they met that rendezvous. I am asking this generation of Americans in 1960 to do the same, to do in its time what
those generations before us did, to maintain freedom and serve as an example and a bright light to the world around us.
That is our opportunity, and I think that is our destiny. Thank you. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Troy, New York,

September 29, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: Mr. Mayor, ladies and gentlemen: First of all, I would like to have you meet Congressman
O'Brien from this district. (Applause) Stick with O'Brien and Kennedy. We want you to go all the way for us.
(Applause)
I want to express my thanks to all of you. I run for the office of the Presidency in a difficult time. About 15 miles from
here, the independence of the United States was saved at the Battle of Saratoga. Now, as every generation of Americans
has had its responsibility to maintain freedom in its time, I think the most serious challenge comes in our generation.
Here in the United States we are defending not only ourselves, but we also defend the case of freedom. If we build a
strong and vital country here, we affect not only our own independence and those directly allied with us; we also affect
the security of all those who wish to follow in the same road that we take. Therefore, I think this generation of
Americans has special responsibilities and special obligations. My own feeling is that it is incumbent upon us to build a
strong and vigorous economic society here in the United States. If we are maintaining full employment, if we are using
our productive capacity to the fullest, if we are building a productive capacity to the fullest, if we are building a better
society here, then it reflects itself around the globe.
I think our obligation is to concern ourselves with our country here, and then hold out the hand of friendship to all those
who wish to follow on our road. (Applause)
I think that in the administration of the next President of the United States, particularly if he is reelected we will begin to
see the world move, either in the direction of freedom or in the direction of Russia and China, and I think this decision
can be made in the next ten years. I think it is possible for us to reestablish ourselves as a strong and vital country, to
demonstrate that our capacity for leadership is still unfilled, to show the people of Africa and Latin America and Asia,
who look at Mr. Khrushchev now and look at Castro, and wonder whether they represent the new way to the future. I
don't believe they do. I think we do. But I think it is up to us to demonstrate that we have vitality. I think the people of
the world should wonder what the President of the United States is doing, not what Mr. Khrushchev is doing.
(Applause)
So I come to Troy and ask your support. The name of Troy goes back in history. Therefore, in this city you connect the
old with the new, but the cause is still the same, the maintenance of freedom, the maintenance of self government, at a
time when it is under far more serious challenges than the City of ancient Troy ever faced. I come to Troy and ask your
help in this campaign. (Applause) Does anybody have any questions for one or two minutes, and then we will proceed
on?
Thank you very much.
Robert Frost from nearby Vermont once wrote a poem which I will paraphrase:
I will hitch my wagon to a mule
For I have promises to keep
And miles to go before I sleep.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Schenectady, New
York, September 29, 1960
Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. The text
appears to be a verbatim transcript of Kennedy's remarks on the occasion.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Peterson, Congressman Stratton, Mayor Wagner, Arthur Levitt,
Governor Harriman, fellow Democrats, independents, and a few Republicans: (laughter) Do we have any Republicans
here today?
We will have to be very careful what we say. (Laughter) I want to express my appreciation to all of you for being kind
enough to come out here. I am also delighted to be campaigning with your distinguished Congressman, and I hope
whether you are a Democrat, Independent, Liberal or Republican, you reelect Sam Stratton. (Applause) He speaks for
the interests of this district, and he also speaks for the United States, and I think that is the obligation of us all.
I come to this old city, Schenectady, running as I do for the Democrat candidacy as a Democratic candidate for the
office of the Presidency. This city has a long and illustrious history. But the security of this city, its maintenance, its
economic prosperity, are matters of continuing interest to the people of this area and of the United States. Schenectady
will rise or fall, the economy of this area of the State of New York will prosper or decline, not merely on what you may
do or this community, but also on what economic policies are pursued by our government which stimulates business as a
whole.
This community, like the cities of my own state, Massachusetts, can fight against recession. They can build their own
economies. They can try to bring business in here. But if there isn't business growing in all parts of the United States,
every effort which Schenectady may make, or the City of Lawrence, Massachusetts, or a city in Illinois may make, isn't
enough. If there isn't enough to go around, no city of the United States can rebuild itself by its own effort. It requires the
cooperative effort of the people of this city, of labor and management, and of economic policies which stimulate our
economy carried on by the Federal Government. It is a joint effort by us all if we are going to bring the tide up.
(Applause)
One of the problems which now affects us is the fact that we have this tremendous industrial capacity in the United
States which has been stimulated by automation, which has been stimulated by great capital investments in the last ten
years, and the question is can we consume in this country and around the world all that we can produce. If we can, we
can maintain full employment. If we cannot, we will have layoffs, and it is a somber economic fact that in the United
States in 1960; only two years after the recession of 1958, we are using only 50 per cent of the capacity of our steel
mills. Steel is basic to the economy of the United States. If steel is down, then the economy of the United States is on a
plateau. Therefore, I consider the most serious domestic problem facing the next administration is to reverse the decline
in agricultural income and also the maintenance of full employment in the United States. That will be a problem that
will affect the administration of the next President in the first six months.
Some of the things that I think we can do: First, I think we can carry on a monetary and fiscal policy that stimulates our
economy. I don't think that there is any doubt that the high interest rate policy followed by this administration intensified
the recession of 1958, and also I think has had a deleterious effect on the economy in 1960.
I think the failure of the Congress and the administration to agree on an area redevelopment bill, which would be of
particular benefit in attracting new industry into communities like Schenectady, I think it is most unfortunate. Both
parties talk about it and it is a fact that twice we passed it in the Congress and twice it has been vetoed. I think that the
administration and the Congress in January 1961 should pass an area redevelopment bill, because otherwise, even if you
build the economy of the country as a unit, you are going to find areas which, because of technological changes, because
of changes in the use of raw materials, or for one reason or another, will be left aside, and there are over 150 of those
communities in the United States today.
You know all about that in this section of New York. Therefore, I think the passage of the area redevelopment bill will
be of the greatest possible help. In addition, I think we have to develop our natural resources. I mention all of these
things, not because I think the Federal Government has the answer to all of these problems, but because I think there is a
proper function for individual effort, for community government, for state government and for national government, and
unless each group is meeting its responsibilities toward the community as a whole and toward the country, this country
does not go ahead.
Mr. Nixon says I want to centralize everything. I have no desire to do so. I was the Chairman of the Governmental
Reorganization Committee which put over 30 of the Hoover Commission recommendations through the Congress in
1954 and 1955, but I do believe in effective government, and I do believe that there is a governmental policy now that
affects all of our lives, education, economic and fiscal policy, foreign trade, our goal, all the rest - every phase of our
national life and personal life is touched by personal policy. When you buy a house, the interest rates you pay on that
house - all are affected by national policy. I want to make that national policy more effective. I want to make it more
constructive. I think we can do a better job than has been done in recent years. (Applause)
The old City of Schenectady, as all of you know, was wiped out by an Indian massacre early in its history. What is
interesting and remarkable about it was that the settlers in Schenectady knew about the coming Indian attack over two
years in advance. In fact, in the summer before, they made preparations for resisting it, but they did not believe it would
come in the winter. Therefore, they laid down in the winter and the attack came and they were wiped out.
I don't say history repeats itself, but I do think there is a somber lesson in history, and that is that those who feel that
they are secure, those who are not willing to work in the summer and in the winter, those who are not willing to prepare
themselves for hard days ahead, have suffered in history the inevitable result.
This is a difficult time. I think the United States is going to pass through more difficult times in 1961, 1962, 1963 and
1964. The next President of the United States is going to have to meet a crisis in Berlin, in the early days of his
administration. He is going to have to meet a position in the Formosa Straits with an increasingly dangerous and
beligerent Chinese Communist government. I think the job of the next President will be more difficult, more
burdensome, more responsible than it has been in any administration since the time of Lincoln. But in the last four years
I have traveled to every state in the Union, and I have visited every part of this country, and I have the greatest possible
confidence in it. We have a productive strength which is unequaled. We have a form of government which every person
in the world around us would most like to live under, given their free choice. We represent, in my judgment, the way of
the future. I do not regard us as an extinct flowering of human experience. I regard us as the place where everyone
ultimately wants to be. And if there is any lesson of the last ten years in history, it is in Eastern Europe and in Africa, the
same force has been at work, in Eastern Europe against the Communists, in Africa against the Western colonial powers,
and what is it? The desire to be free and independent. This is the greatest and most heartening event in world history. It
shows that ultimately the Communist experiment is bound to fail, because these people are not determined to gain their
freedom in order to lose it. What I think is important for us is to associate ourselves with that great historical movement.
I think in the last decade the United States has lost its image around the world as a friend of freedom. We have often
allied ourselves with dictatorships which are on the way out. I think we should raise the standard of freedom as we
always did.
Thomas Jefferson said the disease of liberty is catching. I think it is catching in our time and I want it to spread the
world over. Our function is to maintain its vitality here, maintain our example here, so that as it starts to spread
throughout the world, we will be the nucleus of a great army of people the globe around who desire to follow the same
road we follow.
I ask your help in this campaign. I think we can win it here in the State of New York. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Amsterdam, New

York, September 29, 1960
This is a transcription of a speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A copy exists in the Senate
Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. The text appears to be
a verbatim transcript of Kennedy's remarks, although with significant typographical errors.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Mayor Wagner, Governor Harriman, Mr. Prendergast, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Stratton,
ladies and gentlemen: I want to express my thanks to all of you for being kind enough to come here during your lunch
hour. I particularly am glad to be here - and during my lunch hour - (laughter) - I am particularly glad to be here with
your distinguished Congressman, Frank Stratton, who fought for this district and who fights for the United States.
(Applause)
Amsterdam, New York and Boston, Massachusetts, have many things in common. They are among the oldest cities of
the United States, and like all old cities, they meet the same problems which come with maturity, with age. Our
responsibility, those of us who live in the urban centers of the United States, is to try to rebuild our cities and their
economies so that they can serve as a place of vitality in the economic life of the United States. We are an old section of
the United States, you who live along the Mohawk River or along the ocean in Massachusetts. Senator Green, who
represents Rhode Island in the United States Senate, was 12 years old when General Custer was slain in Montana. That
is how young America is. That is how young the west is. That is how old we are. If we are going to maintain our
economic position. If we are going to prevent our factories from leaving us for other sections of the United States,
sections which have great natural resources, which have iron, gas and oil underground, and coal - we have no natural
resources in the soil of the northeast United States - the only resources we have is the skill of our people - I believe it is
incumbent upon the next President of the United States and the next administration to join together with those who fight
for the rebuilding of the American economy, especially in those areas which have been hard hit, and Amsterdam, New
York is one of them. Lawrence, Massachusetts, is another. And the reason is the same in both cases. In Lawrence,
Massachusetts, we lost our cotton and worsted textiles, in Amsterdam you lost carpets and some textiles. They moved to
other sections of the United States.
How are we going to maintain our employment? Part of it requires, of course, local effort. We have rebuilt Lawrence,
Massachusetts, partly by bringing Raytheon in there, partly by concentrating on electronics, and partly by using the
skills of universities and colleges for new research work. So part of it requires a local effort and part of it requires a
national effort.
I believe the next President of the United States should sign the following bills, and if I am elected I will do so:
1. The area distress bill, a bill which put the credit and power and vigor of the economy of the Federal Government in
those areas where unemployment is higher than 7 or 8 percent for a long period of time. In other words , the Federal
Government will loan its credit to businesses that wish to come to areas such as this, will provide vocational retraining
for older workers, provide supplemental unemployment compensation benefits for those who are out of work for a long
time, will aid in cleansing the rivers, will aid in trying to bring new industry into this area. We will, if we pass Defense
Manpower Policy No. 4 again, steer defense contracts into those areas with a high level of unemployment.
2. I think the President of the United States and the administration and the government and the state government and the
city should join together in cleaning our polluted rivers. They are a great national asset. But if you are going to bring
industry in here which is going to use fresh, clean water, they can't use the river as it is today. The administration vetoed
the distressed area bill; they have vetoed the polluted river bill last year. Our rivers belong to the people who live along
them and belong to the people who come after us. I live on the most polluted river in the United States, the most
polluted river in the world west of the Ganges. The Potomac in Washington, the Potomac River in Washington. But
these rivers in the New York are not so clean and we have to do a better job of maintaining next, if you please, his
graduat [sic] them if you are going to bring industry in that needs fresh water.
Third, I think this administration should pass a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour. (Applause) the Vice President of the
United States on Monday night's television show said that the $1.25 an hour was extreme, $1.25 an hour being $50 a
week. You will get that under the bill which was considered extreme in 1962. What is extreme about that? I want
somebody in the Senate or House to live on $1.25 at a time when the Bureau of Labor Statistics says a single woman to
even survive in an urban center of the United States, it costs her $52 a week. Yet the average wage for a laundry woman
in five large cities of the United States is 64 cents an hour for a 48 hour week.
I believe in $1.25 minimum wage, and I think the next Congress should pass it. (Applause)
And finally, I believe in a program of urban renewal for our cities and particularly our older cities. I am concerned about
these cities of the United States because I think the problems that urban centers have faced such as Amsterdam and my
own city, are really one of the undiscussed problems that face the United States today. Housing, transportation, water,
fresh air, space, schools, libraries, hospitals - these are all public resources, public facilities, which are essential to the
development of an orderly society. And I think the Democratic Party looks ahead. I come here as a Democrat. Mr.
Nixon says it doesn't really make much difference which party you belong to. I am not going to let him run away from
the Republican record on social security, minimum wage, housing, civil rights, and the rest. (Applause)
I think it makes a difference what party you belong to. Grover Cleveland, a President said "What good is a politician
unless he stands for something, and what good is a political party unless it stands for something."
If I were a Republican, I would admit it; I would run on that record and let the people make their choices between the
Democratic Party and the Republican Party, not saying it does not make any difference. I think it does. (Applause)
The Bible tells us, "By their fruits you shall know them." And they know the Democrats and they know the Republicans
and on November 8, I think the American people are going to say yes to the next ten years, are going to look ahead, are
going to do in our time what they did in the administrations of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry
Truman, say yes, say we can do better, say we must move ahead. (Applause)
So I come here today and ask your help. I think we all should try to register and vote. Franklin Roosevelt said some
years ago, "What good is the right of free speech for a man who does not say anything? What good is the right to go to
church if you don't practice a religion? What is the good of the right to vote if you don't register and vote?"
We have these freedoms and I think this is the time we should use the freedom, the right of free choice, and strike a
blow for this country and the cause of freedom, strike the blow for a stronger and more powerful America, strike a blow
for the future of this country. Thank you. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Lake Meadow

Shopping Center, Chicago, Illinois, October 1, 1960
Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. Because of ambiguity, some apparent typographical errors
have been left in place.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Mayor Daley, Congressman Dawson, members of the Assembly, Representatives, ladies and
gentlemen: I want to express my thanks to all of your [sic] for coming over and giving me a warm hand of friendship. I
think this is an important election. Mr. Nixon has said that party labels don't make so much difference; what we want is
the man. I think we want the man who is a Democrat, because the Democratic Party stands for the people. (Applause)
Every program which we now put forward and which both parties now endorse were written into the statute books over
the opposition of a substantial group of the Republican Party; things which make life decent for all Americans, a chance
for social security, for minimum wage, for unemployment compensation, for public housing. I have stood for those
things in 14 years in the Congress. Mr. Nixon now says he stands for them. But I was in the Congress when he was. I
remember when he [sic] made effort after effort to get better housing for our people, to get a better minimum wage. I am
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor. We tried to put through a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour. The average wage
to laundry women in five large cities in the United States, and most of them are Negro women, is 65 cents an hour for a
48 hour week. Every time that we failed to build better homes and public housing, we fail our people. There are 5
million homes in the United States in the cities of this country that lack plumbing of any kind. 15 million American
families live in inadequate housing. The average social security benefit is less than $78 a month for someone who is
retired, and out of that he has to pay food, and housing and medical care. Anyone who says that there is nothing left to
do, that all the things that had to be done were done by Truman or Roosevelt, I think is wrong. I think we in our time
still have responsibilities left if we are going to build a stronger society here in the United States. I gave some figures on
television which are true, which is if a white baby and a Negro baby are born in the houses next to each other, that the
Negro baby has one half as much chance of finishing high schools, one third as much chance of getting to college. There
are four times as many chances that he will be out of a job. Why should it be so? And he will live on the average 7 years
less. Why? It is because they do not have a fair chance to develop their talents. That is what we want in this country.
(Applause)
You cannot possibly maintain your families unless you get a decent education. You cannot possibly live in decent
homes unless you are treated fairly and secure a decent job. As it is now, the first to be fired at the time a recession
comes are mostly those who are Negroes, because they have not had a chance to finish school and because they have not
had a chance to learn skills. Everyone says we should do these things because the Communists are talking about them. I
think we ought to do them because that is the way we build a better country, that is the way we build a better country.
(Applause)
This is not just a problem for one section. I read a story in the New York Herald Tribune yesterday morning that 14 of
the delegates who had come from Africa to this country for the first time wanted the United Nations moved from the
United States to another country because they had not been treated with courtesy here in this country. I want to build a
strong society here, not merely because we sit in a goldfish bowl, but because by building a stronger society we show
we really believe in the cause of freedom.
I am speaking today to the Polish Congress, which is meeting downtown. The great Polish hero who helped free the
United States was Kosciuszko. When Kosciuszko died, he was given a good deal of money by Congress, and he left his
money to Thomas Jefferson to free the American slaves. He was a Pole. He fought here for freedom and he wanted
everyone to be free. That is the spirit in which we move in the United States today. (Applause) What we want for
ourselves, we want for others. We want freedom and a decent standard of living, which is what people want around the
world. Franklin Roosevelt was a good neighbor around the world because he was a good neighbor in the United States.
(Applause)
I come here today and I ask you help. I support the Democratic platform, which stands for equality in the rights of man,
and I stand for it as the Democratic candidate. Whether I am President or Senator, we will continue this fight until every
American, regardless of their religion, regardless of their race or creed, steps forward and stands in the sun. Thank you.
(Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Airport, St.

Paul, Minnesota, October 2, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: I understand that Daniel Webster used to address 100,000 people without any trouble at all,
and without a mike, so it should be easy for us. We are a little softer than they used to be, however.
I want to thank you very much for a generous reception. I am particularly proud that I am associated on the ticket here in
Minnesota with your distinguished Congressman who has served this district and served the country, Joe Karth, whom I
know you are going to send back to the House of Representatives. (Applause) And with your great Governor, Orville
Freeman, who was generous enough to nominate me at the Convention. But that is not the reason you ought to re-elect
him. The reason you ought to re-elect him is because he has served this state, and I don't know of a more difficult job in
the United States than to be Governor of an expanding state with problems of education, taking care of our older people,
the mentally retarded and all the rest. I think Orville Freeman has moved forward with courage. I am confident that this
state is going to respond to that kind of leadership. (Applause)
And Hubert, of course, is surely going to be re-elected. He prepared me and took me out into spring training, which was
far tougher than it is this fall. (Laughter) I chased him all over Wisconsin and then all over the hills of West Virginia,
and now we are running against Mr. Nixon. I ask your help in this campaign. The candidates kind of pour through these
cities and leave, but for the next six weeks the campaign in Minnesota is in your hands. I think it is an important
election. I think we can do a great job for this country and this state and I feel that the Democratic Party which in other
days and in other crises has produced great leadership, I think we can do the same job again. I ask your help in this
campaign. I ask you to join us in crossing the New Frontier. I feel we can be of service to our country, and in serving our
country we can serve a great cause all around the world. Thank you very much. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at St. Paul Hotel,

St. Paul, Minnesota, October 2, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A single version exists as
two mimeo copies in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F.
Kennedy Library. The text appears to be a verbatim transcript of John F. Kennedy's remarks, including two omissions.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Congressman Karth, Senator Humphrey, Governor Freeman, Senator McCarthy - If I put this
on - I will tell you what I will do. I will wear it at the next St. Patrick's Day Parade in Boston. (Laughter) But I am very
grateful. It is a beautiful hat. I did not know that this was Old Mexico here in St. Paul. I am very grateful. It is a beautiful
hat.
I am grateful for Joe Karth's introduction. I don't know whether you realize it, but the Constitution of the United States
gives different responsibilities to the Senate and the House. In the United States Senate we are given the responsibility
of ratifying treaties and confirming Presidential appointments. The House of Representatives, however, is given far
greater power. They are given the power to levy taxes and appropriate money. So any time you don't like the way your
money is being spent or what the taxes are, do not write to Senator Humphrey, McCarthy or me, but write to
Congressman Karth. (Applause and laughter.)
Actually, he represents the kind of able, vigorous progressive Congressman, in fact public servant, that I think this
country needs. I think this is an important election. I know that candidates say that about every election. But I think in
many ways the issues which face the United States in 1960 are the most significant that we have ever faced, even more
significant than 1932, because in 1932 the issue was whether freedom would remain here in the United States. I think
the question in 1960 is whether it will remain around the world. I don't think it is any accident that Mr. Khrushchev
spends a month at the United Nations. He is a busy man. He is the dictator of a large country which has many projects at
home and abroad, but he chooses to spend a month at the United Nations. Many of us in the United States have rather
ignored the United Nations, and Presidents have visited it for a day and made a speech, and then gone back to
Washington and the United Nations continues. Why does he spend a month there? Why do all the members of his
empire come with him? Why does Nasser and those from every other nation around the world come to the United
Nations this year? He is there for a very significant reason, and he stays there for a very significant reason, and that is
because he realizes that the balance of power now hangs in the finest balance that it has hung in the last 2,000 years; that
if he can win the loyalty and good will, if he can win a commitment to the future from the leaders of Africa, who are not
committed to any course of action today, the leaders of Asia, if Castro can spread his influence throughout all of Latin
America, then the balance of power will begin to move in the direction of the Communist world, and his future and the
Communist future is assured. That is why I say 1960 is the most significant time in the history of not only the American
republic, but I think the history of freedom.
What course of action in the next ten years will these people take? We have seen in the case of Guinea that they moved
in the direction of the Communists. We have seen in it the case of Ghana, when Mr. Herter said, somewhat unwisely, I
think, that the Ghana Government has moved in the direction of the Communists. We have seen it in the case of
powerful groups in the Congo. Three countries of Africa, newly independent in the last two years, have begun to move
in the direction of the Communists. We have seen it in the case of Cuba. India hangs in the balance. These are the most
vital days of our lives, and where I said the other day that I was tired of reading about Castro and Khrushchev, and I
wanted to read what the United States was doing and what the President of the United States is doing, I meant it,
because these are dangerous times. (Applause)
Mr. Nixon in this morning's paper chose to regard that as a personal attack on President Eisenhower and he came to
President Eisenhower's defense. He is going to be coming to President Eisenhower's defense in the next five weeks.
During August, he was coming to Governor Rockefeller's defense, and he wasn't mentioning the President, and he was
not in September. But now he is attempting to embrace the President. I don't quarrel with the President of the United
States. The question is the future. The question is not President Eisenhower but President Nixon. That is the question the
American people have to contend with in the next six weeks. Do they want to move in the direction of Mr. Nixon; do
they want to move in the direction of the Republican Party, or do they want to move with progress? Do they want to say
in the 1960's that the United States is ready to move ahead? Do they want to say to the people of Africa, Asia and Latin
America that here in the United States is a strong and vital society that represents a far greater hope for the future than
the Communist system which is as old as Egypt. We represent, we think, the way of the future. Mr. Khrushchev says we
are a sick and dying and faltering horse that is about to collapse into the ground. I don't believe it. I don't believe that the
people of Africa has become independent in order to sell their birthright to Communism. I don't think the people of
Eastern Europe, who have demonstrated in the last ten years what they think of the Communist system are prepared to
say that the Communist system represents the way to the future. The Communists hold an _______ [sic] empire, and I
feel if we remain strong in this country, if we are building our economy, if we are building a vital society, if we are
practicing what we preach and what we are, then what we are will be far stronger than what we say we are.
We have a chance to demonstrate that freedom can work. The next President of the United States must personify the
spirit of this great society of ours, he must set before us the things we must do, if by the year 1970 we are not only going
to be free but strong and moving here and around the world.
I think the opportunity before the United States is bright. In many ways, our time is like the time Dickens described at
the beginning of his book: "It was the best of times and the worst of times." It is the worst of times because we face the
most severe challenge that we have ever faced, and because in many ways the future will be somber. But it is the best of
times because we have a chance to strike a blow, not only for our own security but for the freedom of those who look to
us for assistance and succor, who look to us for an example of what freedom can do. Here in the last eight years, I think
the United States has drifted. At the time of the Congo crisis, the United States offered scholarships to the Congo; at the
time of the break with Castro, we offered aid in Latin America. What were we doing for the last eight years in regard to
Africa and Latin America that it was necessary for us to be reminded by Mr. Castro and by the threat of Communist
takeover in the Congo that Africa is _______ [sic]. Foresight is needed by the next administration. What were we doing
in the early Fifties when the Soviet Union was making a decisive breakthrough in outer space? It is because we have
drifted with the times. It is because we have been rowing across what we thought were passive seas, ignoring the
subterranean explosions underground that we find ourselves today faced with the most serious crises that we have ever
known.
I don't run for the office of the Presidency saying that if I am elected life will be easy. But I run for the office of the
Presidency with the greatest possible confidence in this country. Mr. Nixon says I downgrade America. I downgrade the
leadership, but I do not downgrade America. I have the greatest confidence in it. (Applause) And I think that if we go to
work, if we start this country moving again, that the cause of freedom will not only endure, but it will prevail. Thank
you. (Applause)
Minnesota, Duluth, Minnesota, October 2, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for readers and researchers. A single copy exists in the Senate Speech file of
SENATOR KENNEDY: Governor Freeman, Congressman Blatnik, ladies and gentlemen: First of all, I want to say that
I am most indebted to my friend and colleague, Senator Humphrey, for his kind and generous introduction. Hubert and I
chased each other all over northern Wisconsin during January, February and March, and now we run together on a
Democratic ticket for the Democratic Party, and a country which we feel can best be led by Democrats in the Senate and
in the House and in the Executive Branch of the Government. (Applause)
Everything that has happened since he was no longer a candidate has been easy. He made it so tough last winter that this
fall is very pleasant. I am enjoying it. (Laughter)
Mr. Nixon was staying home in bed when we were running all over Wisconsin and West Virginia, and I think we are
ready to continue the fight through the month of October. (Applause) And I am delighted to be here at this University.
Prince Bismarck once said that one-third of the students of German universities broke down from overwork, another
third broke down from dissipation, and the other third ruled Germany. I don't know which third of the student body is
here today of the University of Minnesota in Duluth, but I am confident I am talking to the future rulers of this state and
country in the sense that all educated men and women have an obligation to participate, to govern, to join in the great
discipline of self government, and I am proud to be here and I am proud of the fact that the Governor of this state has
been farsighted enough to know that no state and no country can move ahead without the best educational system in the
world.
I wish the present administration had had the vision in Washington that he has had in the State of Minnesota. (Applause)
And I am delighted to be here with John Blatnik. He and I came to Congress the same year, 14 years ago. He came after
a distinguished war record, and he has served this state and country in peace. He speaks for this district, but he also
speaks for the United States. He represents the kind of man of integrity and vigor which I think this country is going to
need if it is going to move ahead, if it is going to meet its obligations. This is an important election, and I think the
people of Minnesota have a most important judgment and decision to make. Mr. Nixon said on Monday night, and he
said on other occasions, that parties don't make much difference, what counts is the man. I think what counts is the kind
of man a political party chooses. Mr. Nixon and I were not suddenly discovered after our two conventions. We have not
been kept in ice. We are part of a long tradition, both of us, of a political service and political philosophy which
stretches back in the case of the Democratic Party to the beginning of this country, and stretches back over 100 years in
the case of the Republican Party, and consistently, on issue after issue, the two parties have taken different positions,
because they represent different interests. The Democratic Party is the only national party in the United States. It is
composed of miners and farmers. It is composed of potato growers in Maine. It is composed of fishermen in Washington
State. It is composed of ranchers in Texas and peanut farmers in Georgia. It is composed of all of the interests in the
United States, and, therefore, speaks for the people.
The base of the Republican Party is far narrower. It is not accident that the President in this century who broke away
from the boundaries which had been set by his party was Theodore Roosevelt, and they read him out of the party in
1912, or he left, and the reason is simple. A Republican candidate and a Republican President, representing as he does
those interests and members of the Republican Party, must take a particular position on a particular issue. Is it any
accident that for the last 25 years the Republicans have voted against the minimum wage nearly every time? They voted
against the 25 cents in 1935, and they voted against the $1.25 in 1960. They voted against the social security in 1935,
and they voted against the medical care for the aged in 1960. They opposed unemployment compensation in the Thirties,
after the State of Wisconsin had originally invented it, and they opposed federal standards for unemployment
compensation in 1958 and 1959. Parties do mean something. If they don't mean something we ought to get rid of them.
If parties don't tell us something about the political philosophy of a man, then it means that our parties have outrun their
usefulness.
But they do tell us something. They do give us a point of view. Mr. Nixon never would have been nominated by the
Democratic Party and I never would have been nominated by the Republican Party, because he does not agree with us
and we do not agree with him. (Applause)
On Monday night he said the goals of both parties are the same, the means are different.
I do not accept that view. I do not accept the view that the Republican Party's goals and our goals are the same, because
if they are the same, why have they opposed progressive social legislation during the last quarter of a century? Why
have they not been willing to grasp the future? Why have they not been willing to recognize that the United States
moves in a difficult and dangerous time that requires a maximum effort? I don't think any Democratic President would
have run this summer on the party labels that they had originally designed in the most dangerous time in the life of our
country. I don't think any Democratic President would have counted the first vote of the United Nations, 70 to nothing,
as a great success for the United States and felt that what was happening at the United Nations was a source of strength
to us.
It is no accident Mr. Khrushchev spends a month there. He is a busy man. He thinks he is fulfilling a useful purpose.
Day in and day out he confers with the neutralists, attempting to win their loyalty, attempting to win their commitments,
as he has in the case of Cuba, as he is beginning to do in the case of Guinea and Ghana. He is a busy man. If he will stay
in New York until October 15, it is because he feels that the time is moving in his direction. Before the United Nations
ends, there will be other votes, and we will see what should be apparent, that the prestige and power of the United States
is not increasing in relationship to that of a Communist world, that we are moving in the most hazardous period that this
country has ever moved in, and I do not say that because I enjoy saying it. It is because I think it is the function of the
Democratic Party in this election, as the only opposition party, as the only means of presenting alternative courses of
action, to sound the alarm bell in the night.
The American people have six weeks in which to make a judgment as to what kind of America and what kind of a future
they want. I hope that they give us the opportunity to serve this country, not because the future is easy, but because I
think the future can be realized as a bright and promising one for us, and for the cause of freedom if we are willing to
recognize facts as they are, if we are willing to recognize that there is an opportunity for us, but that it cannot be seized
by dismissing the world around us as one which is bright and promising and moving in our direction.
In the next four years, in the next eight years, in the next administration of the next President, Africa, Latin America and
Asia will all change. The question is, will they move with us or will they move with Mr. Khrushchev? Will they decide
that the future belongs to him or to us? Will they decide that they want to mobilize their resources through a system of
freedom or will they determine that the way of the future is in the East, not the West. All this is tied into the problems
that this district faces. This is a great boiler in the United States economy. The reason that this section of Minnesota has
suffered three recessions in recent years is because the economy of the United States has not been moving. We are
producing 50 per cent of our capacity in steel. Last week, the Soviet Union out produced us, not because they have more
capacity - they have less than half our capacity - but they are using their capacity to the fullest. Here we are with a great
food reserve, the strongest in the world, and yet we have not used that in an imaginative way. We are not using our steel
capacity. We are not using our iron ore capacity. We are not using the St. Lawrence Seaway to capacity. This country
cannot possibly maintain itself unless it moves here at home. If this country moves at home, if we maintain full
employment, if we meet our responsibilities to our own citizens, if we spread the same image of vitality abroad, then I
think those people who stand today on the razor edge of decision may decide that we represent the future, the
Communist system the past. We, after all, represent the kind of country in which they want to live. They do not want to
move to the East. Most of them have not thrown out colonial powers in order to substitute that of the Soviet Union. I
believe that we can change the movement of history. I believe that the brightest days as far as service are not even those
of Wilson or Roosevelt - I believe in the 1960's the United States can fulfill destiny as the great defender of freedom at a
time of maximum danger.
But it requires us to realize where we are, and what we must do. It requires the next President of the United States to set
before the American people our unfinished business, to give an impression around the world of force and vitality. That
which we do here, that which we are, as Emerson said, speaks far louder than what we say. I am tired of seeing us
follow the advice of the poet to take the cash and let the credit go, nor heed the rumble of a distant drum. I heed that
rumble and I am sure the American people do.
I raise no call of alarm, of despair, of distress. I raise the call to rally to this country's behalf, and also to the cause of
freedom, to serve it, to work for it, to move it, and in so doing that we serve and move and work for the cause of
freedom. I ask your help in this campaign. I ask your support, and I can assure you that while life may not be easy in the
1960's, we shall meet our responsibilities and we shall move into the Sixties with vigor and confidence. Thank you.
(Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at National

Stockyards, East St. Louis, Illinois, October 3, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: Senator Douglas, Governor Kerner, Congressman Price, Ladies and Gentlemen: I want to
express my appreciation to all of you for your generous invitation to come here today. I am the Democratic candidate for
the Presidency and I run as a Democrat. (Applause)
I am glad to be here in this stockyard because this proves an important point. I come from Massachusetts, which is not a
great agricultural center, but I can tell you that Massachusetts will not be prosperous unless the farmers of the United
States are prosperous. We heard today that International Harvester, which makes farm machinery, has closed down
today, and John Deere plants have closed down, and the reason is that agricultural income has dropped in the past few
years almost 20 to 25 per cent, and because when farmers go down the rest of the economy sooner or later goes down.
The farmers are the No. 1 market for the auto industry of the United States and the auto industry is the No. 1 market for
the steel industry, and the steel is 50 per cent of capacity. That is what we are producing this week. The Soviet Union
last week produced more steel than we did, because we are only using half of our capacity and only slightly more than
half of our people. The economy of the United States is tied together. If the farmer prospers, the city prospers, and if the
city prospers the farmer prospers, and I think the Democratic Party has understood that from the beginning. I think
Franklin Roosevelt and Truman and Woodrow Wilson fought for the people of this country, fought to advance their
progress, and we must fight in 1960 and 1961 and 1962. (Applause)
As long as there are millions of American who receive less than the $1 minimum wage for an hour of work, as long as
there are hundreds of thousands of farmers who are being driven off the land in the last few years, as long as we are
producing one half as many scientists and engineers as the Soviet Union, as long as our economy is moving ahead at a
slower rate, not only than the Soviet Union, but Germany, France or Italy, I think there is need for new leadership. I
don't say that life will be easy if we are successful, but I certainly can assure you that we are going to move this country
and move ahead.
Paul Douglas said we have been on dead center and I think we have been on dead center long enough. There are 5
million American homes in the cities of the United States that lack plumbing of any kind; 15 million American homes
which are substandard, and yet we are not building anywhere near enough homes per year. I think a Democratic
administration, under the leadership of vigorous people who look to the future, can move this country into the Sixties,
and in strengthening the United States, they strengthen the cause of freedom. This country will not maintain its freedom,
this country will not maintain its commitments around the world, unless we have a strong and vigorous economy, able to
maintain our commitments, able to build, able to move. I come here today and ask your support in this campaign. I feel
that we have in 1960 the same opportunity that we had in 1948 and 1932 and 1912, the chance to move again. We have
stood still long enough.
I ask your support in this campaign. I ask you to join me in starting this country forward. Thank you.
I am going to save this hat and if I get elected I will wear it in the Inaugural Parade. (Applause and laughter)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Main

Intersection, East St. Louis, Illinois, October 3, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: Ladies and gentlemen: Needless to say, this is not my automobile that I am now standing on.
(Laughter) I want to introduce to you the Democratic candidate for Governor of Illinois, Otto Kerner. (Applause) I want
you to meet your distinguished Congressman, Mel Price, who you are going to send back. (Applause) And I want you to
meet again the present United States Senator and the next Senator from the State of Illinois, Paul Douglas. (Applause)
And I am here running for the President. (Applause)
I come here to the all-American city and ask your help in this campaign. (Applause) Anybody who says that there is
nothing left for us to do has not read the paper, doesn't know what is left for the United States to do in its unfinished
business here at home. As long as this administration refuses to pass a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour, as long as this
administration vetoes housing bills, as long as this administration refuses to pass legislation for medical care for our
older citizens, as long as there is not equality of opportunity for all Americans regardless of their race or their religion,
there is unfinished business for our generation. I stand here where Harry Truman stood and Franklin Roosevelt and
Woodrow Wilson in this century. The United States is faced with its most severe test, but we cannot possibly meet our
obligations, we cannot possibly maintain a defense second to none, unless we are moving here in the United States,
unless our economy is going ahead, unless we have full employment, unless we have the best educational system in the
world.
I believe we can do a better job. I stand where Democratic Presidents have stood in difficult times in the life of their
country, but they have looked to the future. The same people who tried to kill social security in 1935, tried to kill our
efforts to protect social security in 1960. I believe the United States can have an unparalleled period of growth in the
Sixties. I think we can maintain a defense second to none. I see no reason why we should be second to anyone in outer
space. But we can do none of these things; we can meet none of our obligations. The tide of history will move against us
unless we begin to move here in the United States. The reason that Franklin Roosevelt was a good neighbor in Latin
America was because he was a good neighbor in the United States. You cannot possibly be successful abroad, you
cannot possibly convey an image of vitality and energy in your relations with the world around us unless you are
moving here at home, unless the government is hold out a hand and joining with the people in building a better society.
With Paul Douglas in the Senate and Mel Price in the House of Representatives, and Otto Kerner in the State of Illinois,
all men who look to the future, all who believe that a public interest is a public trust, all that believe that is country can
do anything, this a strong country but I believe it must be stronger, and it is a powerful country but I believe it must be
more powerful. We had a recession in 1954, a recession in 1948. In the State of Illinois we had in the last few days the
highest unemployment that we had in any August prior to the three recessions since 1945. I don't want to see us stand
still in the winter of 1961. I don't want Mr. Khrushchev and Castro to be on the move while we are on the defensive. I
ask your help in this campaign, and I ask that on behalf of our country because I think we can serve the United States.
Last February George Gallup took a poll in ten countries of the world and asked them one question: Who do you think
will be first in science and military power in 1970, the Soviet Union or the United States? Nine out of the ten countries
with the exception of Greece - every one of those people, a majority thought the Soviet Union would be first. Why do
they think they are moving faster than we are? Why do people in Africa, Asia and Latin America begin to wonder
whether the Communist system represents the way of the future instead of our system. I think ours does, but we have to
work at it. We have to show the same vitality and dedication which we have shown in other great crises in other years.
Mr. Nixon runs on the slogan "You never had it so good." I think we can do better, not only individually, but as a
country, not only as a country, but as a country which personifies the cause of freedom. If the United States is on the
move, the cause of freedom is strong. If we stand still, freedom loses. So I think this is an important election, and I think
there are real issues in it. I think the Democratic Party can serve in 1960 the people of this country. I ask your support in
this campaign. I ask your support to cross the New Frontier of the Sixties. Thank you. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Augustine's

Restaurant, Belleville, Illinois, October 3, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: Paul, Mel Price, ladies and gentlemen: In every Presidential candidate's itinerary there is
always 5 minutes for lunch and rest, and then you move on. But I want to express my thanks to you all. We have the
good fortunate to have a member of my crew who was on my torpedo boat in World War II who lives in this area of
East St. Louis. I would like to have you meet my friend, Edgar Maurer. Would you stand up and take a bow? (Applause)
He was on a merchant ship that got sunk in the Solomon Islands and he had the bad fortune to then come on my boat
which got sunk. (Laughter) I am glad to see him today. It is the first time I have seen him for 17 years. We are delighted
he is here.
I would like you to meet Mr. and Mrs. Zinser, the mother and father of another member of our crew. Perhaps they could
stand up. (Applause) Maurer, Zinser and Kennedy, sort of a German-Irish boat, and this ticket is, here in Southern
Illinois, with Otto Kerner, who I know will be elected Governor, and Paul Douglas - (applause) who I know you are
going to elect to the Senate. I have served with Senator Douglas now in the Senate for eight years. I have served with
Mel Price for six years in the House of Representatives. I think each in his own way, each meeting his responsibility,
they have fought for the interest of this district and the State of Illinois and the country.
This is not merely a contest between Mr. Nixon and myself, or between Paul Douglas and whoever is his opponent -
(applause and laughter) - I wish nobody knew the name of my opponent - (laughter) - or Otto Kerner and somebody he
is running against. I know the name of his opponent, which is a good thing for Mr. Kerner. That is why he is going to
win. (Applause) And I know who I am running against and so do you. I can't believe in 1960 the American people are
going to turn the United States over to the Republican Party and Mr. Nixon for four more years. (Applause)
I spoke the other night about Leap Year Liberalism. Every four years the Republican candidate for the Presidency says it
doesn't matter which party wins, we are all for the same things we are all for the same goals. Well, if we are all for the
same goals, why did the Republicans defeat our efforts to provide a minimum wage of $1.25, and medical care for our
aged citizens, and federal aid to education, and housing to rebuild our cities? Our goals are not the same, nor are the
means the same, nor have they been since Theodore Roosevelt. A Democratic Party sees the government and the people
working together for a stronger and better country, for, in Paul Douglas's words, a juster America. The Republican Party
says it is good enough and they have blocked every effort we have made to move this country off dead center. This is
not just a contest involving Mr. Nixon and myself or the candidates here. It is a contest that involves us all. We pass on
from here, but you stay. I ask your help in the next six weeks. If we get out and do this job as we did it in this state in
1948 when President Truman carried Illinois by only 17,000 votes and he carried Ohio by 7,000 votes, those are the
victories that made it possible for him to resume the leadership of the United States, instead of Thomas Dewey.
Now, in 1960, in this state, in Missouri, in Ohio, and Pennsylvania and Michigan and New York and New Jersey, this
fight is going to be won or lost. You can make the greatest possible contribution, and in return we will work, this
country and this state, from one end to another. We will carry our message. We will inform the American people that the
choice is between standing still and moving forward, between yes and no, between progress and mediocrity. I hope that
you will join us in this effort. It involves us all. A stronger America involves us all. Every governmental action affects
our lives for good or for bad. Every movement forward moves us all forward. A rising tide lifts all the boats. I hope a
new Democratic Administration can lift all the boats and all the states and all the people therein. We ask your help in
this campaign. Thank you. (Applause) (Standing ovation.)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at VA Hospital,

Marion, Illinois, October 3, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: Congressman Gray, Senator Powell, Speaker Powell, Senator Douglas, Otto Kerner, the next
Governor, ladies and gentlemen: I have served in the Congress for 14 years, and during a good percentage of that time I
served on the Veterans Committee of the Senate, so I have some understanding of the importance of this hospital, the
service it performs, the assistance it renders to those Americans who have need of a hand from the government,
Americans who helped this country maintain its freedom. So I am delighted to be here today.
I believe that this hospital and hospitals like it must continue to grow to meet the needs of our population, and also that
this country must grow. All of us who are here today, who are veterans of World War I or World War II, or the Spanish
American War, must also recognize that our obligations and our service to our country were not passed by military
service in time of war. We also must serve our country in time of peace. We must insist that the United States take those
hard decisions which go with being secure, with maintaining our freedom, with maintaining our strength, with
maintaining our position in the world.
I think the veterans of the United States having made their contribution in their youth to the survival of this country, can,
at a later date, in other days, facing different dangers, make a contribution again. So I am delighted to come here today. I
appreciate very much your coming outside and saying hello, and I want to assure you that we share the same hope, not
only for this state, but also for the country. Thank you. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy in Venice, Illinois,

October 3, 1960
in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. The text
appears to be a verbatim transcript of the speech as delivered.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Next Governor Kerner, Senator Paul Douglas, Congressman Mel Price: I am confident that
Governor Kerner to be, Senator Douglas and Mel Price will be returned by the people of the State of Illinois, because
they deserve it. (Applause) And I am proud to stand with them on this platform. The fight that we are carrying on in the
State of Illinois, and the fight that we are carrying on across the United States, is the same fight that in other days Harry
Truman and Franklin Roosevelt waged for progress for the United States. (Applause)
Mr. Nixon has said that parties don't make much difference; what counts is the man. I agree what counts is the man, and
I also agree that what counts is the party, and his political philosophy. (Applause)
The Republican Party, which in 1935 voted almost unanimously against the 25 cent minimum wage, voted almost
unanimously against the $1.25 in 1960. A Republican Party, which in 1935 voted 95 to 1 in the House of
Representatives against the social security bill, voted 44 to 1, with only one Republican, for medical care for the aged in
the last session of the Congress.
A Vice President who was [sic] a Congressman in 1949 opposed public housing, is part of the same administration
which in 1959 vetoed two housing bills. Are the people of Illinois and the people of this city and the people of this
district have a chance to determine what kind of government they want here in this state and across the country.[sic]
Do you feel that everything that has to be done to provide better working conditions for our people and better housing,
and medical care for the aged, which affects us all, because we all have someone in our family that needs assistance --
and under the bill which the Congress passed and which was signed by the administration before anyone can get medical
aid, they have to sign a petition that they are indigent, that they are broke, that they have expended their money, that
they are paupers.
I believe in medical care for the aged, nursing care, all tied to social security which has served our people so well for 25
years. I believe in an expanding America, where there is equality of opportunity, regardless of religion, regardless of
race, regardless of creed. I believe in an America where the housing is second to none. There are 15 million American
homes in the United States which are substandard. The average unemployment compensation check in the United States,
in the richest country on earth, is $31.00 a week, and in some states as little as eight weeks. The average wage for
laundry women in five large cities of the United States, and most of them are Negro women, is 65 cents an hour for a 48
hour week. Anybody who says that we have to do nothing now, that all we have to do is realize the opportunities which
Franklin Roosevelt and Truman presented, is wrong. We in our time have our own responsibility. We have to build
homes. We have to get our mills moving again. We have to provide employment for our people. We have to protect the
constitutional rights of all Americans. We have to build a stronger America, and I ask your help in this campaign. It is
the oldest fight in the world, the fight for progress. In every generation there are those who say that we should stand still,
that we have never had it so good, and in every generation there are those who say it is time to move forward again, it is
time to move forward, it is time to build a better country, it is time to extend the benefits of our society to all of our
people.
I ask your help in this campaign, because I believe that in 1960 the Democratic Party in this state and across the country
has a chance to be of service. We are going to finish the unfinished business of our generation. We need your help. I ask
your assistance. And I can assure you that with the Democratic Congress and a Democratic Executive, that government
will be manned by people who are interested in the future, whose program is their product, who are identified with the
future, who believe that this country can move ahead. I ask your help, and so do we all. I can assure you that if we are
successful, we do not say that all problems will be solved, but I can assure you that we will have a government that is
moving and a country that goes ahead. I hope you will join us in this campaign. Thank you. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Evansville,

Indiana, October 4, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: Matt Welsh, Senator Hartke, Congressman Denton, Mr. Mayor, National Committeewoman,
and Mrs. Price, Grover Cleveland's strongest supporter, (laughter) and ladies and gentlemen: I am delighted to come to
this community only three or four days after Mr. Nixon, because I think this community and this state has a very clear
decision to make on next November 8, which affects the welfare of this district, and affects the welfare of this state, and
affects the welfare of this nation. I consider the judgment which you will render on November 8 to be rendered at a most
significant time in the life of our country, a year which bears resemblance to 1932, and which bears resemblance to
1912, when the United States elected Woodrow Wilson.
This is one of the great turning points in our history. The whole world in the next four or eight years will be entirely
different than it is today. By the end of 1964 or the end of 1968, this country and the world will be in a stronger position
or will be weaker, and I believe that the decision which you make on November 8 will affect the lives of everyone here
today, will affect their chances for work, will affect their security when they are over 65, will affect the kind of housing
you live in, will affect small businessmen in this country, who rises or falls, depending on the economic prosperity of
the United States as a whole.
I know there are those in this state who say that Indiana should cut its ties with the government, that Indiana should
move its own separate way. Who is going to buy your production? Who is going to buy what you produce in this state?
Who is going to buy your corn and your hogs and your products, unless this United States is moving ahead? Indiana is
not a separate state. It is part of the United States. And Indiana and Evansville and the United States will rise or fall
depending upon the leadership which is given to this country in 1960. (Applause)
Mr. Nixon has placed the issue very squarely and very frankly. He has said, and I use his slogan, "You have never had it
so good." Well, anyone who agrees with that ought to vote for Mr. Nixon. But anyone who agrees that we can do better,
anyone who agrees that the unfinished business before this country, anyone who believes that the United States has a
great and historic destiny to fulfill in the 1960's, to defend its own security, and to maintain freedom around the world, I
want their help. I want them to join with us. (Applause)
If you agree with a policy of no new starts, a policy which does not develop the resources of the Wabash or the Ohio
Rivers, if you agree that $1.25 minimum wage in a company making more than a million dollars a year is excessive,
and, to use Mr. Nixon's words, "extreme;" if you believe that medical care for the aged tied to social security is too
extreme, if you believe that these programs which I believe are essential to the maintenance of full employment, if you
believe that they are too extreme, then you should vote for Mr. Nixon. If you believe that the area redevelopment bill,
which has been vetoed twice, which would mean so much to this community and other communities, which are hard hit
by chronic unemployment, and you want it vetoed a third time, you should vote for Mr. Nixon. If you believe that
Thomas E. Dewey, and William McKinley and Harding and Coolidge and Landon are the kind of leaders that the United
States needs in the Sixties, then you should vote for Mr. Nixon.
But if you stand with Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, then I want your help. (Applause)
Indiana has not voted Democratic in a Presidential election since 1936, 24 long years, and you have had a good
opportunity to see the kind of leadership which they have produced here in this state, and you have had a good
opportunity to make a judgment as to the kind of leadership they would give this country in the 1960's. Any candidate
who runs in 1960 with 4 million unemployed and 3 million working part time, 126 surplus labor areas where people
have been out of work for many months, anyone who says in that year that you have never had it so good, I could not
disagree with more. This is a great country, but I think it can be a greater country, and this is a more powerful country -
(applause) - this is a more powerful country but it can be stronger. I am not impressed by those who say they can stand
up to Khrushchev when Mr. Castro has successfully defied them from 90 miles away. (Applause)
I am confident that this district will send Congressman Denton back to speak for this district and speak for the country,
(Applause) - and will send Matt Welsh to be Governor of the State of Indiana, and give honesty and integrity back to
this state. (Applause) And that Vance Hartke and those of us who serve in Washington will be given the opportunity to
lead this country as we have in other great occasions, and, therefore, I come today and present to you a clear alternative
between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, between the party of progress and the party of standing still,
between the party that looks ahead and the party that says, "We ought to stay where we are." I ask your help in this
campaign, not merely because it affects our party, but because, as this is the most dangerous time in the life of our
country, I don't think we can possibly afford to stand still.
During the war between the Spartans and the Persians, and after 300 Spartans were wiped out at Thermopolis, they
carved a sign in the rock which said, "Passerby, tell Sparta we fell faithful to her service."
Now, in 1960, and in the Sixties, we are asked to live in the service of this country. We are asked to contribute to it. We
are asked to build a stronger and better society, and I come here today to this community to ask you to join us. Thank
you. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Telecast, WTTV,

Indianapolis, Indiana, October 4, 1960
The text of this radio appearance is made available for the convenience of readers and researchers. A press release of
these remarks, which appears to be a verbatim transcript, exists in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-
MR. WELSH: Senator Kennedy, on behalf of the people of Indiana, it is my pleasure to introduce you to the radio
audience and to the panel that is here and to, of course, wish you every success in this campaign and in this election. I
feel confident that you are going to carry Indiana.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Matt, I appreciate that. I am glad to be here with you as your guest. Indiana occupies a key
place this year in the elections. That is why we are coming tonight, to spend the day tomorrow and be back before the
campaign ends.
MR. WELSH: You are always welcome.
QUESTION: Senator, I have heard it said that Indiana is the problem child of the north for your campaign. I have
wondered -- we have often been told, and I know it personally, that you have the best system of finding facts in Indiana
as any candidate in Indiana. I just wondered what you think your status is in Indiana?
SENATOR KENNEDY: Well, I would think we were behind in Indiana. I think we have been doing better the last three
weeks and I think particularly in the last seven days we have gained some. But I would still say we are behind in
Indiana.
QUESTION: You think you are still behind?
SENATOR KENNEDY: That is my judgment, yes.
QUESTION: In the rural areas, probably, or where would you say?
SENATOR KENNEDY: Well, I have not got a regional breakdown or a functional breakdown. I would just say we are
behind in Indiana and we have to try to do better in the next five weeks. But I think in the last three weeks I feel that the
tide has moved somewhat in our favor, but we still have some to go before we are ahead.
QUESTION: You are pretty satisfied with the cooperation of the state ticket in Indiana and your candidacy?
SENATOR KENNEDY: Yes. Well, I think Matt Welsh is ahead in Indiana, and I think he is going to win. They have
been very helpful to us.
QUESTION: Are you riding on Matt Welsh's coattails, Senator?
SENATOR KENNEDY: I will be glad to, if they are big enough to give me room.
QUESTION: That would be a switch. I just wondered.
QUESTION: Senator Kennedy, over the weekend President Eisenhower rejected the proposal by five so-called
neutralist nations that he meet with Khrushchev. Do you agree or disagree with that decision?
SENATOR KENNEDY: Well, in view of Khrushchev's statements last week that he did not want to meet with the
President unless the President gave an apology for the U-2 flight, in view of his very harsh intransigent statements at the
United Nations during the past three weeks, I think the President showed good judgment. There is no sense having a
meeting unless there is an atmosphere before the meeting which leads you to hope that there will be some success.
On the issues on which we are divided with the Soviet Union, disarmament and Berlin, which are the two chief ones at
the present time, there is no indication that there is a common meeting ground. Therefore, just to meet, just to sit down,
just to spend an hour, unless there is some basis for hope, particularly as Khrushchev is being extremely belligerent now,
I thought the President showed good judgment.
QUESTION: Some Democrats have been critical of the decision of the State Department to restrict Khrushchev to
Manhattan. Do you think these travel restrictions were wise or necessary?
SENATOR KENNEDY: That was really a decision for them and I never quarreled with it.
QUESTION: You have never made any statement on that?
SENATOR KENNEDY: No. I never disagreed with it. It was on the basis of security. I don't think we should harass
visitors, but in view of the judgment of the State Department that it involved security for Mr. Khrushchev as well as
harmony between the nations, because they did not want anything to happen to Mr. Khrushchev or Mr. Castro, I never
quarreled with their decision.
QUESTION: Senator, did you ever actually say that we should apologize?
SENATOR KENNEDY: No, I never recommended that we apologize. I thought that what we should have done, rather
than the lie we told, I thought it would have been proper for us to express regrets that a plane of ours landed on Soviet
territory, because as Mr. Lodge said on Meet the Press the other day, technically we were in the wrong from the point of
view of international law, and if there was any value to the summit conference, then it would have been of some
advantage with a word to try to keep it going.
QUESTION: The Republicans keep saying that you said he should apologize. That is not so?
SENATOR KENNEDY: No, that has never been so, and I would hope that you as a good newspaperman would ask me
to produce evidence of that, because my remarks were fully recorded and fully reported. There is a good deal of
difference between the words "apologize" and "regret." Apologize expresses some feeling of morally in the wrong. We
apologized, I believe, to Mr. Castro, or at least expressed regrets, when a plane, a private plane, landed in Cuba, as you
remember, this last winter. The Soviet Union expressed regrets to us during the Berents Sea incident before the last
summit conference. That is an acceptable procedure between nations, and if anyone thought that the summit was
worthwhile, and quite obviously the President did because a great effort was made to develop the summit, then it would
have been, I thought, more advantageous to us, more advantageous to peace, if there had been merely an expression of
regret rather than saying a lie.
QUESTION: What is your feeling about President Eisenhower's proposal that we make more use of the United Nations
to aid under-developed nations?
SENATOR KENNEDY: Yes, that has been suggested by a good many people and I think it would be extremely useful. I
don't overestimate how much the United Nations would be able to do in Africa, but I think that we should increase our
support for it in two or three areas. One, give more support to the effort which they made to secure civil servants for the
African nations and other nations. They have set up this service in recent years, and begun to develop it. The big need in
Africa now are trained civil servants. The Congo has none. All the Belgians have left.
QUESTION: We have a few in our post office.
SENATOR KENNEDY: I think the United States would be an admirable recruiting ground. Secondly, I think they could
do something on education.
QUESTION: Senator, both you and Vice President Nixon have suggested that we get rid of the surplus grain by sending
it to the needy nations. But as I understand it, the State Department has always fought it on the ground that Canada and
Australia and other nations are fearful that it will destroy the market, the international price market, for grain.
SENATOR KENNEDY: That is correct. That has been an argument against P.L. 480. We have done a good deal with
P.L. 480 and the so-called food for peace program. My own judgment is that within the normal, within the limitations
which you suggest, of Canada, the Argentine, Australia and so on, I think we can pursue the program more vigorously.
QUESTION: Do you think you can send more grain abroad, then, if you are elected President, than we have been
sending?
SENATOR KENNEDY: I do. I think we can make more effective use of it. With countries like India and other countries
which have great needs for capital, which have great food shortages, I think we can make more effective use of our food.
In addition, I would hope that any future agricultural program would provide reasonable controls over production so that
there can be some balance between supply and demand. It is pretty hard to distribute effectively the kind of surpluses we
are now building up in corn and wheat and will build up this year under this program. I don't think you can possibly
control your surpluses and possibly provide a decent income for our farmers, until you have effective controls over
production.
QUESTION: Senator, do you think that either your program or the program of Vice President Nixon is very specific on
agriculture?
SENATOR KENNEDY: I think they are both specific. I understand what they are both getting at. Mr. Nixon's program,
as you know, provides that there shall be the support - that the support price shall be the average market price for the
three preceding years, 90 per cent of it. As that market price drops, and it is steadily dropping - corn is selling for 85 or
88 cents, depending on what region you are in - that is the market price, and, therefore, the support price would be tied
to that, 90 percent of that, and next year, if the market price goes lower, the support price again will be hitched to the
market price, so that where in 1952 you had $1.50 corn, now you have 85 or 88 or 90 cent corn. You are going to find
the market price and the support price under Mr. Nixon's program steadily dropping, and you do not have under Mr.
Nixon's program effective controls over production. Under our program we do have effective controls over production.
We hope to bring supply and demand into reasonable balance and then work for a parity income which is tied, the
income of the farmer, to the same income he would receive in other industries with a comparable use of his resources
and managerial skill. I think there is a very distinct difference between the programs. Mr. Nixon's program is a
continuation of Mr. Benson's, and ours would go in a different direction.
QUESTION: What would be the effect of your strict production controls on the consumer food prices?
SENATOR KENNEDY: I think - you have to realize the amount of income that a farmer gets out of the food dollar is
extremely limited. In the case of bread, it is 3 cents out of a 25 or 26 cent loaf. In the case of eggs, it is extremely
limited, and in the case of milk, which is as high as it is in any item, it is 6 cents out of a 25 or 26 cent quart of milk. So
that the actual return to the farmers is very marginal. The amount of cotton there is in this shirt, the amount of income
that the farmer got -
QUESTION: What you are saying is that it would not have an appreciable effect.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Even if you take in the case of wheat and you said the farmers' income is going to increase 25
or 26 per cent, if it is 3 cents, it still is only one penny, and I don't think anyone hopes or feels that they can possibly
maintain food prices if you are going to have the farmer being liquidated at the rate he is now. You are going to have
large corporation farms. Food will be more expensive that way and less desirable that way.
QUESTION: You have talked about economic growth. Why should I or the average Hoosier care about that? Is it
important -
SENATOR KENNEDY: I think it is the great problem for the next President, that and the decline in farm income. In
order to maintain full employment in 1960's, which, after all, must be the object for all of us, we are going to have to
have an economic growth twice what we had last year, about 4.5 per cent per year instead of 2.4 per cent. We have to
secure 25,000 new jobs a week for the next ten years in order to provide jobs for all of the people coming into the labor
market. That is a terribly difficult task at a time when automation and new machinery has taken the jobs of men. And at
the present rate of economic growth or productivity increase, we are not going to have those jobs for people. We now
have 4 million out of work. You have 3 million on part time. You will have a million and a half people coming on the
labor market next summer. I think it is the big problem that will face the President of the United States domestically.
There is no easy answer to it. But I do think that the economic, monetary and fiscal policies of the administration have
helped limit growth.
QUESTION: I wonder if we can come back to the farm problem for one question. Your program calls for some agency
or something to determine what is a fair return for a farmer in terms of his labor. Who is going to do this?
SENATOR KENNEDY: I think the Department of Agriculture. I don't think that that is impossible at all to compute,
statistically. I think you could make a reasonably good judgment as to the amount of capital investment, the amount of
labor, managerial skill, a farmer puts into the production of his pound or bushel of his commodity as to what he would
receive in a comparable non-agricultural industry.
QUESTION: What I was wondering is, couldn't this same type of thing be extended to other segments of the economy,
say the Ma and Pa grocery operator or the gasoline station man or the newspaper reporter?
SENATOR KENNEDY: They don't have the same problem that the farmer has in regulating their production. You can
close down. A steel company closed down and is now operating at 54 per cent of capacity. Their profit margin remains
the same. They can go up next week to 90 per cent of capacity. But a farmer has a very difficult time making that kind
of control over his production, if he plants in the spring and harvests in the fall. In addition, may I just say that if the
farmer continues to decline in income, you are not going to have any Ma and Pa, because, after all, most of them depend
pretty much, in small towns, finally on the farmer.
QUESTION: Will this tend to keep the marginal farmer on the land, the farmer who is doing a poor job of farming?
SENATOR KENNEDY: If he is doing a poor job of farming, then I think sooner or later - I am sure that most of the
people that you would refer to have jobs now in towns or cities. If he is doing a poor job of farming, his future is not
going to be particularly bright under any program. There is not much that you can do for anyone who is poor at his
work.
QUESTION: This would not guarantee an income for him, then?
SENATOR KENNEDY: It does not guarantee a farmer that is unable to farm that he would be maintained on the farm,
but it does guarantee that those who are within the economic, the viable, that they can be continued.
QUESTION: Senator, isn't there a depression on now?
SENATOR KENNEDY: No, I would not say that, but I would say that there is certainly a plateau of economic activity
which could be serious in the winter of 1961, but I would not use that term as yet, because I don't think we know enough
where we are going. But I would say that the prospects for the winter of 1961 - this could be a serious time unless we get
an upturn.
QUESTION: I would like to ask that question of Senator Welsh, as pertains to Indiana. What do you think is the
economic picture in the state and in the immediate future?
MR. WELSH: Well, in northern Indiana, around the steel mill area, of course, there is economic distress, because the
steel mills are operating at 50 or 55 per cent of capacity. In the rural areas, generally speaking I think we have had a
good crop year. However, in some parts of the state the crops are not good because of drought. In most of the cities of
the state, I would say there is a good bit of concern about employment, about business. A general air of uneasiness
would be the way I would characterize it.
QUESTION: Is that usually - does that mean Democratic votes in the fall, do you think?
MR. WELSH: If there is anything to the old political axiom that people vote against, I would say yes. Certainly, many
people are dissatisfied with present conditions, many people are.
QUESTION: Senator, is the heavy registration because of the AFL-CIO, or some other factor?
MR. WELSH: It is general. It is general. In Republican, normally Republican counties, where the voting population is
overwhelmingly small town and rural, not industrial, the percentage increase in registration is equally as great as it is in
the industrial areas. This is an election when the people have made up their minds they are going to go to the polls, and
we are going to see a tremendous vote this fall.
QUESTION: Senator Kennedy, I wonder - Senator Matt Welsh mentioned difficulties in the steel mills and there are
those who maintain this is partly a result of imports of foreign steel. I wonder how the Democratic national platform
planks seem to be for sort of free trade, how that will affect the steel industry in the next four years if you are in the
White House.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Actually, as far as trade, we have a favorable balance of trade. In the last 12 months we are
selling abroad more than we are importing, and that is true of steel as well as other products. One of the reasons of
course, I am frank to say, is because the German and Belgian mills are over-ordered and it takes a longer time to get
orders than it does from the United States. But at least for the present now we are selling abroad in steel as well as other
commodities more than we are importing. But I do think it is a matter that we should concern ourselves with. The
unfavorable deficit is due to the fact that we are paying troops abroad to maintain bases, giving foreign aid. That is what
is hurting. The balance of trade this year is all right.
QUESTION: What would you do to give the hypo to the general picture?
SENATOR KENNEDY: On the steel mills?
QUESTION: Yes.
SENATOR KENNEDY: I think that is affected by the general state of the economy. As the economy slowed down, we
had a recession in 1954. We had a recession in 1958, and now it is 1960, two years later, and we are moving into a
difficult economic period, and of course steel feels it first.
I would think that those programs such as schools, hospitals and so on, I think can stimulate the steel industry. Secondly,
the housing industry is not building as much as it should in view of the increase in our population. That has partially
been affected by the administration's failure to support good, progressive housing legislation, and also by the high
interest rate policy. If you had housing moving ahead, I think you would also assist the steel industry.
QUESTION: Would you, for example, support a move to lower the FHA interest rate on older houses to the point where
it is close to new houses?
SENATOR KENNEDY: Do you mean for repairs?
QUESTION: No, for purchase. For example, as I understand it, if you are going to buy a $20,000 house, if it is new, you
can buy it with $2,000 down, but if it is an old house, it would take maybe $7,000 down.
SENATOR KENNEDY: I would certainly attempt to liberalize credit in 1960 in the housing field. We are building
200,000 houses less than we should be for the increase in our population. There are 15 million American homes which
are substandard. Therefore, I would hope that we would do every thing we could to stimulate particularly new housing.
That is where we want to go, to replace this old housing.
QUESTION: Senator, some Republicans have charged here in Indiana that during the post convention session of
Congress you scuttled the passage of a $1.15 minimum wage bill for political motives. I just wonder what were your
motives.
SENATOR KENNEDY: In the first place, it is inadequate. I support $1.25 which passed the Senate. Mr. Nixon
considers that too extreme. We went to the House Conference and when we were unable to get $1.25, which I don't
think is extreme - that is $50 a week, and that is not this year; that is 1962. This $1.25 would be paid, for those not now
covered by the minimum wage. Those who work in retails and restaurants and laundries, they would have gotten it by
1964. Mr. Nixon considers that too extreme. I think that is a very clear difference in our perspective on social
legislation. But when we were unable to get the $1.25, we offered $1.15, the Eisenhower program, with 3 million new
coverage, and we could not persuade the Republicans from the House or Senator Goldwater and Senator Dirksen to
accept the $1.15.
QUESTION: Did that ever come out of conference?
SENATOR KENNEDY: It never came out of conference because we could not get the votes for $1.15 for 3 million new
coverage. I think we should have taken $1.25. I would have taken $1.15. The question was whether we would get new
coverage. In other words, would we cover people working in the retail stores? If a retail store makes more than a million
dollars, in my judgment they should pay more than $1.25. And they certainly should pay $1.15. The Republicans
opposed that on this occasion as they did the minimum wage of 25 cents in 1925, as they do medical care for the aged.
These issues are very sharp. I think the people of Indiana should make a judgment if that is the kind of administration
they want in the Sixties, that considers $50 a week extreme, that they consider medical care for the aged tied to social
security as extreme, considers aid to education as extreme.
QUESTION: Wouldn't your program cost a great deal more money?
SENATOR KENNEDY: Minimum wage would not cost anything. The average wage for laundry women in five cities in
the United States is 65 cents an hour for a 48 hour week. Can you tell me anything more wasteful than that? So the
minimum wage does not cost anything.
Medical care for the aged is financed under social security. Far more wasteful is the bill which was finally passed which
would cost $2 billion a year, $1 billion by the Federal Government out of the Treasury, and $1 billion by the states, and
before anybody gets any assistance they have to take a pauper's oath before they can get any assistance, if they are over
65.
The program we put forward would have been financed under social security and everyone under social security would
have contributed to it, and when they retired, would have received assistance, which is far more responsible than the
program that was finally passed.
QUESTION: What would be the average contribution under the social security tax under your program?
SENATOR KENNEDY: As I recall, it was a half a percent.
QUESTION: That would be for the employee?
SENATOR KENNEDY: The employer and the employee would both contribute to the program. That in my opinion is
the way we should finance these kinds of programs. Ours was fiscally far sounder. We wanted to put it under social
security. Governor Rockefeller supported the same proposal. Social security has worked for 25 years. Before anybody
who is 65 and over, or women over 62, can get any medical assistance under the present law, they have to spend all their
savings and take an oath that they are indigent. I think that is the Republican policy on all these programs.
QUESTION: I don't mean to argue that yours is or is not expensive or too expensive, but I would like to know how
much it would add to the federal budget.
SENATOR KENNEDY: It would not have added at all.
QUESTION: I don't mean just medical care. I mean your overall programs, federal aid to education and medical care.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Federal aid to education, the bill that finally came up, I think, was $400 million a year. The
farm program will be, I hope, far more economical than the present administration program, the most expensive
program. They have spent more in the last three years under the administration's program than 20 years preceding. Mr.
Benson has spent more money than all the Secretaries of Agriculture in the history of the United States since the
Department was founded. So I can not think of anything more wasteful than their agricultural program. I cannot think of
anything more wasteful than their high interest rate policy. That costs the taxpayers $3 billion a year on interest on the
debt more than he was paying ten years ago on interest on the debt. Every year it is added on. He has to pay $3 billion
more in taxes, just to maintain the interest on the debt. We have spent $42 billion in the Defense Department and
General Medaris and others have indicated that we have not gotten a missile program, we have not gotten conventional
forces which should be as strong as they should be. My judgment is that the next budget, unless there is a national
emergency, or unless you have a recession where there is a drop in tax revenue, I think the next budget should be
balanced. I believe in a balanced budget. I belive in trying to get the best we can get for each dollar. But I can think of
nothing more wasteful than these programs that I have described.
QUESTION: Senator, the Republicans have charged that it is the Democrats who bring up the religious issue. I was with
Lyndon Johnson a week ago tonight. He spent quite a period in Columbia, Indiana, talking about the religious issue, and
he said he was concerned, that he did not think he would ever see the day when there would be politics in the pulpit. The
next day I met one of your leading Democrats in Indiana, and he said he talked Lyndon Johnson into bringing that up.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Mr. Caddow, I have not mentioned the religious issue since I have been nominated unless I
have been asked a question about it.
QUESTION: That is what I thought.
SENATOR KENNEDY: I do not plan to.
QUESTION: What about your speech in Salt Lake City?
SENATOR KENNEDY: I didn't talk about mine. I talked about the contribution which a good many people have made,
the Mormons on that occasion. I never discussed my problem, or a person of my faith, nor did I in that speech.
QUESTION: I think the implication was clear, that you were talking about a member of a group that was a minority
group.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Is that improper?
QUESTION: I just wondered. To me it seemed as though you were bringing up the religious issue.
SENATOR KENNEDY: I talked about the contribution of the Mormon Church and how they demonstrated in spite of
great difficulties their support of the Constitution. Every poll shows that 25 or 28 or 30 per cent of the people are very
concerned about it. My experience in Houston shows it is a matter of the greatest concern. I am delighted to answer any
questions about it. What I hope is that the serious issues which face the United States will be such that people will make
their judgment based on that, not on my religion. I have answered every question that I could be asked. I am delighted to
answer any more. There is nothing improper about discussing it. After all, I am running for the Presidency, and I should
talk about anything that is of concern. Evidently it is of great concern in many states. I wish we could do away with it. If
there is anything I can say on it, I would be delighted to say it.
QUESTION: May I get back to one of the serious issues? Senator Kennedy, you and also Senator Johnson, when he was
here recently, have expressed concern about the fact that there is a Communist led dictatorship 90 miles off shore. If you
were President, what would you do about Castro or what would you have done?
SENATOR KENNEDY: I can think of nothing that has demonstrated this administration's refusal to face up to issues
than permitting Mr. Castro to operate and seize power as he did three years ago. Now Mr. Castro is in control. Now the
only way that - nobody suggests that we launch an invasion of Cuba, so you are faced with the situation where he is now
in office, now in control. In 1957 he was not in control. Why was he permitted to seize control? Why was the judgment
made of Mr. Castro that he represented a force for liberal democracy in Cuba? I think that is a proper question. I think it
is a proper question to ask how they could have permitted Mr. Castro to seize power. You say what can we do about
Chinese Communists. We cannot do anything today, but everyone wonders why they were permitted to seize power.
QUESTION: What can we do about Castro?
SENATOR KENNEDY: I think the following things. First, I think we should be extremely vigorous in our programs
through Latin America. We have two problems; one through Cuba, itself, and the other through the rest of Latin
America. That will be the big fight in the Sixties, whether Castroism or Communism will spread through other
countries. This administration has ignored Latin America.
****
Latin America has been almost forgotten. It was not until we had difficulty with Cuba and we wanted the OAS
endorsement of our policy towards Cuba that we began to give them economic assistance.
ANNOUNCER: That ends the program, Senator.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Pendleton,

SENATOR KENNEDY: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Kennedy. I am here running in
Indiana and I just wanted to stop here and ask your help in this campaign. I think that this is a difficult and important
election. I think the fight in this state is going to be close and hard fought. I have come here today and asked your help. I
don't believe that anyone can live in Indiana and in the United States and feel that the tide is moving in our favor in this
state and around the country. The economy now, with over 4 million people out of work, with corn in these fields selling
for 95 and 93 or 92 cents, the economy with steel mills down across the country using only 50 per cent of capacity.
I don't believe we need a diagram to know that the economy of this country is not moving to the fullest. I am sure that
any merchant in this town would agree with that. We had a recession in 1958 and 1954. You cannot possibly afford in
the United States, at this serious time, with all the responsibilities pressing upon us around the world, we can not afford
to have our economy moving slowly. This economy of the United States, on it depends our strength and the strength of
the free world, and I believe that the fiscal and economic and legislative policies followed by this administration have
contributed to this slowdown, on the farm, in the towns, and in the cities. I come here today and ask your help in this
campaign. (Applause)
I think there are very real issues in this campaign that divide the parties. Though I know that Indiana has not gone
Democratic in any Presidential election, I think, since 1936, I believe that the United States and Indiana will move into
the Democratic column in November, and I come here today and ask your help. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Muncie, Indiana,

October 5, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A single copy of the speech,
which appears to be a verbatim transcript, exists in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential
Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Matt Welsh, who I am sure is going to be Governor of this state, Senator Vance Hartke, Mr.
Mayor, ladies and gentlemen: I want to express my thanks to you for coming here today. I believe that we have in
Indiana a tough fight, but my judgment is that Indiana, which has not supported the national ticket of the Democratic
Party since 1936, has had enough. (Applause) I cannot believe that this state, which depends upon its farm economy,
which depends upon its industrial economy, I cannot believe that the people of Indiana are going to endorse any
program which says you never had it so good. I believe we can do better, and I come here to Indiana today and ask your
support as a Democrat, as a Democratic candidate for the office of the Presidency. (Applause)
The United States throughout its history has moved back and forth like a pendulum between the Republican and the
Democratic Party. It has chosen on some occasions the conservative course, and on other occasions it has looked ahead.
I believe that this year, like 1912, when Woodrow Wilson ran against Taft and won, and like 1932, when Franklin
Roosevelt ran against Herbert Hoover and won, and 1948, when Harry Truman ran against Dewey and won, I believe in
1960 when we run against Mr. Nixon, we are going to win. (Applause)
Mr. Nixon said the other night in Boston that I was another Truman. I regard it as a compliment, and I returned it to him
- (applause) - and I suggested that perhaps he was another Dewey. (Laughter) I believe the issue is very clear, and the
people of this state should understand them. They are between a party which regards $1.25 minimum wage as too
extreme, a party and a candidate which regards medical care for the aged tied to social security as too extreme, between
a party which vetoes an area redevelopment bill as too extreme, between a party which regards a progressive farm policy
which will bring supply and demand into balance as too extreme.
Now, if you regard those programs as extreme, I believe you should support Mr. Nixon and the Republican Party. But if
you believe that you cannot have a prosperous town in this state if your agricultural income continues to drop, if you
recognize that under the program which Mr. Nixon put forward, which is a continuation of the Benson program, and
corn which sold eight years ago for $1.50 sells in this state at 95 cents today, will sell next year at 80 cents, and down
and down it will go, because this administration's farm program provides for a free market price, and the free market
price for corn in this country with unlimited production will take that down at least 20 per cent below what it is selling at
today, and if any merchant in this state feels he can prosper with corn on the downward trend, with unemployment in
this state, at 6.8 per cent to 7 per cent, any merchant in this country who feels he can move forward when steel
production is at 50 per cent of capacity, which it is in the United States, when 7 out of 8 International Harvester plants in
Illinois closed down in the last two weeks, and they may open some of them in October - if that is the kind of country
you want and that is the kind of economy you believe in, if those are the programs you want, I believe you should vote
for Mr. Nixon. But if you believe it is time this country moved forward, if you believe we have stood on dead center
long enough, if you believe that the balance of power in the world should shift in our direction instead of against us, if
you believe that the United States should be first - not first, but, if, sometimes or perhaps, but first, period. I want your
help. (Applause)
When the United States is second in space, when we turn out one half of many scientists and engineers, the Soviet
Union, when their economic growth is three times ours now, and Western Germany, Italy and France twice the growth,
when we have to find 25,000 new jobs a week for the next ten years to maintain full employment in Indiana and the
country, I cannot believe that the people of this state and the people of the United States are going to give an
endorsement and continue that leadership.
I ask you to join us in moving ahead. I ask you to put your confidence in our party and in our leadership, a leadership
which in this century has produced Mr. Truman and Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Wilson. I do not ask you to put your
confidence in a leadership in this century which has produced Mr. McKinley and Coolidge and Harding and Hoover and
Landon and Dewey and now in 1960, Mr. Nixon. I believe we can do better. (Applause)
This is a hard campaign and it is closely fought, and it is very close, in this state and around the country, and it is going
to be closely fought until November 8, but in the final analysis you have to make your judgment, as to what you want
this country to be, the kind of leadership which you want, whether you want the President of the United States and the
Congress to place before the American people the unfinished business of our society, and then start this country moving
again. (Applause)
I ask your help in this election and ask you to join us in moving ahead to the New Frontier. (Applause)
One hundred years ago, in the campaign of 1860, Abraham Lincoln wrote a friend, "I know there is a God, and that He
hates injustice. I see the storm coming, and I know His hand is in it. But if He has a place and a part for me, I believe
that I am ready."
Now, 100 years later, in the most trying period in the life of this country, when freedom is undergoing its most severe
test, we know there is a God and we know He hates injustice, and we see the storm coming. But if He has a place and a
part for us, I believe that we are ready. I ask your help. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Muncie Gear

Works, Muncie, Indiana, October 5, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: Ladies and gentlemen: We are here in Indiana to ask your help. Indiana has not gone
Democratic in a Presidential election since 1936, and I think it is time it did. (Applause)
Nixon, speaking in Boston the other night, said I was another Truman, and I said he was another Dewey, and he is.
(Applause and laughter) Any candidate who considers our program extreme, any candidate who is opposed to $1.25
minimum wage, or medical care for the aged or a decent housing bill, any candidate whose party is only able to get our
steel mills working 50 per cent of capacity, who is only able after the recession of 1958 to have this economy drifting
along -- I think we need a change. (Applause)
I ask your help in this campaign. I think we can win in Indiana and I think we can win in the country. We are going to
have a Democratic Congress. To have a Republican President and the Congress and the President fighting over the next
four years, without any legislation, without this country moving ahead, I believe the American people are going to
choose to go with the Democrats again.
I come here today and ask your help in a tough fight here in Indiana. If we can win in this state, we can win the election.
So I would appreciate your helping us. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Anderson,
SENATOR KENNEDY: Congressman Roush, Matt Welsh, who is going to be the next Governor of the State of Indiana
(applause) and your present United States Senator, Vance Hartke (applause) Mr. Mayor, ladies and gentlemen: I want to
express my great appreciation to all of you for your kindness in coming out and giving us a warm Hoosier welcome. I
understand that this town suffered a misfortune this morning when the bank was robbed. I am confident that the
Indianapolis Star will say that Democrats arrive and bank robbed. But we don't believe that. (Laughter)
We are here on a different mission. We are here on a mission to rebuild this state and country. I think this is a most
important election, and I believe the people of Indiana should make a careful judgment as to which party and which
candidate they should endorse in this state and country. It has been 24 years since Indiana voted Democratic in a
national election, in Franklin Roosevelt's second term in 1936. Each Presidential year since then Indiana has voted
Republican. But I must say that I think this year Indiana, which is participating as a part of the United States, must
realize that at home and abroad this country is not realizing its full potential. Here in this state which has lost over
38,000 factory jobs in the last eight years, which has seen its agricultural income go steadily down, which sees corn now
sell for 93 or 94 or 95 cents, and realizes that the bottom has not yet hit, I must say that any citizen of Indiana and any
citizen of the United States should consider carefully this election. The kind of leadership which this country has, the
kind of President which you elect, the kind of Congress which is nominated by one party or another, has a good deal to
do with the prosperity of this city of Anderson, and the prosperity of the State of Indiana.
The kind of schools that you have, the kind of assistance which you have for the aged people of this country, the kind of
agricultural program which stabilizes corn and hog and wheat prices, or permits them to go down, the kind of national
defense, the kind of vigor with which the United States speaks in our relations abroad - all those are tied up in this
presidential election.
My own judgment is that after eight years of the Republicans that the Democrats can begin to move this country ahead. I
think this is an important election. (Applause) If there is any merchant in this town who thinks his business is good this
fall, who looks to the future of 1961 with optimism, who thinks that agricultural prices are going to go up, who thinks
that the tide is rising in Indiana and the nation, who believes that our position is more secure in the world than it was
five years ago, who believes that the balance of power is moving in our direction rather than in the direction of our
enemies, I believe they should vote for Mr. Nixon. But any citizen of this community and any citizen of Indiana who
believes that the balance of power in the world is not moving in our direction, who is concerned about the rise of Castro
in Cuba, and the spread of his power through all of Latin America, who is concerned that the nations of Africa are not
following our road but one of neutrality and one of increasing friendship with the Communists, who believes that the
economy of this country is moving at a slow rate, who sees that we are only using 50 per cent of our steel capacity, only
50 per cent - last week the Soviet Union out produced us in steel, though they have one half of the potential we do,
because we are only using 54 per cent of our capacity.
Corn is down, steel mills are at 50 per cent, a recession in 1958, and already less than two years later, we find the
economy in the fall which should be our best time moving at a slower rate of growth than it should. This state and this
country is going to have to find 25,000 new jobs a week for the next ten years to maintain full employment. Here you
have a General Motors plant and those of you who work there know that new machinery takes the place of men, and
unless this country moves its economy at twice the rate it now is, you cannot maintain full employment in the United
States. We have 4 million out of work and 3 million part time. And in the winter of 1961 and 1962, unless this country
moves again, this state won't move. I don't care what happens in Indiana by itself - unless the rest of the country is going
ahead. Who buys the products of General Motors? Not the citizens of Indiana but the citizens of the United States.
Therefore, in this state, which for 24 years has sustained the Republicans, I think you should give us a chance. I think
you should give us a chance to lead. (Applause)
I think the choice is between standing still and drifting, and moving ahead. The choice is between our meeting the
unfinished business of our country and the cause of freedom around the world, or drifting along through the early
Sixties, the most difficult and dangerous time in the life of our country. This district is fortunate to have a vigorous
spokesman for its interests in the Congress, and Ed Roush speaks not only for this district, but for the United States. And
Matt Welsh, I believe, can give leadership to this state as Governor of Indiana. In the final analysis what this district
does and what this state does depends on what the United States is doing. Corn sells for the same price in Indiana as it
does in Minnesota. Automobiles sell in Indiana and sell in Michigan and sell in Massachusetts. This country rises or
falls based upon its economic growth, its economic vitality. And I come to Indiana facing a hard fight in this state, and I
come here and ask your help in this campaign.
I ask your support, and I can assure you - (applause) - I can assure you that if we are successful we will begin to give
this country the kind of leadership, which I think it needs, if it is not only to survive, but also to prevail. We will set
before this country as Franklin Roosevelt did in the early Thirties, our unfinished business.
I want those of you who are ready to move, and to see this country realize its potential, to join us. We will give this
country, I think, the chance to meet its historic destiny of being the great example of freedom at a time when freedom is
under attack all over the globe.
The next ten years will see the balance of power begin to move in the world in one direction or another. I want it to
move with us. Lincoln said 100 years ago that this nation cannot exist half slave and half free. I don't think the world
will exist in the long run half slave and half free. Whether it moves in the direction of slavery, or whether it moves in the
direction of freedom depends, in the final analysis, upon the citizens of the United States; it depends upon us. To do that,
I think this country must move. This country must go forward again. This country must say, "Yes" to the Sixties. This
country must move. Thank you. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Court House,

Terre Haute, Indiana, October 5, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: Mayor Tucker, Judge, Dutch Letzkus, Senator Hartke, your next Governor, Matt Welsh, your
distinguished and hard working Congressman who has worked for this district and for the United States, Congressman
Wampler, ladies and gentlemen:
I understand that today is the opening day of the World Series. I would hate to think that politics is taking the place of
baseball as the national sport, but I do think it indicates that the people of this country are concerned about what is
happening, are anxious about what we are going to do, are willing to join with us in building this state and building this
country. The Pirates may win today, or the Yankees, but I think the Democrats are going to win on November 8.
(Applause) And I believe that here in this State of Indiana, in the heartland of the United States, along this Wabash
River, I believe all the issues which are as significant to us as Indianans and as Americans are gathered here in this state.
This state depends upon agriculture, and for the last eight years farm income has gone steadily down. At the beginning
of this first administration eight years ago, corn in this state was selling for $1.50. It is selling now for 93 or 94 cents.
And under the support program put forward by Mr. Nixon ten days ago, where the support price is tied to the market
price, corn next year will be selling at a lower price and at a lower price, and there isn't anyone in this community whose
employment is not affected by the decline in agricultural income. It is no wonder that in the 1920s, the recession and
depression of 1929 was preceded by the sharpest decline in agricultural income that the country had seen up to that date.
And now here in Indiana, and in this City of Terre Haute, you have unemployment of nearly 7 per cent, you see steel
mills in Gary and elsewhere in this state which are working 55 or 60 per cent of capacity, and every merchant and every
banker in the State of Indiana can tell you that this September and this October have been as difficult and hard as the
September and October of 1957, and the September and October at the end of 1953, which preceded the recessions of
1954 and 1958.
I don't believe this country can afford another recession. The demands placed upon us are too great. Every time that we
fail to meet our problems, every time that we fail to move our economy forward, we fail not only our own people, but
we fail all those who look to us for leadership. My judgment is that there is a very clear choice between the Republican
and the Democratic Parties. They stand for different things, and they have stood for different things all through this
century. Woodrow Wilson, running in 1912, said that the Republican Party idea of policy is to sit on the lid. Franklin
Roosevelt carried the fight in 1932 and 1936 and Harry Truman carried the fight in 1948, and on the issues which
matter, housing, social security, medical care for the aged, minimum wage, development of the resources of this
country, I believe the Democratic Party looks forward. I believe it has presented to this country programs which move
the economy of this country.
Indiana does not exist by itself. There is no business in Indiana that does not sell to the rest of the country, and if the rest
of the country is standing still, if our economy is not moving forward, where are all the young men and women going to
school in this state going to find jobs? We are going to have 25,000 people coming into the labor market every year,
every week every year, for the next ten years, and we hare going to have to find them jobs, 25,000 new people a week
for ten years, looking for jobs. And unless this economy of this country moves forward, unless the Federal Government
gives leadership we are not going to find jobs for those people or the people now working.
I believe the issue is very clear, and the issue is whether the American people are satisfied with things as they are,
whether they feel that the 1960s are a time to really conserve and stand still and gather our energy, or whether the 1960s
are a time to move forward again, as 1932 was, as 1912 was. Here in this state which has voted Republican in every
Presidential election since 1936, I recognize that this is a tough, uphill fight. But I believe that Indiana and the rest of the
United States are going to choose in 1960 to look forward again, to put their confidence in the Democratic Party which,
in other days in other years, in other crises, has produced leadership and has moved this country off dead center.
(Applause)
I want to emphasize that what we do here, and the kind of society we build here, affects our position around the world.
The strength of the United States depends on the strength of Indiana, Pittsburgh, Detroit, and California. If this country
is moving forward, if we are producing to our maximum, there is no country in the world that can catch us. The United
States produced about one third of the rate of economic growth last year as the Soviet Union, one half that of Germany.
If we were using our steel mills to the fullest, if we had an agricultural program that maintained farmers income, if small
business in this country was prosperous, if the monetary and fiscal policies of this administration did not rest on a high
interest, hard money policy, then the economy of this country would move and no one could catch the United States. But
if we drift, if we use our people and our resources at slow speed, then at a time when the world is in turmoil and in
revolution, people to the South of us, people in Africa, people in Asia are going to determine that the way of the future
belongs to the Communists.
Mr. Nixon says I downgrade America. I have served the United States just as long as he has, and I have just as much
affection for it and just as high an opinion of it. I downgrade his leadership. (Applause) I downgrade the Republican
leadership. And anyone who thinks that the prestige of the United States is increasing as fast as it needs to should look
around us. A Gallup Poll taken in February in ten countries scattered around the world showed that a majority of people
in nine of the ten countries believed that the Soviet Union would be ahead of us militarily and scientifically by 1970.
Why? Forty years ago the Soviet Union was the sickest country in Europe. Forty years ago the Soviet Union had no
scientists and engineers. Now suddenly, in forty years, they make the people of the world think they are going to be
ahead of us, and if the people of the world feel they are the way of the future, then they turn to them, not to us.
I want leaders in Africa and Asia and Latin America to be quoting American statesmen. I don't want them to just quote
Jefferson and Lincoln. I want them to be quoting American leaders who stand for freedom, who will build a strong
country, who will extend the benefits of that prosperity to all Americans. I ask your help in Indiana. I ask your help in a
tough fight. But I can tell you that we are going to win in this country, and I want Indiana to join us. Thank you.
(Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Jefferson

Square, Louisville, Kentucky, October 5, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: Thank you, Governor, Congressman Burko, Keen Johnson, your next United States Senator,
and ladies and gentlemen: I come here today to correct a historical misstatement. Richard M. Nixon stood in this very
same spot and claimed Thomas Jefferson as a Republican. Not on his best day. I am going to get him back. Thomas
Jefferson is a Democrat.
I give you McKinley, Coolidge, Harding, Hoover, Dewey, and Landon.
I don't blame him for claiming Jefferson. They have very few they can claim. Theodore Roosevelt left the Republican
Party.
Abraham Lincoln, his successor, who tried to carry out his policy, was assassinated, but they cannot take Thomas
Jefferson and they cannot take the United States in 1960, or the State of Kentucky. (Applause)
Richard Nixon speaking in Boston a few days ago said that I was another Truman. I returned the compliment and said
that he was another Dewey.
And I believe that Kentucky, which has looked to the future on all occasions, which has recognized the national interest,
which has recognized that without a strong country we cannot be free, I believe Kentucky is coming back to the
Democratic Party. (Applause)
This is an important election, and it is for the welfare of this city, this state and this country. I do not run for the
Presidency promising that if I am elected life will be easy. But I do run for the country warning that this country cannot
continue to think that what was good enough before is good enough for the Sixties, and any party which runs in 1960
with a slogan of "You have never had it so good" is going to be defeated. (Applause)
We believe that this is a great country, but we believe this country can be greater and we believe it is a powerful
country, but this country can be more powerful.
We want to tell the fire department there is no fire here; it is just Democrats on fire. (Applause and response.)
Here in 1960, in this old city I come to you and ask for you help. This state must go Democratic and so must the
country. The United States must rebuild its strength and prestige. The United States must take a position in this country,
and in the world that we will not be second to anyone, that we want to be first, not first but, not first, if, not first, when,
but first, and we shall be. (Applause)
Here in the shadow of Thomas Jefferson I salute the city of Louisville, which in 1956, carrying out the Supreme Court
decision, set an example to the country and set and example to the world. And I am proud to be in this city tonight and
salute you for what you have done and what you are doing and what you will do in the future. (Applause)
This choice that faces the United States is as old as the country. This country has faced it in other years and other
occasions.
They are not going to break up this meeting. We are going to go on, sirens or not, rain or not, sunshine or not.
(Applause)
It is as the Bible tells us, "It rains upon the just and the unjust," Republicans and well as Democrats. It rains on Richard
Nixon tonight in Philadelphia, I heard. (Applause) But the Republicans are all at home and we are out here meeting
because we believe in our party. (Applause)
So I ask you to join us in this campaign. I ask Kentucky to join us, Kentucky which has supported in 1948, supported in
1932, supported in 1912, great Democrats, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. I stand where they
stood. All those people who want to stand still, all those people who believe that things are as good as they can be, that
the power of the United States is increasing as fast as it must, who are satisfied to have this country drift at home and
abroad, they should join Mr. Nixon. But all those who look to the future, all those who want this country to move again,
all those who want this country to get off dead center, I want your support, I want your support for the Democratic
Party. (Applause) I want you to reelect Frank Burke and send Keen Johnson to the Senate and join us in a great national
effort. I ask your help. (Applause)
Finally, let me say that I do not underrate the difficulty of this election. It will be hard fought in Kentucky and all across
the United States. But this is not merely a contest between Mr. Nixon and myself. It is a contest between two parties and
their different philosophies between two outlooks, between one party which gives the green light to the Sixties, and the
other party which stands still, between a party which moves forward, between a party which looks back, between a party
which produced Wilson and Roosevelt and Truman and a party that produced Landon and Dewey and now in 1960 Mr.
Nixon. I ask you to join us in this effort. This struggle is the same as the struggle 100 years ago. When Abraham Lincoln
wrote to a friend during the election of 1860, he said, "I know there is a God, and I know He hates injustice. I see the
storm coming, and I know His hand is in it. But if He has a place and a part for me, I believe that I am ready."
Now, 100 years later, in the election of 1960, we know there is a God, and we know He hates injustice, and we see the
storm coming, but if He has a place and a part for us, I believe that we are ready. Thank you. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Government

Square, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 6, 1960
SENATOR KENNEDY: Governor DiSalle, John Weithe, Mr. Garrett, ladies and gentlemen: I come here in 1960, to this
State of Ohio, seeking the election as President of the United States, recognizing that the responsibilities and burdens of
the next President will be greater than any since 1860 and 1861. I do not run for the Presidency after 14 years in the
Congress without full recognition that, as Harry Truman used to say on his desk there was a sign "The buck stops here."
In my judgment, the great questions of war and peace, of full employment, of economic growth, of a stronger society, of
equal opportunity for all, will depend in the final analysis upon the President of the United States. (Applause) Not upon
the House and not upon the Senate. Congressmen speak for one district. Members of the United States Senate speak for
one state - I speak for Massachusetts and Senator Engle speaks for California - but only the President of the United
States speaks for Massachusetts and California. And the question which Cincinnati and Ohio must decide for themselves
is which President, which party, which political philosophy you want to govern in the office of the President of the
United States, because there are very sharp differences, there are very sharp differences between Mr. Nixon and myself.
(Applause) They have been written, and there are in 1960, as there have been in other periods of our history, very sharp
differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. (Applause)
Cincinnati has voted - it is called Cincinnati in Boston, and I am from Boston - (laughter and applause) - we are going to
explain to you how to pronounce it. (Laughter) This city - (laughter) - This city has supported the Republican candidate
for the office of the Presidency ever since 1936. I think it is time you changed. (Applause)
I think that this country needs a New Deal for the Democratic Party and the United States. (Applause) I don't believe
that this city and the State of Ohio wants, for a President of the United States in 1961, a man who thinks a minimum
wage of $1.25 an hour for someone working in interstate commerce is extreme. I don't believe that anyone who believes
in federal aid to education, and to make sure that our teachers are well compensated - anyone who believes that that is
extreme; I don't believe the American people are going to endorse that leadership. (Applause)
I don't believe that the American people are going to give their endorsement to the leadership which believes that
medical care for our older citizens, financed under social security, is extreme, and I quote Mr. Nixon accurately - which
he does not always do me. (Applause) I don't believe an administration whose economic and fiscal policies whose
devotion to high interest rates have helped bring the recession of 1954 and a recession of 1958, and bring a leveling off
in 1960, that is ominous for 1961. The men and women in this audience who work in our factories, the small
businessmen who depend on credit and on a moving economy to make his living, the children who go to overcrowded
schools - (response from the audience) - the people who are looking to retirement, I think they are going to vote in 1960
as this country has voted in other years, in favor of a party of progress and a country of progress. (Applause)
And all this in the most dangerous time in the life of our country. All this has significance to the position of the United
States and the world around us. If the United States stands still, if it does not show vision and vitality in its policy here at
home, how does anyone think it is going to show vision and vitality in our policy abroad?
The United States last June offered 300 scholarships to Congo because of the crisis. That was more scholarships than we
had offered the two preceding years to all of Africa. When we broke off the sugar quota from Cuba last June, we offered
economic aid to Latin America. Mr. Nixon, on Meet the Press a month ago, said that if we had developed that program
five years ago, perhaps we could have prevented Castro from seizing power in Cuba. Well, this administration was in
power five years ago. We ignored Latin America. We have given more aid to Yugoslavia since the end of World War II
than all of Latin America combined. There is not a present American statesman who is quoted by any African leader
today. They stand on the razor edge of decision. They wonder whether the world and the future belongs to the
Communists or belongs to us. A Gallup Poll taken in February among ten countries of the world, in which the people
were asked a simple question - which country, the Soviet Union or the United States, will be first in military and
scientific power in 1970. The Soviet Union, which 40 years ago was the most backward country of Europe, was asked
and a majority of the citizens of every country but one said the Soviet Union would be first, both militarily and
scientifically. Why do they think so? Why have we fallen behind? Why do they believe that they will be stronger than
we are? We have an economy twice theirs. We have a long history of scientific progress. Why in the short space of 40
years has the Soviet Union been able to capture the imagination of the people? Why are we second in outer space and
second in the minds of many of the people of Africa and beginning to be second in the minds of many of the people of
Latin America? Why was it necessary for a Presidential candidate in Brazil, in the middle of his campaign, to pay a visit
to Castro? Why was the United States unable to get an indictment of Castro by name at the last meeting of the
Organization of American States?
Because the power and prestige of the United States, relative to that of the Communist world, has diminished in the last
decade; because these people wonder whether the future belongs to the Castros and the Khrushchevs and the neutralists
who are turning to hostility. They wonder whether the future belongs to freedom.
That is the great issue of 1961 and 1962. I must say I don't think we can capture the imagination of the world, we cannot
capture the imagination of our own people, unless we have an administration manned by men and women who look to
the future, who recognize that this is a changing and a revolutionary world, and that what was good enough 10 or 15
years ago is no longer good enough.
I want Africans and Latin Americans not to quote Roosevelt or Lincoln or Jefferson; I want them to be quoting the next
President of the United States. (Applause) I want us to stand for freedom. I want us to demonstrate in this country, as we
sit on a most conspicuous stage, that we are a strong and vital country, that we and the cause of freedom are closely
identified, that we want a better life for our people, that we do not in this country practice discrimination of any kind,
that all we want is the best talent we can get. That is the kind of society we can build, and what we do here and what we
are will speak far louder than what we say over the Voice of America
Franklin Roosevelt was a good neighbor in Latin America because he was a good neighbor in the United States. I
believe that in the 1960's the United States can once again capture the imagination of the world. We can once again be
the wonder of those who seek to follow freedom's road. Freedom's road begins in Washington, but it stretches around
the globe. We want people to join us. The future belongs to the United States, and those who believe as we do. Our high
noon is yet to come. The Communist system is as old as Egypt, and if we do our job, if we demonstrate vigor and
vitality here, we can radiate it around the world until finally all those who wish to be free will finally come with us. That
is the opportunity. This is our chance. (Applause)
I ask your support in this campaign, not promising a life of ease, but promising the United States leadership which leads,
leadership which sets before us our unfinished business, leadership which will get this country moving again. Thank
you. (Applause)
Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice

President Richard M. Nixon Second Joint
Radio-Television Broadcast
[Text, format and style are as published in Freedom of Communications: Final Report of
the Committee on Commerce, United States Senate..., Part III: The Joint Appearances of
Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard M. Nixon and Other 1960 Campaign
Presentations. 87th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Report No. 994, Part 3. Washington:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961].
MR. McGEE. Good evening. This is Frank McGee, NBC News in Washington.
This is the second in a series of programs unmatched in history. Never have so many
people seen the major candidates for President of the United States at the same time, and
never until this series have Americans seen the candidates in face-to-face exchange.
Tonight the candidates have agreed to devote the full hour to answering questions on any
issue of the campaign, and here tonight are: the Republican candidate, Vice President
Richard M. Nixon, and the Democratic candidate, Senator John F. Kennedy.
Now, representatives of the candidates and of all the radio and television networks have
agreed on these rules:
Neither candidate will make an opening statement or a closing summation;
Each will be questioned in turn.
Each will have an opportunity to comment upon the answer of the other.
Each reporter will ask only one question in turn. He is free to ask any question he chooses.
Neither candidate knows what questions will be asked and only the clock will determine
who will be asked the last question.
These programs represent an unprecedented opportunity for the candidates to present their
philosophies and programs directly to the people and for the people to compare these and
the candidates.
The four reporters on tonight's panel include a newspaperman and a wire service
representative. These two were selected by lot by the press secretaries of the candidates
from among the reporters traveling with the candidates. The broadcasting representatives
were selected by their respective companies. The reporters are:
Paul Niven of CBS. Edward P. Morgan of ABC. Alvin Spivak of United Press
International, and Harold R. Levy of Newsday.
Now, the first question is from Mr. Niven and is for Vice President Nixon.
MR. NIVEN. Mr. Vice President, Senator Kennedy said last night that the Administration
must take responsibility for the loss of Cuba. Would you compare the validity of that
statement with the validity of your own statements in previous campaigns that the Truman
administration was responsible for the loss of China to the Communists?
MR. NIXON. Well, first of all, I don't agree with Senator Kennedy that Cuba is lost and
certainly China was lost when this administration came into power in 1953. As I look at
Cuba today, I believe that we are following the right course, a course which is difficult, but
a course which under the circumstance is the only proper one which will see that the Cuban
people get a chance to realize their aspirations of progress through freedom, and that they
get that with our cooperation with the other Organ--of the states in the Organization of
American States.
Now, Senator Kennedy has made some very strong criticisms of my part, or alleged part, in
what has happened in Cuba.
He points to the fact that I visited Cuba while Mr. Batista was in power there. I can only
point out that if we are going to judge the administrations in terms of our attitude toward
dictators, we're glad to have a comparison with the previous administration. There were 11
dictators in South America and in Central America when we came in, in 1953. Today there
are only 3 left including the one in Cuba.
We think that's pretty good progress.
Senator Kennedy also indicated with regard to Cuba that he thought that I had made a
mistake when I was in Cuba in not calling for free elections in that country.
Now I am very surprised that Senator Kennedy, who is on the Foreign Relations
Committee, would have made such a statement of this kind. As a matter of fact in his book,
"The Strategy for Peace," he took the right position and that position is that the United
States has a treaty, a treaty with all of the Organization of American States which prohibits
us from interfering in the internal affairs of any other state and prohibits them as well. For
me to have made such a statement would been in direct opposition to that treaty.
Now, with regard to Cuba, let me make one thing clear. There isn't any question but that we
will defend our rights there. There isn't any question but that we will defend Guantanamo if
it's attacked. There also isn't any question but that the free people of Cuba, the people who
want to be free, are going to be supported and that they will attain their freedom.
No, Cuba is not lost, and I don't think this kind of defeatist talk by Senator Kennedy helps
the situation one bit.
MR. McGEE. Senator Kennedy, would you care to comment?
MR. KENNEDY. In the first place I've never suggested that Cuba was lost except for the
present. In my speech last night I indicated that I thought that Cuba one day again would be
free. Where I have been critical of the administration's policy, and where I criticized Mr.
Nixon was because in his press conference in Havana in 1955 he praised the competence
and stability of the dictat--Batista dictatorship.That dictatorship had killed over 20,000
Cubans in 7 years.
Secondly, I did not criticize him for not calling for free elections. What I criticized was the
failure of the administration to use its great influence to persuade the Cuban government to
hold free elections, particularly in 1957 and 1958.
Thirdly, Arthur Gardner, a Republican Ambassador; Earl Smith, a Republican
Ambassador, in succession, both have indicated in the past 6 weeks that they reported to
Washington that Castro was a Marxist, that Raoul Castro was a Communist, and that they
got no effective results.
Instead, our aid continued to Batista, which was ineffective; we never were on the side of
freedom; we never used our influence when we could have used it most effectively and
today Cuba is lost to freedom.
I hope some day it will rise, but I don't think it will rise if we continue the same policies
toward Cuba that we did in recent years and, in fact, towards all of Latin America, when
we've almost ignored the needs of Latin America. We've beamed not a single Voice of
America program in Spanish to all of Latin America in the last 8 years, except for the 3
months of the Hungarian revolution.
MR. McGEE. Mr. Morgan, with a question for Senator Kennedy.
MR. MORGAN. Senator, last May in Oregon you discussed the possibilities of sending
apologies or regrets to Khrushchev over the U-2 incident.
Do you think now that that would have done any good? Did you think so then?
MR. KENNEDY. Mr. Morgan, I suggested that if the United States felt that it could save
the summit conference that it would have been proper for us to have expressed regrets. In
my judgment, that statement has been distorted by Mr. Nixon and others in their debates
around the country and in their discussions. Mr. Lodge, on "Meet the Press" a month ago
said if there was ever a case when we did not have law an our side, it was in the U-2
incident. The U-2 flights were proper from the point of view of protecting our security, but
they were not in accordance with international law, and I said that I felt that rather than tell
the lie which we told, rather than indicate that the flights would continue--in fact, I believe
Mr. Nixon, himself, said on May 15 that the flights would continue, even though Mr.
Herter testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that they had been canceled
as of May 12--that it would have been far better that if we had expressed regrets, if that
would have saved the summit and if the summit is useful and I believe it is.
The point that is always left out is the fact that we expressed regrets to Castro this winter,
that we expressed regrets--the Eisenhower administration expressed regrets for a flight over
Southern Russia in 1958. We expressed regrets for a flight over Eastern Germany under
this administration. The Soviet Union in 1955 expressed regrets to us over the Bering Sea
incident. The Chinese Communists expressed regrets to us over a plane incident in 1956.
That is the accepted procedure between nations. And my judgment is that we should follow
the advice of Theodore Roosevelt: "Be strong. Maintain a strong position, but also speak
softly."
I believe that in those cases where international custom calls for the expression of a regret,
if that would have kept the summit going, in my judgment it was a proper action. It's not
appeasement. It's not soft. I believe we should be stronger than we now are. I believe we
should have a stronger military force. I believe we should increase our strength all over the
world.
But I don't confuse words with strength. And in my judgment if the summit was useful, if it
would have brought us closer to peace, that rather than the lie that we told, which has been
criticized by all responsible people afterwards, it would have been far better for us to
follow the common diplomatic procedure of expressing regrets and then try to move on.
MR. McGEE. Mr. Vice President.
MR. NIXON. I think Senator Kennedy is wrong on three counts. First of all, he's wrong in
thinking or even suggesting that Mr. Khrushchev might have continued the conference if
we had expressed regrets.
He knew these flights were going on long before and that wasn't the reason that he broke
up the conference. Second, he's wrong in the analogies that he makes. The United States is
a strong country. Whenever we do anything that's wrong, we can express regrets.
But when the President of the United States is doing something that's right, something that
is for the purpose of defending the security of this country against surprise attack, he can
never express regrets or apologize to anybody, including Mr. Khrushchev.
Now, in that connection, Senator Kennedy has criticized the President on the ground not
only of not expressing regrets but because he allowed this flight to take place while the
summit conference, or immediately before the summit conference, occurred. This seems to
me is criticism that again is wrong on his part.
We all remember Pearl Harbor. We lost 3,000 American lives. We cannot afford an
intelligence gap and I just want to make my position absolutely clear with regard to getting
intelligence information. I don't intend to see to it that the United States is ever in a position
where, while we're negotiating with the Soviet Union, that we discontinue our intelligence
effort. And I don't intend ever to express regrets to Mr. Khrushchev or anybody else if I'm
doing something that has the support of the Congress and that is right for the purpose of
protecting the security of the United States.
MR. McGEE. Mr. Spivak with a question for Vice President Nixon.
MR. SPIVAK. Mr. Vice President, you have accused Senator Kennedy of avoiding the
civil rights issue when he has been in the South and he has accused you of the same thing.
With both North and South listening and watching, would you sum up your own intentions
in the field of civil rights if you become President?
MR. NIXON. My intentions in the field of civil rights have been spelled out in the
Republican platform. I think we have to make progress first in the field of employment and
there we would give statutory authority to the Committee on Government Contracts, which
is an effective way of getting real progress made in this area, since about one out of every
four jobs is held by and is allotted by people who have Government contracts.
Certainly I think all of us agree that when anybody has a Government contract, certainly
the money that is spent under that contract ought to be disbursed equally without regard to
the race or creed or color of the individual who is to be employed.
Second, in the field of schools, we believe that there should be provisions whereby the
Federal Government would give assistance to those districts who do want to integrate their
schools. That of course was rejected as was the Government contracts provision by the
special session of the Congress into--which Mr. Kennedy was quite active.
And then, as far as other areas are concerned, I think that we have to look to Presidential
leadership.
Now, when I speak of Presidential leadership, I refer, for example, to our attitude on the
sit-in strikes. Here we have a situation which causes all of us concern, causes us concern
because of the denial of the rights of people to the equality which we think belongs to
everybody.
I have talked to Negro mothers. I have heard them explain, try to explain how they tell their
children how they can go into a store and buy a loaf of bread, but then can't go into that
store and sit at the counter and get a Coca Cola. This is wrong and we have to do
something about it.
So, under the circumstances, what do we do? Well, what we do is what the Attorney
General of the United States did under the direction of the President: Call in the owners of
chainstores and get them to take action.
Now, there are other places where the Executive can lead, but let me just sum up by saying
this: Why do I talk every time I'm in the South on civil rights?
Not because I am preaching to the people of the South, because this isn't just a southern
problem; it's a northern problem and a western problem, it's a problem for all of us. I do it
because it's the responsibility of leadership. I do it because we have to solve this problem
together.
I do it right at this time particularly because when we have Khrushchev in this country, a
man who has enslaved millions, a man who has slaughtered thousands, we cannot continue
to have a situation where he can point the finger at the United States of America and say
that we are denying rights to our citizens; and so I say both the candidates and both the vice
presidential candidates, I would hope, as well, including Senator Johnson, should talk on
this issue at every opportunity.
MR. McGEE. Senator Kennedy.
MR. KENNEDY. Well, Mr. Nixon hasn't discussed the two basic questions: What is going
to be done and what will be his policy on implementing the Supreme Court decision of
1954? Giving aid to schools technically that are trying to carry out the decision is not the
great question. Secondly, what's he going to do to provide fair employment? He's been the
head of the Committee on Government Contracts that's carried out two cases, both in the
District of Columbia. He has not indicated his support of an attempt to provide fair
employment practices around the country, so that everyone can get a job regardless of their
race or color. Nor has he indicated that he will support Title III, which would give the
Attorney General additional powers to protect Constitutional rights.
These are the great questions. Equality of education in schools. About 2 percent of our
population of white people is illiterate; 10 per cent of our colored population. Sixty to
seventy percent of our colored children do not finish high school.
These are the questions and these areas that the North and South, East and West are entitled
to know what will be the leadership of the President in these areas to provide equality of
opportunity for employment, equality of opportunity in the field of housing, which could
be done on all Federal supported housing by a stroke of the President's pen.
What will be done to provide equality of education in all sections of the United States?
Those are the questions to which the President must establish a moral tone and moral
leadership. And I can assure you that if I'm elected President we will do so.
MR. McGEE. Mr. Levy with a question for Senator Kennedy.
MR. LEVY. Senator, on the same subject, in the past you have emphasized the President's
responsibility as a moral leader as well as an executive on civil rights questions.
What specifically might the next President do in the event of an occurrence such as Little
Rock or the lunch-counter sit-ins? From the standpoint of--
MR. KENNEDY. Let me say that I think that the President operates in a number of
different areas. First, as a legislative leader, and as I just said I believe that the passage of
the so-called Title III which gives the Attorney General the power to protect constitutional
rights in those cases where it's not possible for the person involved to bring the suit.
Secondly, as an executive leader. There have been only six cases brought by this Attorney
General under the voting bill passed in 1957 and the voting bill passed in 1960. The right to
vote is basic.
I do not believe that this Administration has implemented those bills which represent the
will of the majority of the Congress on two occasions with vigor.
Thirdly, I don't believe that the Government Contracts Division is operated with vigor.
Everyone who does business with the Government should have the opportunity to make
sure that they do not practice discrimination in their hiring, and that's in all sections of the
United States.
And then fourthly, as a moral leader. There is a very strong moral basis for this concept of
equality before the law. Not only equality before the law, but also equality of opportunity.
We are in a very difficult time. We need all the talent we can get. We sit on a conspicuous
stage. We are a goldfish bowl before the world. We have to practice what we preach. We
set a very high standard for ourselves.
The Communists do not. They set a low standard of materialism. We preach in the
Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution, in the statements of our greatest
leaders, we preach very high standards; and if we're not going to be charged before the
world with hypocrisy, we have to meet those standards.
I believe the President of the United States should indicate that.
Now, lastly, I believe in the case of Little Rock. I would have hoped that the President of
the United States would have been possible for him to indicate it clearly that the Supreme
Court decision was going to be carried out. I would have hoped that it would have been
possible to use marshals to do so, but evidently under the handling of the case it was not. I
would hope an incident like that would not happen.
I think if the President is responsible, if he consults with those involved, if he makes it
clear that the Supreme Court decision is going to be carried out in a way that the Supreme
Court planned, with deliberate speed, then in my judgment, providing he's behind action, I
believe we can make progress. Now, the present administration, the President has said,
never indicated what he thought of the 1954 decision.
Unless the President speaks then, of course the country doesn't speak and Franklin
Roosevelt said the Presidency of the United States is above all a place of moral leadership
and I believe on this great moral issue he should speak out and give his views clearly.
MR. NIXON. Senator Kennedy has expressed some hopes in this field, hopes which I think
all Americans would share who want some progr--some progress in this area. But let's look
at the performance. When he selected his vice Presidential running mate, he selected a man
who had voted against most of these proposals and a man who opposes them at the present
time.
Let me look also at what I did. I selected a man who stands with me in this field and who
will talk with me and work with me on it.
Now, the Senator referred to the Committee on Government Contracts. And yet that very
committee of which I am chairman has been handicapped by the fact that we have not had
adequate funds, we have not had adequate powers, we haven't had an adequate staff.
Now, in the special session of Congress and also in the session that preceded it, the
Democratic Congress, in which there's a 2-to-1 Democratic majority, was asked by the
President to give us the funds and give us the power to do a job and they did nothing at all
and in the special session in which Senator Kennedy was calling the signals along with
Senator Johnson, they turned it down and he himself voted against giving us the powers,
despite the fact that the bill had already been considered before, that had already had
hearings on and the Congress already knew what it had before it.
All that I can say is this: What we need here are not just high hopes; what we need is
action, and in the field of Executive leadership, I can say that I believe it's essential that the
President of the United States not only set the tone but he also must lead. He must act as he
talks.
MR. McGEE. Mr. Morgan with a question for Vice President Nixon.
MR. MORGAN. Mr. Vice President, in your speeches you emphasize that the United
States is doing basically well in the cold war.
Can you square that statement with a considerable mass of bipartisan reports and studies,
including one prominently participated in by Governor Rockefeller, which almost
unanimously conclude that we are not doing nearly so well as we should?
MR. NIXON. Mr. Morgan, no matter how well we're doing in the cold war, we're not doing
as well as we should, and that will always be the case as long as the Communists are on the
international scene, and the aggressive tract--tendencies that they presently are following.
Now, as far as the present situation is concerned, I think it's time that we nail a few of these
distortions about the United States that have been put out.
First of all, we hear that our prestige is at an alltime low. Senator Kennedy has been hitting
that point over and over again. I would suggest that after Premier Khrushchev's
performance in the United Nations, compared with President Eisenhower's eloquent
speech, that at the present time Communist prestige in the world is at an all-time low, and
American prestige is at an all-time high.
Now that, of course, is just one factor, but it's a significant one.
When we look, for example, at the vote on the Congo, we were on one side; they were on
the other side. What happened? There were 70 votes for our position and none for theirs.
Look at the votes in the United Nations over the past 7 1/2 years. That's a test of prestige.
Every time the United States has been an one side and they have been on the other side, our
position has been sustained.
Now, looking to what we ought to do in the future: In this cold war, we have to recognize
where it is being fought and then we have to develop programs to deal with it. It's being
fought primarily in Asia, in Africa, and in Latin America.
What do we need? What tools do we need to fight it? Well, we need, for example,
economic assistance. We need technical assistance, we need exchange, we need programs
of diplomatic and other character which will be effective in that area.
Now Senator Kennedy a moment ago referred to the fact that there was not an adequate
"Voice of America" program for Latin America. I'd like to point out that in the last 6 years,
the Democratic Congresses, of which he'd been a Member, have cut $20 million off of the
"Voice of America" programs. They also have cut $4 billion off of mutual security in these
last 6 years. They also have cut $2 billion off of defense.
Now when they talk about our record here, it is well that they recognize that they have to
stand up for their record as well. So let me summarize by saying this: I'm not satisfied with
what we're doing in the cold war because I believe we have to step up our activities and
launch an offensive for the minds and hearts and souls of men. It must be economic, it must
be technological, above all it must be ideological. But we've got to get help from the
Congress in order to do this.
MR. KENNEDY. Of course Mr. Nixon is wholly inaccurate when he says that the
Congress has not provided more funds in fact than the President recommended for national
defense.
In 1953 we tried to put an appropriation of $5 billion for our defenses. I was responsible for
the amendment with Senator Monroney in 1954 to strengthen our ground forces. The
Congress of the United States appropriated $677 million more than the President was
willing to use, up till a week ago.
Secondly, on the question of our position in the United Nations. We all know about the
vote held this week of the five neutralists, and it was generally regarded as a defeat for the
United States.
Thirdly, in 1952, there were only seven votes in favor of the admission of Red China into
the United Nations. Last year there were29. Aand tomorrow when the preliminary vote is
held, you will see a strengthening of that position or very closely to it.
We have not maintained our position and our prestige. A Gallup Poll taken in February of
this year asking in eight out of nine countries--they asked the people, who do they think
would be ahead by 1970, militarily and scientifically, and a majority in eight of the nine
countries said the Soviet Union would be by 1970.
Governor Rockefeller has been far more critical in June of our position in the world than I
have been. The Rockefeller brothers, report, General Ridgway, General Gavin, the Gaither
Report, various reports of congressional committees, all indicate that the relative strength
of the United States both militarily, politically, psychologically, and scientifically, and
industrially, the relative strength of the Sov--United States compared to that of the Soviet
Union and the Chinese Communists together, has deteriorated in the last 8 years and we
should know it, and the American people should be told the facts.
MR. McGEE. Mr. Spivak with a question for Senator Kennedy.
MR. SPIVAK. Senator, following this up, how would you go about increasing the prestige
you say we're losing and could the programs you've devised to do so be accomplished
without absolutely wrecking our economy?
MR. KENNEDY. Yes; we have been wholly indifferent to Latin America until the last few
months. The program that was put forward this summer, after we broke off the sugar quota
with Cuba, really was done because we wanted to get through the OAS meeting a
condemnation of Russian infiltration of Cuba and, therefore, we passed an authorization,
not an aid bill, which was the first time really since the Inter-American Bank, which was
founded a year ago, was developed, that we really have looked at the needs of Latin
America, that we have associated ourselves with those people.
Secondly, I believe that in the ca--that it's far better for the United States, instead of
concentrating our aid particularly in the underdeveloped world on surplus military
equipment, we poured $300 million of surplus military equipment into Laos.
We paid more military aid, more aid into Laos per person than in any country in the world,
and we ought to know now that Laos is moving from neutralism in the direction of the
Communists. I believe instead of doing that we should concentrate our aid in long-term
loans, which these people can pay back either in hard money or in local currency.
This permits them to maintain their self-respect. It permits us to make sure that the projects
which are invested in are going to produce greater wealth, and I believe that in cases of
India and Africa and Latin America, that this is where our emphasis should be.
I would strengthen the Development Loan Fund, and Senator Fulbright, Senator Humphrey
and I tried to do that. We tried to provide an appropriation of a billion and a half for 5
years, on a longterm loan basis, which this administration opposed. And, unless we are
ready to carry out programs like that in the '60's, this battle for economic survival which
these people are waging are going to be lost, and if India should lose her battle, with 35
percent of the people of the underdeveloped world within her borders, then I believe that
the balance of power could move against us. I think the United States can afford to do these
things. I think that we could not afford not to do these things.
This goes to our survival and here in a country which, if it is moving ahead, if it's
developing its economy to the fullest, which we are not now, in my judgment, we'll have
the resources to meet our military commitment and also our commitments overseas.
I believe it's essential that we do it because in the next 10 years the balance of power is
going to begin to move in the world from one direction or another towards us or towards
the Communists and unless we begin to identify ourselves not only with the anti-
Communist fight, but also with the fight against poverty and hunger, these people are going
to begin to turn to the Communists as an example.
I believe we can do it. If we build our economy the way we should, we can afford to do
these things and we must do it.
MR. NIXON. Senator Kennedy has put a great deal of stress on the necessity for economic
assistance. This is important. But it's also tremendously important to bear in mind that
when you pour in money without pouring in technical assistance at as well, that you have a
disastrous situation. We need to step up exchange; we need to step up technical assistance
so that trained people in these newly developing countries can operate the economies. We
also have to have in mind something else with regard to this whole situation in the world,
and that is that as America moves forward, we not only must think in terms of fighting
communism, but we must also think primarily in terms of the interests of these countries.
We must associate ourselves with their aspirations. We must let them know that the great
American ideals of independence, of the right of people to be free, and of the right to
progress, that these are ideals that belong not to ourselves alone, but they belong to
everybody. This we must get across to the world. And we can't do it unless we do have
adequate funds for, for example, information, which has been cut by the Congress;
adequate funds for technical assistance.
The other point that I would make with regard to economic assistance and technical
assistance is that the United States must not rest its case here alone.
This is primarily an ideological battle, a battle for the minds and the hearts and the souls of
men. We must not meet the Communists purely in the field of gross atheistic materialism.
We must stand for our ideals.
MR. McGEE. Mr. Levy with a question for Vice President Nixon.
MR. LEVY. Mr. Vice President, the Labor Department today added five more major
industrial centers to the list of areas with substantial unemployment.
You said in New York this week that as President, you would use the full powers of the
Government, if necessary, to combat unemployment.
Specifically, what measures would you advocate and at what point?
MR. NIXON. To combat unemployment, we first must concentrate on the very areas to
which you refer, the so-called depressed areas.
Now, in the last Congress, the special session of the Congress, there was a bill, one by the
President, one by Senator Kennedy and members of his party. Now, the bill that the
President had submitted would have provided more aid for those areas that really need it,
areas like Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, and the areas of West Virginia, than the ones that
Senator Kennedy was supporting.
On the other hand, we found that the bill got into the legislative difficulties, and
consequently, no action was taken. So point one: At the highest priority, we must get a bill
for depressed areas through the next Congress.
I have made recommendations on that and I have discussed them previously and I will spell
them out further in the campaign.
Second, as we consider this problem of unemployment, we have to realize where it is. In
analyzing the figures, we will find that our unemployment exists among the older citizens.
It exists also among those who are inadequately trained. That is, those who do not have an
adequate opportunity for education. It also exists among minority groups. If we're going to
combat unemployment then, we have to do a better job in these areas.That's why I have a
program for education, a program in the case of equal job opportunities, and one that would
also deal with our older citizens.
Now, finally, with regard to the whole problem of combating recession, as you call it, we
must use the full resources of the Government in these respects: One, we must see to it that
credit is expanded as we go into any recessionary period--and understand, I do not believe
we're going into a recession.
I believe this economy is sound and that we're going to move up.
But second, in addition to that, if we do get into a recessionary period, we should move on
that part of the economy which is represented by the private sector, and I mean stimulate
that part of the economy that can create jobs--the private sector of the economy.
This means through tax reform, and if necessary tax cuts that will stimulate more jobs.
I favor that rather than massive Federal spending programs which will come into effect
usually long after you've passed through the recessionary period.
So we must use all of these weapons for the purpose of combating recession if it should
come. But I do not expect it to come.
MR. KENNEDY. Well Mr. Nixon has stated the record inaccurately in regard to the
depressed area bill. I'm very familiar with it; It came out of the committee of which I was
the chairman, the Labor Subcommittee, in '55. I was the floor manager.
We passed an area redevelopment bill far more effective than the bill the administration
suggested on two occasions, and the President vetoed it both times. We passed a bill again
this year in the Cong-- in the Senate and it died in the Rules Committee of the House of
Representatives.
Let me make it very clear that the bill that Mr. Nixon talked about did not mention Wilkes-
Barre or Scranton; it did not mention West Virginia. Our bill was far more effective. The
bill introduced and sponsored by Senator Douglas was far more effective in trying to
stimulate the economy of those areas.
Secondly, he has mentioned the problem of our older citizens. I cannot still understand why
this dministration and Mr. Nixon oppose putting medical care for the aged under social
security to give them some security.
Third, I believe we should step up the use of our surplus foods in these areas until we're
able to get the people back to work. Five cents a day is what the food package averages per
person.
Fourthly, I believe we should stimulate the economy. I believe we should not carry out a
hard money, high interest rate policy which helped intensify certainly the recession of 1958
and I think help brings the slowdown of 1960. If we move into a recession in 1961, then I
would agree that we have to put more money into the economy and it can be done by either
one of the two methods discussed, one is by a program such as aid to education. The other
would be to make a judgment on what's the most effective tax program to stimulate our
economy.
MR. McGEE. Mr. Niven with a question for Senator Kennedy.
MR. NIVEN. Senator, while the main theme of your campaign has been this decline of
American power and prestige in the last 8 years, you've hardly criticized President
Eisenhower at all. In a speech last weekend you said you had no quarrel with the President.
Now isn't Mr. Eisenhower and not Mr. Nixon responsible for any such decline?
MR. KENNEDY. Well, I understood that this was the Eisenhower-Nixon administration
according to all the Republican propaganda that I have read. The question is what we're
going to do in the future. I've been critical of this administration and I've been critical of
the President. In fact, Mr. Nixon discussed that a week ago in a speech. I believe that our
power and prestige in the last 8 years has declined.
Now, what is--the issue is what we're going to do in the future. Now, that's an issue
between Mr. Nixon and myself. He feels that we're moving ahead in a-- we're not going
into a recession in this country, economically; he feels that our power and prestige is
stronger than it ever was relative to that of the Communists, that we're moving ahead. I
disagree, and I believe the American people have to make the choice on November 8th
between the view of whether we have to move ahead faster; whether what we're doing now
is not satisfactory; whether we have to build greater strength at home and abroad, and Mr.
Nixon's view. That's the great issue.
President Eisenhower moves from the scene on January 20 and the next 4 years are the
critical years. And that's the debate, that's the argument between Mr. Nixon and myself and
on that issue the American people have to make their judgment, and I think it's a important
judgment. I think in many ways this election is more important than any since 1932, or
certainly almost any in this century, because we disagree very fundamentally on the
position of the United States and if his view prevails, then I think that's going to bring an
important result to this country in the '60's.
If our view prevails that we have to do more, that we have to make a greater national and
international effort, that we have lost prestige in Latin America.
The President of Brazil, the new incumbent running for office, called on Castro during his
campaign because he thought it was important to get the vote of those who were supporting
Castro in Latin America.
In Africa--the United States has ignored Latin A--Africa. We gave more scholarships to the
Congo this summer, we offered them, than we've given to all of Africa the year before--less
than 200 for all the countries of Africa--and they need trained leadership more than
anything.
We've been having a very clear decision in the last 8 years. Mr. Nixon has been part of that
administration. He has had experience in it, and I believe this administration has not met its
responsibilities in the last 8 years; that our power relative to that of the Communists is
declining; that we're facing a very hazardous time in the '60's, and unless the United States
begin to move here, unless we start to go ahead, I don't believe that we're going to meet our
responsibility to our own people or to the cause of freedom. I think the choice is clear and
it involves the future.
MR. NIXON. Well, first of all I think Senator Kennedy should make up his mind with
regard to my responsibility. In our first debate he indicated that I had not had experience or
at least had not participated significantly in the making of the decisions. I am glad to hear
tonight that he does suggest that I have had some experience.
Let me make my position cl ear. I have participated in the discussions leading to the
decisions in this administration. I am proud of the record of this administration. I don't
stand on it because it isn't something to stand on but something to build on.
Now, looking at Senator Kennedy's credentials, he is suggesting that he will move America
faster and further than I will, but what does he offer? He offers retreads of programs that
failed.
I submit to you that as you look at his programs--his program, for example, with regard to
the Federal Reserve and free money, or loose money; high--low interest rates; his program
in the economic field generally--are the programs that were adopted and tried during the
Truman administration. And when we compare the economic progress of this country in
the Truman administration with that of the Eisenhower administration, we find that in
every index there has been a great deal more performance and more progress in this
administration than in that one.
I say the programs and the leadership that failed then is not the program and the leadership
that America needs now. I say that the American people don't want to go back to those
policies. And incidentally, if Senator Kennedy disagrees, he should indicate where he
believes those policies are different from those he's advocating today.
MR. McGEE. Mr. Spivak with a question for Vice President Nixon.
MR. SPIVAK. Mr. Vice President, according to news dispatches, Soviet Premier
Khrushchev said today that Prime Minister Macmillan had assured him that there would be
a summit conference next year after the Presidential elections.
Have you given any cause for such assurance, and do you consider it desirable or even
possible that there would be a summit conference next year if Mr. Khrushchev persists in
the conditions he's laid down?
MR. NIXON. No, of course, I haven't talked to Prime Minister Macmillan. It would not be
appropriate for me to do so. The President is still going to be President for the next 4
months and he, of course, is the only one who could commit this country in this period.
As far as a summit conference is concerned, I want to make my position absolutely clear. I
would be willing as President to meet with Mr. Khrushchev, or any other world leader if it
would serve the cause of peace. I would not be able--be willing to meet with him, however,
unless there were preparations for that conference which would give us some reasonable
certainty, some reasonable certainty that you were going to have some success. We must
not build up the hopes of the world and then dash them as was the case in Paris.
There, Mr. Khrushchev came to that conference determined to break it up. He was going to
break it up because he knew that he wasn't going to get his way on Berlin and on the other
key matters with which he was concerned at the Paris Conference.
Now, if we're going to have another summit conference, there must be negotiations at the
diplomatic level - the ambassadors, the Secretaries of State, and others at that level - prior
to that time, which will delineate the issues and which will prepare the way for the heads of
state to meet and make some progress. Otherwise, if we find the heads of state meeting and
not making progress, we will find that the cause of peace will have been hurt rather than
helped. So under these circumstances, I, therefore, strongly urge and I will strongly hold, if
I have the opportunity to urge or to hold - this position: that any summit conference would
be gone into only after the most careful preparation and only after Mr. Khrushchev - after
his disgraceful conduct at Paris, after his disgraceful conduct at the United Nations - gave
some assurance that he really wanted to sit down and talk and to accomplish something and
not just to make propaganda.
MR. KENNEDY. I have no disagreement with the Vice President's position on that. My
view is the same as his.
Let me say there is only one point I would add: That, before we go into the summit, before
we ever meet again, I think it's important that the United States build its strength, that it
build its military strength, as well as its own economic strength.
If we negotiate from a position where the power balance or wave is moving away from us,
it's extremely difficult to reach a successful decision on Berlin, as well as the other
questions.
Now, the next President of the United States, in his first year, is going to be confronted
with a very serious question on our defense of Berlin. Our commitment to Berlin. There's
going to be a test of our nerve and will. There's going to be a test of our strength and
because we're going to move in 61 and 62, partly because we have not maintained our
strength with sufficient vigor in the last years, I believe that before we meet that crisis that
the next President of the United States should send a message to Congress asking for
revitalization of our military strength because come spring or late in the winter, we're going
to be face to face with the most serious Berlin crisis since l949 or 50.
On the question of the summit, I agree with the position of Mr. Nixon. I would not meet
Mr. Khrushchev unless there were some agreements at the secondary level, foreign
ministers or ambassadors, which would indicate that the meeting would have some hope of
success or a useful exchange of ideas.
MR. McGEE. Mr. Levy with a question for Senator Kennedy.
MR. LEVY. Senator, in your acceptance speech at Los Angeles, you said that your
campaign would be based not on what you intend to offer the American people, but what
you intend to ask of them.
Since that time you have spelled out many of the things that you intend to do; but you have
made only vague reference to sacrifice and self-denial.
A year or so ago I believe you said that you would not hesitate to recommend a tax increase
if you considered it necessary.
Is this what you have in mind?
MR. KENNEDY. Well, I don't think that in the winter of 61 under present economic
conditions, it--a tax increase would be desirable. In fact, it would be deflationary; it would
cause great unemployment; it would cause a real slow-down in our economy. If it ever
becomes necessary and is wise economically and essential to our security, I would have no
hesitancy in suggesting a tax increase, or any other policy which would defend the United
States. I have talked in every speech about the fact that these are going to be very difficult
times in the 1960's and that we're going to have to meet our responsibility as citizens. I'm
talking about a national mood. I'm talking about our willingness to bear any burdens in
order to maintain our own freedom and in order to meet our freedom around the globe. We
don't know what the future is going to bring but I would not want anyone to elect me
President of the United States or vote for me under the expectation that life would be easy
if I were elected.
Now, many of the programs that I'm talking about--economic growth, care for the aged,
development of our natural resources--build the strength of the United States. That's how
the United States began to prepare for its great actions in World War II and in the postwar
period. If we're moving ahead, if we're providing a viable economy, if our people have
sufficient resources so that they can consume what we produce, then this country is on the
move. Then we're stronger. Then we set a better example to the world. So we have the
problem not only of building our own military strength and extending our policies abroad,
we have to do a job here at home. So I believe that the policies that I recommend come
under the general heading of strengthening the United States. We're using our steel capacity
55 percent today. We're not able to consume what we're able to produce at a time when the
Soviet Union is making great economic gains. And all I say is, I don't know what the
sixties will bring except, I think they will bring hard times in the international sphere; I
hope we can move ahead here at home in the United States; I'm confident we can do a far
better job of mobilizing our economy and resources in the United States. And I merely say
that they--if they elect me President, I will do my best to carry the United States through a
difficult period but I would not want people to elect me because I promise them the easy
soft life. I think it's going to be difficult but I am confident that this country can meet its
responsibilities.
MR. NIXON. Well I think we should be under no illusions whatever about what the
responsibilities of the American people will be in the sixties. Our expenditures for defense,
our expenditures for mutual security, our expenditures for economic assistance and
technical assistance are not going to get less. In my opinion, they're going to be be greater.
I think it may be necessary that we have more taxes. I hope not. I hope we can economize
elsewhere so that we don't have to. But I would have no hesitation to ask the American
people to pay the taxes even in l961, if necessary, to maintain a sound economy and also to
maintain a sound dollar. Because when you do not tax and tax enough to pay for your
outgo, you pay it many times over in higher prices in inflation and I simply will not do that.
I think I should also add that as far as Senator Kennedy's proposals are concerned, if he
intends to carry out his platform, the one adopted in Los Angeles, it is just impossible for
him to make good on those promises without raising taxes or without having a rise in
prices, or both. The platform suggests that it can be done through economic growth. That it
can be done in effect with mirrors. But it isn't going to be working that way. You can't add
billions of dollars to our expenditures and not pay for it. After all it isn't paid for by my
money, it isn't paid for by his but by the people's money.
MR. McGEE. Mr. Niven with a question for Vice President Nixon.
MR. NIVEN. Mr. Vice President, you said that while Mr. Khrushchev is here, Senator
Kennedy should talk about what's right with this country as well as what's wrong with the
country. In the 1952 campaign when you were a Republican candidate for Vice President,
and we were at war with the Communists, did you feel a similar responsibility to about
what was right with the country?
MR. NIXON. I did. And as I have pointed out in 1952 I made it very clear that as far as the
Korean War was concerned, that I felt that the decision to go into the war in Korea was
right, and necessary. What I criticized were the policies that made it necessary to go to
Korea. Now incidentally, I should point out here that Senator Kennedy has attacked our
foreign policy, he's said that it's been a policy that has led to defeat and retreat and I'd like
to know where have we been defeated and where have we retreated?
In the Truman administration 600 million people went behind the Iron Curtain, including
the satellite countries of Eastern Europe and Communist China. In this administration
we've stopped them at Quemoy and Matsu; we've stopped them in Indochina, we've
stopped them in Lebanon, we've stopped them in other parts of the world.
I would also like to point out that as far as Senator Kennedy's comments are concerned, I
think he has a perfect right and a responsibility to criticize this administration whenever he
thinks we're wrong; but he has a responsibility to be accurate and not to misstate the case.
I don't think he should say that our prestige is at an all-time low. I think this is very harmful
at a time Mr. Khrushchev is here, harmful because it's wrong. I don't think it was helpful
when he suggested--and I'm glad he's corrected this to an extent--that 17 million people go
to bed hungry every night in the United States. Now this just wasn't true. Now, there are
people who go to bed hungry in the United States. Far less, incidentally, than used to go to
bed hungry when we came into power at the end of the Truman administration, but the
thing that is right about the United States that should be emphasized is that less people go
to bed hungry in the United States than in any major country in the world.
We're the best fed; we're the best clothed, with a better distribution of this world's goods to
all of our people than any people in history.
Now, in pointing out the things that are wrong, I think we ought to emphasize America's
strengths. It isn't necessary to run America down in order to build it up.
Now, just so that we get it absolutely clear, Senator Kennedy must as a candidate, as I, as a
candidate in 52, criticize us when we're wrong, and he's doing a very effective job of that,
in his way.
But on the other hand, he has a responsibility to be accurate. And I have a responsibility to
correct him every time he misstates the case.And I intend to continue to do so.
MR. KENNEDY. Well, Mr. Nixon, I'll just give you the testimony of Mr. George Aiken,
Senator George Aiken, the ranking minority member--Republican member, and former
chairman of the Senate Agricultural Committee, testifying in 1959 said there were 26
million Americans who did not have the income to afford a decent diet. Mr. Benson,
testifying on the food stamp plan in 1957, said there were 25 million Americans who could
not afford a elementary low-cost diet, and he defined that as someone who uses beans in
place of meat.
Now, I've seen a good many hundreds of thousands of people who are not adequately fed.
You can't tell me that a surplus food distribution of five cents per person, and that nearly 6
million Americans receiving that, is adequate. You can't tell me that any one who uses
beans instead of meat in the United States, and there are 25 million of them according to
Mr. Benson, is well fed or adequately fed. I believe that we should not compare what our
figures may be to India or some other country that has serious problems, but to remember
that we are the most prosperous country in the world and that these people are not getting
adequate food, and they're not getting in many cases adequate shelter, and we ought to try
to meet the problem.
Secondly, Mr. Nixon has continued to state, and he stated it last week, these fantastic
figures of what the Democratic budget--platform would cost. They're wholly inaccurate. I
said last week I believed in a balanced budget. AndUnless there was a severe recession and
after all the worst unbalanced budget in history was in 1958, $12 billion dollars larger than
in any administration in the history of the United States. So that I believe that on this
subject we can balance the budget unless we have a national emergency or unless we have
a severe recession.
MR. McGEE. Mr. Morgan with a question for Senator Kennedy.
MR. MORGAN. Senator, Saturday on television you said that you had always thought that
Quemoy and Matsu were unwise places to draw our defense line in the Far East.
Would you comment further on that and also address to this question; couldn't a pullback
from those islands be interpreted as appeasement?
MR. KENNEDY. Well, the United States has on occasion attempted mostly in the middle
fifties, to persuade Chiang Kai-shek to pull his troops back to Formosa. I believe strongly
in the defense of Formosa. These islands are a few miles, 5 or 6 miles off the coast of Red
China, within a general harbor area, and more than a 100 miles from Formosa. We have
never said flatly that we will defend Quemoy and Matsu if it's attacked. We say we will
defend it if it's part of a general attack on Formosa. But it's extremely difficult to make that
judgment.
Now, Mr. Herter in 1958, when he was Under Secretary of State, said they were
strategically undefensible. Admirals Spruance and Collins in 1955 said that we should not
attempt to defend these islands, in their conference in the Far East.
General Ridgway has said the same thing. I believe that when you get intowar- if you're
going to get into a war for the defense of Formosa, it ought to be on a clearly defined line.
One of the problems, I think, at the time of South Korea, was the question of whether the
United States would defend it if it were attacked. I believe that we should defend Formosa;
we should come to its defense. To leave this rather in the air-- that we will defend it under
some conditions but not under others--I think is a mistake.
Secondly, I would not suggest the withdrawal at the point of the Communist gun. It is a
decision finally that the Nationalists should make and I believe that we should consult with
them and attempt to work out a plan by which the line is drawn at the island of Formosa. It
leaves 100 miles between the sea. But with General Ridgway, Mr. Herter, General Collins,
Admiral Spruance, and many others, I think it's unwise to take the chance of being dragged
into a war which may lead to a world war over two islands which are not strategically
defensible; which are not, according to their testimony, essential to the defense of Formosa.
I think that we should protect our commitments. I believe strongly we should do so in
Berlin. I believe strongly we should do so in Formosa and I believe we should meet our
commitments to every country whose security we've guaranteed, but I do not believe that
that line, in case of war, should be drawn on those islands but instead on the island of
Formosa, and as long as they are not essential to the defense of Formosa, it's been my
judgment ever since 1954, at the time of the Eisenhower Doctrine for the Far East, that our
line should be drawn in the sea around the island itself.
MR. NIXON. I disagree completely with Senator Kennedy on this point.
I remember in the period immediately before the Korean War, South Korea was supposed
to be indefensible as well. Generals testified to tha, and Secretary Acheson made a very
famous speech at the Press Club, early in the year that Korean War started, indicating in
effect that South Korea was beyond the defense zone of the United States.
I suppose it was hoped when he made that speech that we wouldn't get into a war, but it
didn't mean that. We had to go in when they came in.
Now, I think as far as Quemoy and Matsu are concerned, that the question is not these two
little pieces of real estate; they are unimportant. It isn't the few people who live on them;
they are not too important. It's the principle involved. These two islands are in the area of
freedom. The Nationalists have these two islands. We should not force our Nationalist
allies to get off of them and give them to the Communists. If we do that, we start a chain
reaction because the Communists aren't after Quemoy and Matsu; they are after Formosa.
In my opinion, this is the same kind of woolly thinking that led to disaster for America in
Korea. I am against it. I would never tolerate it as President of the United States and I will
hope that Senator Kennedy will change his mind if he should be elected.
MR. McGEE. Gentlemen, we have approximately four minutes remaining. May I ask you
to make your questions and answers as brief as possible, consistent with clarity.
And Mr. Levy has a question for Vice President Nixon.
MR. LEVY. Mr. Vice President, you are urging voters to forget party labels and vote for
the man. Senator Kennedy says that in doing this you are trying to run away from your
party on such issues as housing and aid to education by advocating what he calls a "me-
too" program. Why do you say that party labels are not important?
MR. NIXON. Because that's the way we elect a President in this country and it's the way
we should. I am a student of history as is Senator Kennedy, incidentally; and I have found
that in the history of this country we've had many great Presidents. Some of them have
been Democrats; and some of them have been Republicans. The people some way have
always understood that, at a particular time, a certain man was the one the country needed.
Now, I believe that in an election when we are trying to determine who should lead the free
world--not just America-- perhaps, as Senator Kennedy has already indicated, the most
important election in our history, it isn't the label that he wears or that I wear that count;.
It's what we are. It's our whole lives. It's what we stand for. It's what we believe.
And consequently, I don't think it's enough to go before Republican audiences and I never
do, and say, "Look, vote for me because I am a Republican." I don't think it's enough for
Senator Kennedy to go before the audiences on the Democratic side and say, "Vote for me
because I am a Democrat."
That isn't enough. What's involved here is the question of leadership for the whole free
world.
Now that means the best leadership. It may be Republican; it may be Democratic, but the
people are the ones that determine it. The people have to make up their minds. And I
believe the people, therefore, should be asked to make up their minds not simply on the
basis of, "Vote the way your grandfather did,""vote the way your mother did."
I think the people should put America first, rather than party first.
Now, as far as running away from my party is concerned, Senator Kennedy has said that
we have no compassion for the poor, that we are against progress--the "enemies of
progress," is the term that he's used--and the like.
All that I can say is this: We do have programs in all of these fields, education, housing,
defense, that will move America forward. They will move her forward faster, and they will
move her more surely than his program. This is what I deeply believe. I am sure he
believes just as deeply that his will move that way. I suggest, however, that in the interest
of fairness, that he could give me the benefit of also believing as he believes.
MR. KENNEDY. Well, let me say I do think that parties are important in that they tell
something about the program and something about the man.
Abraham Lincoln was a great President of all the people; but he was selected by his party
at a key time in history because his party stood for something.
The Democratic party in this century has stood for something. It has stood for progress. It
has stood for concern for the people's welfare. It has stood for a strong foreign policy and a
strong national defense, and as a result produced Wilson, President Roosevelt, and
President Truman. The Republican party has produced McKinley, and Harding, Coolidge,
Dewey, and Landon. They do stand for something. They stand for a whole different
approach to the problems facing this country at home and abroad. That's the importance of
party. Only if it tells something about the record, and the Republicans in recent years, not
only in the last 25 years, but in the last 8 years, have opposed housing, opposed care for the
aged, opposed Federal aid to education, opposed minimum wage, and I think that record
tells something.
MR. McGEE. Thank you gentlemen.
Neither the questions from the reporters nor the answers you heard from Senator John
Kennedy or Vice President Richard Nixon were rehearsed.
By agreement, neither candidate made an opening statement or a closing summation. They
further agreed that the clock alone would decide who would speak last and each has asked
me to express his thanks to the networks and their affiliated stations.
Another program similar to this one will be presented Thursday, October 13, and the final
program will be presented Friday, October 21.
We hope this series of radio and television programs will help you toward a fuller
understanding of the issues facing our country today and that on election day, November 8,
you will vote for the candidate of your choice.
This is Frank McGee.
Good night from Washington.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Warren, Ohio,

October 9, 1960
exists in the Senate Speech file of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library. It
appears to be a verbatim transcript of Senator John F. Kennedy's remarks on the occasion.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Mr. Mayor, Governor DiSalle, who supported my candidacy last January, who led this
delegation of Ohio and supported it in July, and who will, I hope, lead Ohio in our support on November 8 - (applause) -
Congressman Cook - I used to represent for six years in the Congress the 11th District of Massachusetts. But it was
never like this. I know you are going to return him to Congress with a wide majority as he deserves. (Applause) And
after you have taken care of these other candidates from top to bottom, given Kennedy a vote. (Applause)
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to make it very clear that I come to Ohio on this occasion as the Standard Bearer for the
Democratic Party, and I say very clearly that there are sharp differences between the Republican spokesman and myself.
In his own way the differences are sharp and important and as significant as they were between Roosevelt and Hoover.
(Applause) And Roosevelt and Landon, and Truman and Dewey. Where did they get those candidates? The Republican
Party for 25 years has put up candidates, and, as a party, has taken the position against every piece of progressive
legislation that serves the people, from minimum wage to unemployment compensation, to better housing, to aid for
education, to more equal rights for all Americans, for a stronger defense, for a stronger and more vital society. The
Republican Party, ever since it drove Theodore Roosevelt into the wilderness 50 years ago, has stood still. We have
dragged them ahead, and Mr. Nixon goes through the country making speeches, which a Democrat might have run on 15
years ago. They are always behind. They are always waiting for us to take the leadership. (Applause) What is the issue
in this campaign? What is it that Mr. Nixon and I differ on? It is this: He believes that the United States is doing
everything it should do to maintain its position in the world. He believes that our prestige is steadily rising around the
world, and three weeks ago, after a vote in the United Nations which was 70 to nothing, he said that is pretty good score
in a ball game and a pretty good score at the United Nations. Well, if he wants to make it on that basis, I will give him
the score yesterday.
Yesterday at the United Nations the issue came up which most directly affected the power and prestige and influence of
the United States. It was on the question of the matter of whether the admission of Red China would be brought to the
docket of the United Nations. And here is the vote, and if this does not tell the story, if this does not demonstrate that our
prestige is not increasing, if this does not demonstrate that the United States is not growing in power, I would like to
know what does.
Here they are: On the question of whether this matter would be brought to a vote and, therefore, whether Red China
would be admitted to the United Nations, in the case of Africa, a key area in the world only two countries voted with us,
Liberia and the Union of South Africa. Eight voted against us, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria,
Senegal and Sudan. All countries that had gained their independence in this past decade. Every one of them voted
against us. Liberia has been associated with us for 140 years. The Union of South Africa domestic policy and its
treatment of Negroes has made it opposed by every African nation, and yet Liberia and the Union of South Africa were
the only two nations in all of Africa who voted with us. And eight voted against us. Not one of the 15 new nations
admitted to the United Nations in the last two months voted with us.
Nine countries of Asia supported the United States. Ten countries of Asia voted against us, and three Asian countries
abstained. Voting against the United States were such long time friends as Denmark, Norway and Sweden.
I just want to make it clear that any American who reads that record, who sees our steel mills going at 44 per cent of
capacity, who sees our farm income driven down 20 percent, who sees our power and prestige and vigor standing still
around the world and at home, any American who can make a judgment, their own judgment - you don't have to be in
the Pentagon. You can stay in Warren, Ohio, and read the papers, and look at television, and you know which way the
tide is going. You know whether this administration is meeting its responsibilities. You know whether we are doing
everything that must be done if we are going to survive. You know what is happening in Latin America. You know that
a candidate for President of Brazil had to make a trip and visit Castro during his election so that he would get the Castro
vote in Brazil. You know that 8 years ago in 1952, 7 countries, only 7 countries in the world voted for the admission of
Red China. Yesterday 34. Mr. Nixon says the tide is riding in our favor. If you think this administration has given
attention to the problems of the United Nations in opposition - Khrushchev has stayed here for nearly a month. The
President of the United States visited it for two days. I believe this country can do better and I don't want anyone on
November 8, when you finally come to vote, to go into the polls and say, "They both stand for the same thing." I don't. I
don't stand where Mr. Nixon stands. I don't take his view about - (Applause) - I don't say that $1.25 minimum wage is
extreme. I don't lead a party that voted nearly unanimously against a 25 cents minimum wage. I don't go around saying
4.5 million Americans unemployed is insignificant, and is necessary. I am not part of an administration which vetoed the
depressed area bill twice, and then makes promises about it at election time. I am not part of an administration which
killed a housing bill, vetoed it twice last year. I am not part of an administration which vetoed a bill to clean our rivers
from pollution. I am part of a party which in this century stood with Woodrow Wilson and stood with Franklin
Roosevelt and stood with Harry Truman for a better life for all of us. (Applause)
I don't want African leaders or Latin American leaders or Asian leaders - because that is where this struggle is going to
be fought out - which system carries with it the most vigor? Which system do they want to duplicate? Do they want to
follow the Hammer and Sickle, or do they want to follow us on the road to freedom? My judgment is that they want to
be free, that they want to follow us. But if the trumpet blows uncertain sounds, who will prepare for the Battle, as the
Bible tells us, and we have been blowing a mighty uncertain sound in recent months and years. We have been living off
our fat. I call upon you for help. I call upon you regardless of party. I call upon all those who are not contented, who are
not satisfied, who want to move again. I call upon all those who have devotion to their country, who want to see it fulfill
its destiny, who want to see us go ahead. I call upon all those who, regardless of age, are young in spirit. I call upon all
those who want to cross in the Sixties the New Frontiers.
I call upon you. I ask your help in this election, and I can assure you that if we win on November 8, that this country will
stand once again for the great symbol of freedom for all people, for a better life for all people here in this country, for
justice for all Americans, regardless of their race or their creed or their color, or their religion, and I can assure you, I
can assure that the United States - (applause) - that in Africa, Latin America and Asia, once again they will be reading
not merely what Mr. Khrushchev is doing or Castro, but what the President of the United States and the United States
are doing.
Away back nearly 100 years ago, in the campaign of 1860, Abraham Lincoln wrote to a friend, "I know there is a God,
and that He hates injustice. I see the storm coming, and I know His hand is in it. But if He has a place and a part for me,
I believe that I am ready."
Now, 100 years later, we know there is a God, and we know He hates injustice, and we see the storm coming. We know
His hand is in it. But if he has a place and a part for us, I believe that we are ready. Thank you. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Airport,

Louisville, Kentucky, October 9, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A single copy of this speech,
SENATOR KENNEDY: Ladies and gentlemen: Whenever we feel tired and a little down, we come to Louisville.
(Applause) I must say that you have treated me, a Northerner, with more generosity, perhaps, than he deserves, but I am
very grateful for it. (Applause) This is the fourth time in this campaign we have come to Kentucky. That is more
separate trips than any other state of the Union, and Kentucky deserves it. (Applause)
We will make a promise to you that we will not come back to Louisville again if you will promise that on November 8,
you will give us a great majority in this city and county. (Applause)
There is a month left in this campaign, and I believe it is a month in which we can bring home the truth to the American
people about the problems that face us, the truth about Mr. Nixon's record in the Congress - (applause) - and the truth
shall make us free. And I believe on November 8, when the people of this country make their judgment, what they want
their country to be, I think they are coming with us. Thank you very much, and now we will all go to bed. Thank you.
(Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Airport,
Columbus, GA, October 10, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A single copy of this speech
Presidential Library.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Governor Vandiver, Senator Talmadge, Congressman Flynt,
members of Congress, ladies and gentlemen: I want to express my appreciation to you for coming out here and greeting
a Yankee, and I also want to say as a Democrat and as the Standard Bearer of the Democratic Party, it is a source of
satisfaction to me to be in a state which has never voted Republican in the last 100 years. (Applause) And I am confident
that Georgia will lead all the rest come November in supporting the Democratic Party. (Applause)
I come here to this state which has been the scene of Franklin Roosevelt's visits throughout his political career and even
before, and I come here on this occasion standing here in succession to Woodrow Wilson, who came from this stage
originally, to Franklin Roosevelt, and to Harry Truman, and I ask you: What did the Republican Party ever do for
Georgia? (Response from the audience.) What agricultural program did it develop which would benefit the people of
this state? What programs to move our country forward? What contribution did it make to REA? What contribution did
it make to TVA? What contribution did it make to bring this country out of a great depression, to move it forward, to
provide a better life for all our people?
I come here and stand where they stood. Mr. Nixon stands where McKinley stood, and Coolidge, and Harding and
Landon and Dewey, and I must say, given the contrast between these two records, between records of service to our
party, I believe and service to our country, in these difficult and dangerous times, when the security of the United States
is threatened, when it is essential to us that we build our strength, that we build in this great country of our a greater
country, that we build in this strong country of ours a stronger country, that we build in this powerful country of ours a
more powerful country. I believe it is incumbent upon us in this year of crisis to return leadership to those who look
forward, to those who wish to move in the Sixties, to those who recognize the unfinished business of our society.
I am glad to be in Georgia again, and I want to say to you that if we are successful on November 8, we are going to give
leadership to the United States and we are going to start this country moving again. Thank you. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at LaGrange

Airport, LaGrange, Georgia, October 10, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. A single copy of this speech
SENATOR KENNEDY: Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen: I want to take this opportunity to thank you for a
great Georgia reception. I must say you held out the hand of friendship and I appreciate it very much, indeed, especially
your coming to see us off. Georgia has much to be proud of, and among those things is the fact that in this century you
did not vote for McKinley, and Georgia did not vote for Harding, and Georgia did not vote for Coolidge and Georgia did
not vote for Hoover, and Georgia did not vote for Landon, Dewey, and I don't think in 1960 it is going to vote for Mr.
Nixon. (Applause)
In this century Georgia voted for Woodrow Wilson and it voted for Franklin Roosevelt and it voted for Harry Truman.
(Applause) And I believe as long as there are farmers who do not have the means of living off their land, as long as there
are textile workers working two or three or four days a week, as long as there are older people who do not have the
means of maintaining themselves and protecting their health, as long as there are people looking for work and can't find
it, as long as there are natural resources that must be developed, as long as there is need for a stronger America, so long
will there be need for the Democratic Party, and so long will George stand with the Democratic Party. (Applause)
We now say goodbye, but I want you to know that we take you with us. Thank you. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Urban Affairs

Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, October 10, 1960
In the past weeks, I have talked in more than half the states of our Union about New Frontiers for America. The Frontier
of which I speak tonight is the new urban frontier, which exists in every city in America and in its suburbs.
Aristotle said, "Men come together in cities in order to live; they remain together in order to live the good life."
The good life is still just a dream for too many of the people who live in cities. But our cities are doing something about
it. I have just come from the Gateway Center, that magnificent symbol of the Pittsburgh renaissance, and of the
administrations of two great mayors, Dave Lawrence and Joe Barr. On the Lower Hill of Pittsburgh, the slums are going
and a great arena is rising in their stead. I have seen exciting changes in Dick Lee's city of New Haven - and in scores of
other communities - and I salute the Mayors who are here today for their effective leadership.
There is no limit to what we can do - there is no limit to what could already have been done - if we had only had the
same kind of leadership on urban problems down in Washington.
I think we can provide that leadership.
I propose that we act - beginning next January 20.
What stands between our people and the good life of which Aristotle spoke is not any lack of ability to produce
consumer goods. That problem, for America, has been solved. What have not been solved are those problems which lie
largely in the realm of public action - bad housing, poverty, recessions, unemployment, discrimination, crowded and
obsolete schools and hospitals and libraries, inadequate recreation, the breakdown of mass transportation, polluted air
and water, juvenile delinquency.
These problems are compounded as we become more and more an urban nation.
But when the cities turned to Washington for help, how have they been received? The Republican Administration has
taken a position as consistent as it is negative. You know their record:
On urban renewal--stall it.
On low-rent public housing--kill it.
On moderate-income private housing--bury it.
On aid for public schools--block it.
On aid for hospitals--reduce it.
On mass transportation--ignore it.
On control of stream pollution--abandon it.
On air pollution control--study it.
On alleviating juvenile delinquency--research it.
This is the eight-year Republican record of neglect. It is a shameful record. It is a record we must bring to an end on
November 8.
Of course, this is an election year - and now the Republican candidate contends that he, too, has an urban program. It
was presented in a position paper two weeks ago. That paper fills three columns of a newspaper. But what it says is very
little. Mr. Nixon says, for example, that “the transportation problem is … complex." But he does not suggest doing
anything about it.
He says "the Housing Act of 1949 worked well." But if he had his way, there would not even be a Housing Act of 1949
- because in that year he fought and voted against it. I remember well, because I was fighting for it. He says that he is
now in favor of low-rent housing, after voting against it in Congress every time he had the chance. But he would cut
back on urban renewal assistance. And he still opposes any middle-income housing program. Finally, he is for higher
interest rates - as though increasing the monthly payment for homebuyers is the way to build and sell more homes.
Mr. Nixon's urban program is an empty shell.
Our Democratic Party does have a program for housing and other city problems. That program is expressed in our
platform and in our record in the Congress over the years. If the people want to move forward in these fields - as I am
sure they do - they had better buy the genuine democratic article and not the counterfeit that Mr. Nixon suddenly coined
in the middle of the campaign.
I propose that we create a new and vital partnership between the national government and the communities of America.
Each community will plan its own future, but it will be helped to get there by the combined resources of cities, states
and nations.
I propose a 10-year federal-local action programs to eradicate slums and blight and help solve the problems of explosive
metropolitan growth. This 10-year program will emphasize five approaches:
1. Urban renewal. This program has shown what wonders can be worked through federal-city partnership. Before there
was a national program, there were almost no local programs - Pittsburgh being a conspicuous exception. Now almost
500 communities, large and small, have more than 800 projects underway. Federal action has not stifled local initiative -
as the Republican orators love to claim. Far from it, federal action has stimulated local initiative, released local energies,
making it possible for local leaders to do what they want to do, and what they know needs to be done. An expanded
urban renewal program should be made effective in conserving and restoring older areas, as well as in clearing and
rebuilding areas that are beyond conserving. The national government should give a long-term commitment to urban
renewal - in place of the present year-to-year approach - so that cities can make long-term plans with the assurance that
aid will not be suddenly cut off.
2. Housing. Our housing programs should be brought into a better balance - so that they will be designed to build homes
not only for higher-income families but also for lower-income and middle-income, not only in the newer suburbs but
also in our older cities. We should be building half again as many homes every year as are being built this year. We need
a new, effective middle-income housing program. We should meet the neglected needs of the elderly and of minority
groups. And let us improve the help we are giving to those families and businesses that are displaced by redevelopment
and other governmental programs. The cost of projects which benefit a whole community should not be
disproportionately borne by a few.
3. Mass transportation. Almost every metropolitan region has a transportation crisis, but few have the resources to meet
it unaided. I supported the bill the Senate passed this year to provide assistance for metropolitan transportation planning
and facilities. We have extensive federal aid for highways but none for commuter railroads, bus and street car service.
Continuation of this unbalanced policy - or lack of policy - can only mean still further decline of mass transportation
facilities and still more bumper-to-bumper automobile traffic - in a vicious circle which has no end short of paving all
our cities over. Unified transportation planning should be a condition and a goal of federal assistance.
4. Pollution. The pollution of our air and water has reached the proportions of a national disgrace. It endangers our
health. It limits our business opportunities. It destroys recreation. Yet the Republican Administration selected the
program of federal aid to cleanse our streams and rivers as one Democratic program which should be abandoned. I
propose to go the other way - to provide the indispensable element of national leadership to develop comprehensive
conservation plans for all of our great inter-state river basins.
5. Recreational facilities. In every plan for urban redevelopment, parks and recreation must have their proper place. We
must act to preserve and protect open spaces along our rivers, lakes, and seashores and on the edges of our expanding
metropolitan areas. And we must act quickly - for with every passing day, the available open spaces shrink and their cost
increases. In addition to expansion of the national park system, aid to the states for these purposes should be
inaugurated.
These are five areas in which a new partnership of community and national government can lead us across the urban
frontier. To coordinate its own participation the federal government should raise to the status of a cabinet department all
of its activities relating to urban development and metropolitan planning. The cities and suburbs of America deserve a
seat at the cabinet table.
The Department of Agriculture was created 98 years ago to serve rural America. It is time the people who live in urban
areas receive equal representation.
Some may say that all these things will cost too much. But the cost to the taxpayer will be far less than the present
enormous cost of slums, traffic jams, crime and delinquency, and the economic decline of downtown areas. And the
entire federal share will actually be less than just one item in the present federal budget - the excessive interest costs on
the national debt that have been added by the high interest policies of the Republican Administration.
Thomas Jefferson told us that our "laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind."
But in this area of urban affairs, our laws and institutions have lagged behind what our minds tell us we can do. There is
a civil renaissance, an awakening of public spirit and will, throughout our cities. We see it in the Golden Triangle in
Pittsburgh, at Lincoln Square in New York, at Charles Center in Baltimore. Let us hope that that spirit of confidence and
enterprise now arising in the cities of America will sweep next year into the Capital of the United States. Then the
federal government will join in partnership with its states and its cities - and together we will move forward to realize in
our cities the good life that can be ours.
"Face-to-Face, Nixon-Kennedy" Vice

President Richard M. Nixon and Senator
John F. Kennedy Third Joint Television-
Radio Broadcast
Thursday, October 13, 1960
Originating ABC, Hollywood, Calif., and New York, N.Y., All Networks Carried.
Moderator: Bill Shadel, ABC.
[Text, format and style are as published in Freedom of Communications: Final Report of the Committee on Commerce,
United States Senate..., Part III: The Joint Appearances of Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard M.
Nixon and Other 1960 Campaign Presentations. 87th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Report No. 994, Part 3. Washington:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator: Bill Shadel, ABC.
Panelists: Roscoe Drummond, New York Herald Tribune; Douglas S. Cater, Reporter magazine; Charles Von Fremd,
CBS; Frank McGee, NBC.
MR. SHADEL. Good evening. I'm Bill Shadel of ABC News.
It's my privilege this evening to preside at this, the third in the series of meetings on radio and television, of the two
major presidential candidates. Now, like the last meeting, the subjects to be discussed will be suggested by questions
from a panel of correspondents. Unlike the first two programs, however, the two candidates will not be sharing the same
platform.
In New York, the Democratic presidential nominee, Senator John F. Kennedy. Separated by 3,000 miles in a Los
Angeles studio, the Republican presidential nominee, Vice President Richard M. Nixon, now joined for tonight's
discussion by a network of electronic facilities which permits each candidate to see and hear the other.
Good evening, Senator Kennedy.
MR. KENNEDY. Good evening, Mr. Shadel.
MR. SHADEL. And good evening to you, Vice President Nixon.
MR. NIXON. Good evening, Mr. Shadel.
MR. SHADEL. And now to meet the panel of correspondents: Frank McGee, NBC News; Charles Von Fremd, CBS
News; Douglass Cater, Reporter magazine; Roscoe Drummond, New York Herald Tribune.
Now as you've probably noted, the four reporters include a newspaperman and a magazine reporter. These two, selected
by lot by the press secretaries of the candidates from among the reporters traveling with the candidates. The
broadcasting representatives were chosen by their companies.
The rules for this evening have been agreed upon by the representatives of both candidates and the radio and television
networks and I should like to read them:
There will be no opening statements by the candidates, nor any closing summation.
The entire hour will be devoted to answering questions from the reporters. Each candidate to be questioned in turn with
opportunity for comment by the other. Each answer will be limited to 2 1/2 minutes; each comment to 1 1/2 minutes.
The reporters are free to ask any question they choose, on any subject.
Neither candidate knows what questions will be asked. Time alone will determine who will be asked the final question.
Now the first question is from Mr. McGee, and is for Senator Kennedy.
MR. McGEE. Senator Kennedy, yesterday you used the words "trigger happy" in referring to Vice President Richard
Nixon's stand on defending the islands of Quemoy and Matsu. Last week on a program like this one you said the next
President would come face to face with a serious crisis in Berlin.
So the question is: Would you take military action to defend Berlin?
MR. KENNEDY. Mr. McGee, we have a contractual right to be in Berlin coming out of the conversations at Potsdam
and of World War II. That has been reinforced by direct commitments of the President of the United States. It's been
reinforced by a number of other nations under NATO.
I've stated on many occasions that the United States must meet its commitment on Berlin. It is a commitment that we
have to meet if we're going to protect the security of Western Europe. And, therefore, on this question I don't think that
there is any doubt in the mind of any American; I hope there is not any doubt in the mind of any member of the
community of West Berlin. I am sure there isn't any doubt in the mind of the Russians. We will meet our commitments
to maintain the freedom and independence of West Berlin.
MR. SHADEL. Mr. Vice President, do you wish to comment?
MR. NIXON. Yes. As a matter of fact, the statement that Senator Kennedy made was that--was to the effect that there
were trigger happy Republicans, that my stand on Quemoy and Matsu was an indication of trigger happy Republicans. I
resent that comment. I resent it because that's an implication that Republicans have been trigger happy and, therefore,
would lead this Nation into war. I would remind Senator Kennedy of the past 50 years. I would ask him to name one
Republican President who led this Nation into war. There were three Democratic Presidents who led us into war. I do
not mean by that that one party is a war party and the other party is a peace party. But I do say that any statement to the
effect that the Republican party is trigger happy is belied by the record. We had a war when we came into power in
1953. We got rid of that; we've kept out of other wars; and certainly that doesn't indicate that we're trigger happy.
We've been strong, but we haven't been trigger happy. As far as Berlin is concerned, there isn't any question about the
necessity of defending Berlin; the rights of people there to be free, and there isn't any question about what the united
American people, Republicans and Democrats alike, would do in the event there were an attempt by the Communists to
take over Berlin.
MR. SHADEL. The next question is by Mr. von Fremd for Vice President Nixon.
MR. VON FREMD. Mr. Vice President, a two-part question concerning the offshore islands in the Formosa Straits. If
you were President and the Chinese Communists tomorrow began an invasion of Quemoy and Matsu, would you launch
the United States into a war by sending the 7th Fleet and other military forces to resist this aggression; and secondly, if
the regular, conventional forces failed to halt such an invasion, would you authorize the use of nuclear weapons?
MR. NIXON. Mr. von Fremd, it would be completely irresponsible for a candidate for the Presidency or for a President
himself, to indicate the course of action and the weapons he would use in the event of such an attack. I will say this: In
the event that such an attack occurred, and in the event the attack was a prelude to an attack on Formosa, which would
be the indication today, because the Chinese Communists say over and over again that their objective is not the offshore
islands, that they consider them only steppingstones to taking Formosa--in the event that their attack, then, were a
prelude to an attack on Formosa, there isn't any question but that the United States would then again, as in the case of
Berlin, honor our treaty obligations and stand by our ally, Formosa.
But to indicate in advance how we would respond, to indicate the nature of this response, would be incorrect. It would
certainly be inappropriate. It would not be in the best interests of the United States.
I will only say this, however, in addition. To do what Senator Kennedy has suggested, to suggest that we will surrender
these islands or force our Chinese Nationalist allies to surrender them in advance, is not something that would lead to
peace, it is something that would lead, in my opinion, to war.
This is the history of dealing with dictators. This is something that Senator Kennedy and all Americans must know. We
tried this with Hitler. It didn't work. He wanted first, we know, Austria, and then he went on to the Sudetenland, and
then Danzig, and each time it was thought this is all that he wanted.
Now what do the Chinese Communists want? They don't want just Quemoy and Matsu. They don't want just Formosa;
they want the world. And the question is, if you surrender or indicate in advance that you're not going to defend any part
of the free world, and you figure that's going to satisfy them, it doesn't satisfy them, It only whets their appetite
And then the question comes: When do you stop them?
I've often heard President Eisenhowe,r in discussing this question, make the statement that if we once start the process of
indicating that this point or that point is not the place to stop those who threaten the peace and freedom of the world,
where do we stop them? And I say that those of us who stand against surrender of territory, this or any others, in the face
of blackmail, in the face of force by the Communists, are standing for the course that will lead to peace.
MR. SHADEL. Senator Kennedy, do you wish to comment?
MR. KENNEDY. Yes. The whole--the United States now has a treaty which I voted for in the United States Senate in
1955, to defend Formosa and the Pescadores Islands. The islands which Mr. Nixon is discussing are 5 or 4 miles,
respectively, off the coast of China. Now when Senator Green, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
wrote to the President, he received back on the second of October, 1958: "Neither you nor any other American need feel
the U.S. will be involved in military hostilities merely in the defense of Quemoy and Matsu."
Now, that is the issue. I believe we must meet our commitment to Formosa. I support it and the Pescadores Island. That
is the present American position. The treaty does not include these two islands. Mr. Nixon suggests that the United
States should go to war if these two islands are attacked. I suggest that if Formosa is attacked or the Pescadores or if
there's any military action in any area which indicates an attack on Formosa and the Pescadores then, of course, the
United States is at war to defend its treaty.
Now I must say what Mr. Nixon wants to do is commit us, as I understand him--so that we can be clear if there's a
disagreement. Hhe wants us to be committed to the defense of these islands merely as the defense of these islands as free
territory, not as part of the defense of Formosa. Admiral Yarnell, the commander of the Asiatic fleet, has said that these
islands are not worth the bones of a single American. The President of the United States has indicated they are not
within the treaty area. They were not within the treaty area when the treaty was passed in 55. We have attempted to
persuade Chiang Kai-shek as late as January of 1959 to reduce the number of troops he has on there. This is a serious
issue, and I think we ought to understand completely if we disagree, and if so, where.
MR. SHADEL. Mr. Cater has the next question for Senator Kennedy.
MR. CATER. Senator Kennedy, last week you said that before we should hold another summit conference, that it was
important that the United States build its strength. Modern weapons take quite a long time to build. What sort of
prolonged period do you envisage before there can be a summit conference, and do you think that there can be any new
initiatives on the grounds of nuclear disarmament and nuclear control, or weapons control during this period?
MR. KENNEDY. Well, I think we should strengthen our conventional forces. And we should attempt in January,
February, and March of next year to increase the airlift capacity of our conventional forces. Then I believe that we
should move full time on our missile production, particularly on Minuteman and on Polaris. It may be a long period, but
we must get started immediately.
Now on the question of disarmament, particularly nuclear disarmament, I must say that I feel that another effort should
be made by a new administration in January of 1961 to renew negotiations with the Soviet Union and see whether it's
possible to come to some conclusion which will lessen the chances of contamination of the atmosphere and also lessen
the chances that other powers will begin to possess a nuclear capacity. There are indications because of new inventions,
that 10, 15, or 20 nations will have a nuclear capacity, including Red China, by the end of the Presidential office in
1964. This is extremely serious. There have been many wars in the history of mankind and to take a chance now and not
make every effort that we could make to provide for some control over these weapons, I think, would be a great mistake.
One of my disagreements with the present administration has been that I don't feel a real effort has been made on this
very sensitive subject, not only of nuclear controls, but also of general disarmament.
Less than a hundred people have been working throughout the entire Federal Government on this subject and I believe
it's been reflected in our success and failures at Geneva. Now we may not succeed. The Soviet Union may not agree to
an inspection system. We may not be able to get satisfactory assurances, it may be necessary for us to begin testing
again, but I hope the next administration--and if I have anything to do with it--the next administration will make one last
great effort to provide for control of nuclear testing, control of nuclear weapons. If possible, control of outer space free
from weapons and also to begin again the subject of general disarmament levels. These must be done. If we cannot
succeed, then we must strengthen ourselves. But I would make the effort because I think the fate not only of our own
civilization, but I think the fate of world and the future of the human race, is involved in preventing a nuclear war.
MR. SHADEL. Mr. Vice President, your comment?
MR. NIXON. Yes. I am going to make a major speech on this whole subject next week before the next debate and I will
have an opportunity then to answer any other questions that may arise with regard to my position on it. There isn't any
question but that we must move forward in every possible way to reduce the danger of war; to move toward controlled
disarmament; to control tests. But also let's have in mind this: When Senator Kennedy suggests that we haven't been
making an effort, he simply doesn't know what he's talking about.
It isn't a question of the number of people who are working in an administration. It's a question of who they are. This has
been one of the highest level operations in the whole State Department, right under the President himself. We have gone
certainly the extra mile and then some in making offers to the Soviet Union on control of tests, on disarmament, and in
every other way. And I just want to make one thing very clear. Yes, we should make a great effort, but under no
circumstances must the United States ever make an agreement based on trust. There must be an absolute guarantee.
Now just to comment on Senator Kennedy's last answer. He forgets that in this same debate on the Formosa resolution,
which he said he voted for, which he did, that he voted against an amendment, or was recorded against an amendment,
and on this particular--or for an amendment, I should say, which passed the Senate overwhelmingly 70 to 12, and that
amendment put the Senate of the United States on record with a majority of the Senator's own party voting for it, as well
as the majority of Republican, put them on record against the very position that the Senator takes now of surrendering,
of indicating in advance, that the United States will not defend the offshore islands.
MR. SHADEL. The next question is by Mr. Drummond for Vice President Nixon.
MR. DRUMMOND. Mr. Nixon, I would like to ask one more aspect or raise another aspect of this same question. It is
my understanding that President Eisenhower never advocated that Quemoy and Matsu should be defended under all
circumstances as a matter of principle. I heard Secretary Dulles at a press conference in 58 say that he thought that it
was a mistake for Chiang Kai-shek to deploy troops to these islands. I would like to ask what has led you to take what
appears to be a different position on this subject?
MR. NIXON. Well Mr. Drummond, first of all, referring to Secretary Dulles' press conference, I think if you read it all,
and I know that you have, you will find that Secretary Dulles also indicated in that press conference that when the troops
were withdrawn from Quemoy, that the implication was certainly of everything that he said, that Quemoy could better
be defended. There were too many infantrymen there, not enough heavy artillery; and certainly I don't think there was
any implication in Secretary Dulles' statement that Quemoy and Matsu should not be defended in the event that they
were attacked and that attack was a preliminary to an attack on Formosa.
Now, as far as President Eisenhower is concerned, I have often heard him discuss this question. As I related a moment
ago, the President has always indicated that we must not make the mistake in dealing with the dictator of indicating that
we are going to make a concession at the point of a gun. Whenever you do that, inevitably the dictator is encouraged to
try it again. So first it will be Quemoy and Matsu. Next it may be Formosa. What do we do then?
My point is this: that once you do this, follow this course of action, of indicating that you are not going to defend a
particular area, the inevitable result is that it encourages a man who is determined to conquer the world to press you to
the point of no return. And that means war.
We went through this tragic experience leading to World War II. We learned our lesson again in Korea. We must not
learn it again. That is why I think the Senate was right, including a majority of the Democrats, a majority of the
Republicans, when they rejected Senator Kennedy's position in 1955 and, incidentally, Senator Johnson was among
those who rejected that position, voted with the 70 against the 12.
The Senate was right, because they knew the lesson of history, and may I say, too, that I would trust that Senator
Kennedy would change his position on this, change it; because as long as he, as a major Presidential candidate,
continues to suggest that we are going to turn over these islands, he is only encouraging the aggressors, the Chinese
Communists and the Soviet aggressors, to press the United States, to press us to the point where war would be
inevitable.
The road to war is always paved with good intentions, and in this instance the good intentions, of course, are a desire for
peace. But certainly we're not going to have peace by giving in and indicating in advance that we are not going to defend
what has become a symbol of freedom.
MR. SHADEL. Senator Kennedy.
MR. KENNEDY. I don't think it's possible for Mr. Nixon to state the record in distortion of the facts with more
precision than he just did. In 1955, Mr. Dulles, in a press conference said, "The treaty that we have with the Republic of
China excludes Quemoy and Matsu from the treaty area." That was done with much thought and deliberation. Therefore,
that treaty does not commit the United States to defend anything except Formosa and the Pescadores, and to deal with
acts against that treaty area.
I completely sustained the treaty. I voted for it. I would take any action necessary to defend the treaty, Formosa, and the
Pescadores Islands. What we're now talking about is the Vice President's determination to guarantee Quemoy and
Matsu, which are 4 and 5 miles off the coast of Red China, which are not within the treaty area.
I do not suggest that Chiang Kai-shek--and this administration has been attempting since 1955 to persuade Chiang Kai-
shek to lessen his troop commitments. He sent a mission to the the President in 1955 of Mr.Robertson, and Admiral
Radford and General Twining said they were still doing it in 1959. General Ridgway said, who was Chief of Staff, "To
go to war for Quemoy and Matsu to me would seem an unwarranted and tragic course to take. To me that concept is
completely repugnant."
So I stand with them. I stand with the Secretary of State, Mr. Herter, who said these islands were indefensible. I believe
that we should meet our commitments and if the Chinese Communists attack the Pescadores and Formosa, they know
that it will mean a war. I would not hand over these islands under any point of gun, but I merely say that the treaty is
quite precise and I sustain the treaty.
Mr. Nixon would add a guarantee to islands 5 miles off the coast of the Republic of China, when he's never really
protested the Communists seizing Cuba, 90 miles off the coast of the United States.
MR. SHADEL. Mr. von Fremd has a question for Senator Kennedy.
MR. VON FREMD. Senator Kennedy, I would like to shift the conversation, if I may, to a domestic political argument.
The chairman of the Republican National Committee, Senator Thruston Morton, declared earlier this week that you
owed Vice President Nixon and the Republican party a public apology for some strong charges made by former
President Harry Truman, who bluntly suggested where the Vice President and the Republican party could go. Do you
feel that you owe the Vice President an apology?
MR. KENNEDY. Well, I must say that Mr. Truman has his methods of expressing things; he's been in politics for 50
years; he's been President of the United States. Maybe it's not my style, but I really don't think there's anything that I can
say to President Truman that's going to cause him, at the age of 76, to change his particular speaking manner.
Perhaps Mrs. Truman can, but I don't think I can. I'll just have to tell Mr. Morton that, if you'd pass that message on to
him.
MR. SHADEL. Any comment, Mr. Vice President?
MR. NIXON. Yes, I think so. Of course, both Senator Kennedy and I have felt Mr. Truman's ire, and consequently, I
think he can speak with some feeling on this subject. I just do want to say one thing, however. We all have tempers, I
have one, I am sure Senator Kennedy has one, but when a man is President of the United States or a former President, he
has an obligation not to lose his temper in public. One thing I have noted as I have traveled around the country are the
tremendous number of children who come out to see the presidential candidates. I see mothers holding their babies up,
so that they can see a man who might be President of the United States. I know Senator Kennedy sees them, too. It
makes you realize that whoever is President is going to be a man that all the children of America will either look up to,
or will look down to, and I can only say that I'm very proud that President Eisenhower restored dignity and decency and,
frankly, good language to the conduct of the Presidency of the United States. And I only hope that, should I win this
election, that I could approach President Eisenhower in maintaining the dignity of the office, in seeing to it that
whenever any mother or father talks to his child, he can look at the man in the White House, and whatever he may think
of his policies, he will say: "Well, there is a man who maintains the kind of standards personally that I would want my
child to follow."
MR. SHADEL. Mr. Cater's question is for Vice President Nixon.
MR. CATER. Mr. Vice President, I'd like to return just once more, if I may, to this area of dealing with the
Communists. Critics have claimed that on at least three occasions in recent years, on the sending of American troops to
Indochina in 1954, on the matter of continuing the U-2 flights in May, and then on this definition of our commitment to
the offshore island, that you have overstated the administration position, that you have taken a more bellicose position
than President Eisenhower.
Just 2 days ago you said that you called on Senator Kennedy to serve notice to Communist aggressors around the world
that we're not going to retreat 1 inch more any place, whereas we did retreat from the Taichen Islands, or at least Chiang
Kai-shek did. Would you say this was a valid criticism of your statement of foreign policy?
MR. NIXON. Well, Mr. Cater, of course it's a criticism that is being made. I obviously don't think it's valid. I have
supported the administration's position and I think that that position has been correct; I think my position has been
correct.
As far as Indochina was concerned, I stated over and over again that it was essential during that period that the United
States make it clear that we would not tolerate Indochina falling under Communist domination.
Now, as a result of our taking the strong stand that we did, the civil war there was ended; and today, at least in the south
of Indochina, the Communists have moved out and we do have a strong, free bastion there.
Now looking to the U-2 flights, I would like to point out that I have been supporting the President's position throughout.
I think the President was correct in ordering these flights. I think the President was correct, certainly, in his decision to
continue the flights while the conference was going on.
I noted, for example, in reading a particular discussion that Senator Kennedy had with Dave Garroway shortly after the--
his statement about regrets that he made the statement that he felt that these particular flights were ones that shouldn't
have occurred right at that time, and the indication was, how would Mr. Khrushchev had felt if we had had a flight over
the--how would we have felt if Mr. Khrushchev had a flight over the United States while he was visiting here. And the
answer, of course, is that Communist espionage goes on all the time. The answer is that the United States can't afford to
have a an espionage lack or--lag, or should I say an intelligence lag, any more than we can afford to have a missile lag.
Now referring to your question with regard to Quemoy and Matsu, what I object to here is the constant reference to
surrendering these islands. Senator Kennedy quotes the record, which he read from a moment ago, but what he forgets to
point out is that the key vote, a vote which I've referred to several times, where he was in the minority, was one which
rejected his position.
Now, why did they reject it? For the very reason that those Senators knew, as the President of the United States knew,
that you should not indicate to the Communists in advance that you're going to surrender an area that's free. Why?
Because they know as Senator Kennedy will have to know that if you do that you encourage them to more aggression.
MR. SHADEL. Senator Kennedy?
MR. KENNEDY. Well No. 1 on Indochina, Mr. Nixon talked before the newspaper editors in the spring of 1954 about
putting, and I quote him, "American boys into Indochina." The reason Indochina was preserved, was the result of the
Geneva Conference which partitioned Indochina.
No. 2, on the question of the U-2 flights. I thought theU-2 flight in May just before the conference was a mistake in
timing because of the hazards involved if the summit conference had any hope for success. I never criticized the U-2
flights in general, however. I never suggested espionage should stop. It still goes on, I would assume, on both sides.
No. 3, the Vice President, on May 15, after the U-2 flights, indicated that the flights were going on, even though the
administration and the President had canceled the flights on May 12.
No. 3 [4 corrected], the Vice President suggests that we should keep the Communists in doubt about whether we would
fight on Quemoy and Matsu. That's not the position he's taking. He's indicating that we should fight for these islands,
come what may, because they are, in his words, "in the area of freedom."
He didn't take that position on Tibet. He didn't take that position on Budapest. He doesn't take that position that I've seen
so far in Laos. Guinea and Ghana have both moved within the Soviet sphere of influence on foreign policy; so has Cuba.
I merely say that the United States should meet its commitments to Formosa and the Pescadores. But as Admiral Yarnell
has said, and he's been supported by most military authorities, these islands that we're now talking about are not worth
the bones of a single American soldier; and I know how difficult it is to sustain troops close to the shore under artillery
bombardment. And therefore, I think we should make it very clear the disagreement between Mr. Nixon and myself.
He's extending the administration's commitment.
MR. SHADEL. Mr.Drummond's question is for Senator Kennedy.
MR. DRUMMOND. Mr. Kennedy, Representative Adam Clayton Powell in the course of his speaking tour in your
behalf is saying and I quote: "The Ku Klux Klan is riding again in this campaign. If it doesn't stop, all bigots will vote
for Nixon and all right thinking Christians and Jews will vote for Kennedy rather than be found in the ranks of the Klan-
minded."
Gov. Michael Di Salle is saying much the same thing.
What I would like to ask, Senator Kennedy is: What is the purpose of this sort of thing? And how do you feel about it?
MR. KENNEDY. Well, the que--Mr. Griffin, I believe, who is the head of the Klan, who lives in Tampa, Fla.,
indicated, in a statement, I think 2 or 3 weeks ago that he was not going to vote for me and that he was going to vote for
Mr. Nixon. I do not suggest in any way, nor have I ever, that that indicates that Mr. Nixon has the slightest sympathy,
involvement or in any way imply any inferences in regard to the Ku Klux Klan. That's absurd. I don't suggest that. I
don't support it. I would disagree with it. Mr. Nixon knows very well that this whole matter has been involved-- this so-
called religious discussion in this campaign. I have never suggested even by the vaguest implication that he did anything
but disapprove of it and that's my view now. I disapprove of the issue. I do not suggest that Mr. Nixon does in any way.
MR. SHADEL. Mr.Vice President.
MR. NIXON. Well, I welcome this opportunity to join Senator Kennedy completely on that statement and to say before
this largest television audience in history something that I have been saying in the past and want to--will always say in
the future. On our last television debate I pointed out that it was my position that Americans must choose the best man
that either party could produce. We can't settle for anything but the best; and that means, of course, the best man that this
Nation can produce, and that means that we can't have any test of religion. We can't have any test of race. It must be a
test of the man.
Also, as far as religion is concerned, I have seen communism abroad. I see what it does. Communism is the enemy of all
religions and we who do believe in God must join together. We must not be divided on this issue. The worst thing that I
can think can happen in this campaign would be for it to be decided on religious issues. I, obviously, repudiate the Klan.
I repudiate anybody who uses the religious issue; I will not tolerate it.
I have ordered all of my people to have nothing to do with it; and I say to this great audience, whoever may be listening,
remember: If you believe in America, if you want America to set the right example to the world, that we cannot have
religious or racial prejudice. We cannot have it in our hearts. But we certainly cannot have it in a presidential campaign.
MR. SHADEL. Mr. McGee has a question for Vice President Nixon.
MR. McGEE. Mr. Vice President, some of your early campaign literature said you were making a study to see if new
laws were needed to protect the public against excessive use of power by labor unions. Have you decided whether such
new laws are needed, and, if so, what would they do?
MR. NIXON. Mr. McGee, I am planning a speech on that subject next week. Also, so that we can get the opportunity
for the questioners to question me, it will be before the next television debate.I will say, simply, in advance of it, that I
believe that in this area the laws which should be passed, as far as the big national emergency strikes are concerned, are
ones that will give the President more weapons with which to deal with those strikes.
Now, I have a basic disagreement with Senator Kennedy, though, on this point. He has taken the position he first
indicated in October of last year that he would even favor compulsory arbitration as one of the weapons the President
might have to stop a national emergency strike. I understand in his last speech before the Steelworkers Union, that he
changed that position and indicated that he felt that Government seizure might be the best way to stop a strike which
could not be settled by collective bargaining.
I do not believe we should have either compulsory arbitration or seizure. I think the moment that you give to the union
on the one side and to management on the other side, the escape hatch of eventually going to Government to get it
settled, that most of these great strikes will end up being settled by Government and that will be in the end, in my
opinion, wage control. It will mean price control--all the things that we do not want.
I do believe, however, that we can give to the President of the United States powers, in addition to what he presently has
in the factfinding area which would enable him to be more effective than we have been in handling these strikes.
One last point I should make. The record in handling them has been very good during this administration. We have had
less man-hours lost by strikes in these last 7 years than we had in the previous 7 years, by a great deal. And I only want
to say that however good the record is, it's got to be better because in this critical year--period of the sixties we've got to
move forward; all Americans must move forward together and we have to get the greatest cooperation possible between
labor and management. We cannot afford stoppages of massive effect on the economy when we're in the terrible
competition we're in with the Soviets.
MR. SHADEL. Senator, your comment?
MR. KENNEDY. I always have difficulty recognizing my positions when they are stated by the Vice President. I never
suggested that compulsory arbitration was the solution for national emergency disputes. I'm opposed to that, was
opposed to it in October of 1958. I have suggested that the President should be given other weapons to protect the
national interest in case of national emergency strikes beyond the injunction provision of the Taft-Hartley Act. I don't
know what other weapons the Vice President is talking about. I'm talking about giving him four or five tools. Not only
the factfinding committee that he now has under the injunction provision. Not only the injunction, but also the power of
the factfinding commission to make recommendations, recommendations which would not be binding but nevertheless
would have great force of public opinion behind them.
One of the additional powers that I would suggest would be seizure. There might be others. The President having five
powers, four or five powers, and he only has very limited powers today, neither the company nor the union would be
sure which power would be used and therefore there would be a greater incentive on both sides to reach an agreement
themselves without taking it to the Government. The difficulty now is the President's course is quite limited. He can set
up a factfinding committee. The factfinding committee's powers are limited. He can provide an injunction if there's a
national emergency, for 80 days, then a strike can go on, and there are no other powers or actions that the President
could take unless he went to the Congress. This is a difficult and sensitive matter but to state my view precisely, the
President should have a variety of things he could do. He could leave the parties in doubt as to which one he would use
and therefore there would be incentive, instead of as now, the steel companies were ready to take the strike because they
felt the injunction of 80 days would break the union, which didn't happen.
MR. SHADEL. The next question is by Mr. Cater for Senator Kennedy.
MR. CATER. Mr. Kennedy, Senator--Vice President Nixon says that he has costed the two party platforms and that
yours would run at least $10 billion a year more than his. You have denied his figures. He has called on you to supply
your figures. Would you do that?
MR. KENNEDY. Yes, I have stated in both debates and state again that I believe in a balanced budget and have
supported that concept during my 14 years in the Congress. The only two times when an unbalanced budget is warranted
would be during a serious recession and we had that in '58 in an unbalanced budget of $12 billion; or a national
emergency where there should be large expenditures for national defense which we had in World War II and during part
of the Korean War.
On the question of the cost of our budget, I have stated that it's my best judgment that our agricultural program will cost
a billion and a half, possibly $2 billion less than the present agricultural program. My judgment is that the program the
Vice President put forward, which is an extension of Mr. Benson's program, will cost a billion dollars more than the
present program which costs about $6 billion a year--the most expensive in history. We've spent more money on
agriculture in the last 8 years than the hundred years of the Agricultural Department before that.
Secondly, I believe that the high-interest-rate policy that this administration has followed has added about $3 billion a
year to interest on the debt, merely funding the debt, which is a burden on the tax base. I would hope under a different
monetary policy that it would be possible to reduce that interest rate burden at least a billion dollars.
Third, I think it's possible to gain a $700 million to a billion dollars through tax changes which I believe would close up
loopholes on dividend withholding, on expense accounts.
Fourthly, I have suggested that the medical care for the aged and the bill which the Congress now has passed and the
President signed, if fully implemented, would cost a billion dollars on the Treasury--out of the Treasury fund and a
billion dollars by the States. The proposal that I have put forward and which many of the members of my party support
is for medical care financed under social security; which would be financed under the social security tax system, which
is less than 3 cents a day per person for medical care, doctors' bills, nurses, hospitals, when they retire. It is actuarially
sound. So in my judgment we would spend more money in this administration on aid to education, we'd spend more
money on housing, we'd spend more money and I hope more wisely, on defense than this administration has done, but I
believe that the next administration should work for a balanced budget and that would be my intention. Mr. Nixon
misstates my figures constantly, which is of course his right, but the fact of the matter is here is where I stand and I just
want to have it on the public record.
MR. SHADEL. Mr. Vice President?
MR. NIXON. Senator Kennedy has indicated on several occasions in this program tonight that I have been misstating
his record and his figures. I will issue a white paper after this broadcast quoting exactly what he said on compulsory
arbitration, for example, and the record will show that I have been correct.
Now as far as his figures are concerned here tonight, he again is engaging in this what I would call mirror game of "here
it is and here it isn't." On the one hand, for example, he suggests that as far as his medical care program is concerned,
that that really isn't a problem because it's from social security. But social security is a tax. The people pay it. It comes
right out of your pay check. This doesn't mean that the people aren't going to be paying the bill. He also indicates as far
as his agricultural program is concerned, that he feels it will cost less than ours. Well, all that I can suggest is that all the
experts who have studied the program, indicate that it is the most fantastic program, the worst program, insofar as its
effect on the farmers, that America has ever had foisted upon it in an election year or any other time, and I would also
point out that Senator Kennedy left out a part of the cost of that program--a 25 percent rise in food prices that the people
would have to pay.
Now, are we going to have that when it isn't going to help the farmers? I don't think we should have that kind of a
program. Then he goes on to say that he's going to change the interest rate situation and we're going to get some more
money that way. Well, what he is saying there in effect, we're going to have inflation. We're going to go right back to
what we had under Mr. Truman when he had political control of the Federal Reserve Board. I don't believe we ought to
pay our bills through inflation, through a phony interest rate.
MR. SHADEL. Next, Mr. Drummond's question for Vice President Nixon.
MR. DRUMMOND. Mr. Nixon, before the convention, you and Governor Rockefeller said jointly that the Nation's
economic growth ought to be accelerated and the Republican platform states that the Nation needs to quicken the pace
of economic growth. Is it fair, therefore, Mr. Vice President, to conclude that you feel that there has been insufficient
economic growth during the past 8 years; and if so, what would you do beyond present administration policies to step it
up?
MR. NIXON. Mr. Drummond, I am never satisfied with the economic growth of this country. I'm not satisfied with it
even if there were no communism in the world, but particularly when we're in the kind of a race we're in, we have got to
see that America grows just as fast as we can, provided we grow soundly. Because even though we have maintained, as I
pointed out in our first debate, the absolute gap over the Soviet Union; even though the growth in this administration has
been twice as much as it was in the Truman administration, that isn't good enough because America must be able to
grow enough not only to take care of our needs at home for better education and housing and health, all these things we
want. We've got to grow enough to maintain the forces that we have abroad and to wage the non-military battle for the
war--for the world, in Asia, in Africa and Latin America. It's going to cost more money, and growth will help us to win
that battle.
Now, what do we do about it? And here I believe basically that what we have to do is to stimulate that sector of
America, the private enterprise sector of the economy, in which there is the greatest possibility for expansion. So that is
why I advocate a program of tax reform which will stimulate more investment in our economy. In addition to that, we
have to move on other areas that are holding back growth. I refer, for example, to distressed areas. We have to move into
those areas with programs so that we make adequate use of the resources of those areas. We also have to see that all of
the people of the United States, the tremendous talents that our people have, are used adequately. That's why in this
whole area of civil rights, the equality of opportunity for employment and education is not just for the benefit of the
minority groups. It is for the benefit of the Nation so that we can get the scientists and the engineers and all the rest that
we need. And in addition to that we need programs, particularly in higher education, which will stimulate scientific
breakthroughs which will bring more growth.
Now what all this of course adds up to is this: America has not been standing still. Let's get that straight. Anybody who
says America's been standing still for the last 7 1/2 years hasn't been traveling around America. He's been traveling in
some other country. We have been moving. We have been moving much faster than we did in the Truman years, but we
can and must move faster, and that's why I stand so strongly for programs that will move America forward in the sixties,
move her forward so that we can stay ahead of the Soviet Union and win the battle for freedom and peace.
MR. SHADEL. Senator Kennedy?
MR. KENNEDY: Well first may I correct a statement which was made before, that under my agricultural program food
prices would go up 25 percent. That's untrue. The farmer who grows wheat gets about 2 1/2 cents out of a 25-cent loaf
of bread. Even if you put his income up 10 percent, that would be2 3/4 percent or 3 cents out of that 25 cents. The man
who grows tomatoes, it costs less for those tomatoes than it does for the label on the can, and I believe when the
average-hour for many farmers' wage is about 50 cents an hour he should do better. But anybody who suggests that that
program would come to any figure indicated by the Vice President is in error. The Vice President suggested a number of
things. He suggested that we aid distressed areas.
The administration has vetoed that bill passed by the Congress twice. He suggested we pass an aid-to-education bill. The
administration and the Republican majority in the Congress has opposed any realistic aid to education, and the Vice
President cast a deciding vote against Federal aid for teachers' salaries in the Senate which prevented that being added.
This administration and this country last year had the lowest rate of economic growth, which means jobs, of any major
industrialized society in the world in 1959. And when we have to find 25,000 new jobs a week for the next 10 years,
we're going to have to grow more. Governor Rockefeller says 5 percent. The Democratic platform and others say 5
percent. Many say 4 1/2 percent. The last 8 years the average growth has been about 2 1/2 percent. That's why we don't
have full employment today.
MR. SHADEL. Mr. McGee has the next question for Senator Kennedy.
MR. McGEE. Uh - Senator Kennedy, a moment ago you mentioned tax loopholes. Now your running mate, Senator
Lyndon Johnson, is from Texas, an oil-producing State and one that many political leaders feel is in doubt in this
election year, and reports from there say that oil men in Texas are seeking assurance from Senator Johnson that the oil
depletion allowance will not be cut. The Democratic platform pledges to plug loopholes in the tax laws and refers to
inequitable depletion allowance as being conspicuous loopholes.
My question is, do you consider the 27 1/2 percent depletion allowance inequitable, and would you ask that it be cut?
MR. KENNEDY. Mr. McGee, there are about 104 commodities that have some kind of depletion allowance, different
kind of minerals including oil. I believe all of those should be gone over in detail to make sure that no one is getting a
tax break, to make sure that no one is getting away from paying the taxes he ought to pay. That includes oil, it includes
all kinds of minerals. Iit includes everything within the range of taxation. We want to be sure it's fair and equitable. It
includes oil abroad. Perhaps that oil abroad should be treated differently than the oil here at home.
Now, the oil industry recently has had hard times, particularly some of the smaller producers. They're moving about 8 or
9 days in Texas, but I can assure you that if I am elected President, the whole spectrum of taxes will be gone through
carefully, and if there's any inequities in oil or any other commodity, then I would vote to close that loophole.
I have voted in the past to reduce the depletion allowance for the largest producers for those from $5 million down to
maintain it at 27 1/2 percent. I believe we should study this and other allowances, tax expense, dividend expenses, and
all the rest, and make a determination of how we can stimulate growth; how we can provide the revenues needed to
move our country forward.
MR. SHADEL. Mr. Vice President.
MR. NIXON. Senator Kennedy's position and mine are completely different on this. I favor the present depletion
allowance. I favor it not because I want to make a lot of oil men rich, but because I want to make America rich. Why do
we have a depletion allowance? Because this is the stimulation, the incentive for companies to go out and explore for
oil, to develop it. If we didn't have a depletion allowance of certainly I believe the present amount, we would have our
oil exploration cut substantially in this country.
Now, as far as my position then is concerned, it is exactly opposite to the Senator's, and it's because of my belief that if
America is going to have the growth that he talks about and that I talk about, and that we want, the thing to do is not to
discourage individual enterprise, not to discourage people to go out and discover more oil and minerals, but to
encourage them, and so he would be doing exactly the wrong thing.
One other thing: He suggests that there are a number of other items in this whole depletion field that could be taken into
account. He also said a moment ago that we would get more money to finance his programs by revising the tax laws,
including depletion. I should point out, that as far as depletion allowances are concerned, the oil depletion allowance is
one that provides 80 percent of all of those involved in depletion, so you're not going to get much from revenue insofar
as depletion allowances are concerned, unless you move in the area that he indicated.
But I oppose it. I oppose it for the reasons that I mentioned. I oppose it because I want us to have more oil exploration
and not less.
MR. SHADEL. Gentlemen, if I may remind you, time is growing short, so please keep your questions and answers as
brief as possible consistent with clarity.
Mr. von Fremd for Vice President Nixon.
MR. VON FREMD. Mr. Vice President, in the past 3 years there has been an exodus of more than $4 billion of gold
from the United States apparently for two reasons: because exports have slumped and haven't covered imports, and
because of increased American investments abroad. If you were President, how would you go about stopping this
departure of gold from our shores?
MR. NIXON. Well, Mr. von Fremd, the first thing we have to do is to continue to keep confidence abroad in the
American dollar. That means that we must continue to have a balanced budget here at home in every possible
circumstance that we can. Because the moment that we have loss of confidence in our own fiscal policies at home, it
results in gold flowing out.
Secondly, we have to increase our exports as compared with our imports. And here we have a very strong program
going forward in the Department of Commerce. This one must be stepped up.
Beyond that, as far as the gold supply is concerned, and as far as the movement of gold is concerned, we have to bear in
mind that we must get more help from our allies abroad in this great venture in which all free men are involved of
winning the battle for freedom.
Now, America has been carrying a tremendous load in this respect. I think we have been right in carrying it. I have
favored our programs abroad for economic assistance and for military assistance, but now we find that the countries of
Europe, for example, that we have aided and Japan that we've aided in the Far East, these countries, some our former
enemies, have now recovered completely. They have got to bear a greater share of this load of economic assistance
abroad.
That's why I am advocating, and will develop during the course of the next administration--if, of course, I get the
opportunity--a program in which we enlist more aid from these other countries on a concerted basis in the programs of
economic development for Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The United States cannot continue to carry the major share
of this burden by itself. We can carry a big share of it, but we've got to have more help from our friends abroad; and
these three factors, I think, will be very helpful in reversing the gold flow which you spoke about.
MR. SHADEL. Senator Kennedy.
MR. KENNEDY. Just to correct the record, Mr. Nixon said on depletion that his record was the opposite of mine. What
I said was that this matter should be thoroughly gone into to make sure that there aren't loopholes. If his record is the
opposite of that, that means that he doesn't want to go into it.
Now, on the question of the gold, the difficulty, of course, is that we do have heavy obligations abroad, that we therefore
have to maintain not only a favorable balance of trade but also send a good deal of our dollars overseas to pay our
troops, maintain our bases, and sustain other economies.
In other words, if we're going to continue to maintain our position in the sixties, we have to maintain a sound monetary
and fiscal policy. We have to have control over inflation, and we also have to have a favorable balance of trade. We
have to be able to compete in the world market. We have to be able to sell abroad more than we consume from abroad, if
we're going to be able to meet our obligations.
In addition, many of the countries around the world still keep restrictions against our goods, going all the way back to
the days when there was a dollar shortage. Now there isn't a dollar shortage, and yet many of these countries continue to
move against our goods.
I believe that we must be able to compete in the market--steel and in all the basic commodities abroad--we must be able
to compete against them, because we always did because of our technological lead. We have to be sure to maintain that.
We have to persuade these other countries not to restrict our goods from coming in, not to act as if there was a dollar
gap; and third, we have to persuade them to assume some of the responsibilities that up till now we've maintained to
assist underdeveloped countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia make an economic breakthrough on their own.
MR. SHADEL. Mr. Drummond's question now for Senator Kennedy.
MR. DRUMMOND. Senator Kennedy, a question on American prestige. In light of the fact that the Soviet Ambassador
was recently expelled from the Congo and that Mr. Khrushchev has this week canceled his trip to Cuba for fear of
stirring resentment throughout all Latin America, I would like to ask you to spell out somewhat more fully how you
think we should measure American prestige, to determine whether it is rising or whether it is falling.
MR. KENNEDY. Well, I think there are many tests, Mr. Drummond, of prestige. The significance of prestige really is
because we are so identified with the cause of freedom. Therefore, if we are on the mount, if we are rising, if our
influence is spreading, if our prestige is spreading, then those who stand now on the razor edge of decision between us
or between the Communist system, wondering whether they should use the system of freedom to develop their countries
or the system of communism, they will be persuaded to follow our example.
There have been several indications that our prestige is not as high as it once was. Mr. George Allen, the head of our
Information Service, said that a result of our being second in space in the sputnik in 1957, and I quote him--I believe I
paraphrase him accurately--he said that many of these countries equate space developments with scientific productivity
and scientific advancement, and therefore, he said, many of these countries now feel that the Soviet Union, which was
once so backward, is now on a par with the United States.
Secondly, the economic growth of the Soviet Union is greater than ours. Mr. Dulles has suggested it's from two to three
times as great as ours. This has a great effect on the underdeveloped world which faces problems of low income and
high population density and inadequate resources.
Three. A Gallup Poll taken in February asked people in 10 countries which country they thought would be first in 1970,
both scientifically and militarily, and a majority in every country, except Greece, felt that it would be the Soviet Union
by l970.
Four, in the votes the U.N., particularly the vote dealing with Red China last Saturday, we received the support on the
position that we had taken of only two African countries, one, Liberia, which had been tied to us for more than a
century, and the other the Union of South Africa, which is not a popular country in Africa. Every other African country
either abstained or voted against us. More countries voted against us in Asia on this issue than voted with us.
On the neutralist resolution, which we were so much opposed to, the same thing happened. The candidate who was a
candidate for the President of Brazil, took a trip to Cuba to call on Mr. Castro during the election in order to get the
benefit of the Castro supporters within Brazil.
There are many indications--Guinea and Ghana, two independent countries within the last 3 years, Guinea in '57, Ghana
within the last 18 months; both now are supporting the Soviets' foreign policy at the U.N. Mr. Herter said so himself.
Laos is moving in that direction.
So I would say our prestige is not so high. No longer do we give the image of being on the rise. No longer do we give an
image of vitality.
MR. SHADEL: Mr. Vice President.
MR. NIXON. Well, I would say first of all that Senator Kennedy's statement that he's just made is not going to help our
Gallup Polls abroad, and it isn't going to help our prestige either.
Let's look at the other side of the coin. Let's look at the vote on the Congo. The vote was 70 to 0 against the Soviet
Union.
Let's look at the situation with regard to economic growth as it really is. We find that the Soviet Union is a very
primitive economy. Its growth rate is not what counts, it's whether it is catching up with us, and it is not catching up
with us. We're well ahead and we can stay ahead provided we have confidence in America and don't run her down in
order to build her up.
We could look also at other items which Senator Kennedy has named, but I will only conclude by saying this: In this
whole matter of prestige, in the final analysis, its whether you stand for what's right, and getting back to this matter that
we discussed at the outset, the matter of Quemoy and Matsu, I can think of nothing that will be a greater blow to the
prestige of the United States among the free nations in Asia than for us to take Senator Kennedy's advance--advice to go
against what a majority of the Members of the Senate, both Democrat and Republican, did--said in 1955, and to say in
advance we will surrender an area to the Communists.
In other words, if the United States is going to maintain its strength and its prestige, we must not only be strong
militarily and economically, we must be firm diplomatically. Certainly we have been speaking, I know, of whether we
should have retreat or defeat. Let's remember that the way to win is not to retreat and not to surrender.
MR. SHADEL: Thank you gentlemen. As we mentioned at the opening of this program, the candidates agreed that the
clock alone would determine who had the last word. The two candidates wish to thank the networks for the opportunity
to appear for this discussion. I would repeat the ground rules likewise agreed upon by representatives of the two
candidates and the radio and television networks.
The entire hour was devoted to answering questions from the reporters. Each candidate was questioned in turn and each
had the opportunity to comment on the answer of his opponent.
The reporters were free to ask any question on any subject. Neither candidate was given any advance information on any
question that would be asked. Those were the conditions agreed upon for this third meeting of the candidates tonight.
Now I might add that also agreed upon was the fact that when the hour got down to the last few minutes, if there was not
sufficient time left for another question and suitable time for answer and comment, the questioning would end at that
point.
That is the situation at this moment. And after reviewing the rules for this evening I might use the remaining few
moments of the hour to tell you something about the other arrangements for this debate with the participants a continent
apart.
I would emphasize first that each candidate was in a studio alone except for three photographers and three reporters of
the press and the television technicians--those studios identical in every detail of lighting, background, physical
equipment, even to the paint used in decorating. We newsmen in a third studio have also experienced a somewhat
similar isolation.
Now, I would remind you the fourth in the series of these historic joint appearances, scheduled for Friday, October 21.
At that time the candidates will again share the same platform to discuss foreign policy.
This is Bill Shadel. Goodnight.
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Railroad

Station, Ann Arbor, Michigan, October 14, 1960
The text appears to be a verbatim transcript of Kennedy's remarks on the occasion.
Senator Kennedy: Ladies and gentlemen, the first Presidential candidate to come here to Ann Arbor was Woodrow
Wilson in 1912. Woodrow Wilson was not running on a platform of experience. The only place that he had learned to
stand firm was as a college professor at Princeton University for a number of years.
The next Presidential candidate to come here was Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932. (Applause)
Three times during this century the Democratic Party has elected Presidents, one was Woodrow Wilson, No. 2 was
Franklin Roosevelt, and No. 3 was President Truman in 1948. On many different occasions the other party has elected
Presidents, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Harding, Mr. Coolidge. They ran Mr. Landon. They ran Mr. Dewey. And we come to
1960. I believe that parties are important. I believe that the kind of men that parties pick are important. I believe that the
party label tells us something about the candidate, something about the things for which they stand, something of their
political philosophy. And I stand here with some pride and satisfaction as the direct successor to the Democratic
Presidents who in this century carried the banner of the New Freedom, the New Deal and the Fair Deal. (Applause)
In my judgment, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman were successful in their foreign policy
because it fitted in exactly with what they were trying to do here in the United States; the 14 points of Woodrow Wilson
were the international counterpart of the New Freedom; the Four Freedoms of Franklin Roosevelt were directly tied to
the aspirations of the New Deal; and the Marshall Plan, NATO, the Truman Doctrine and Point IV were directly tied to
the kind of America that President Truman was trying to build. You cannot run as a risk-taker abroad, as Mr. Nixon has
said, and a conservative at home. There has to be a country moving here in the United States if we are going to be
moving around the world. (Applause)
Now, let's see, where were we? (Laughter) Anyway, the point of the matter is that the United States in the 1960's is
going to have to build a society with sufficient vigor, develop its resources with sufficient energy, provide a better life
for our people with fair opportunity, with a sufficient sense of justice, if the United States is going to be in fact the
leader of the free world.
What we are speaks far louder than what we say we are. (Applause) All of the Voice of America, all of the radio
broadcasts, all of the books we send abroad, pale in significance to the kind of society that we are building here in the
United States. The reason that Franklin Roosevelt was a good neighbor in Latin America was because he was a good
neighbor here in the United States. Therefore, I come as the candidate for the Democratic Party. I come here asking you
to join in building a stronger country, asking you to demonstrate, as we sit, in Edmund Burke's words, on a most
conspicuous stage, in the most trying and difficult time in the history of the free world. I ask you to help in building here
the kind of society which will serve as an example to those who wish to trod on freedom's road. I come here to Ann
Arbor, Michigan, and I ask your support.
Last Saturday Michigan beat Duke. (Applause) And I think on November 8, Michigan and the United States will beat
Duke's favorite son and alumnus, Mr. Richard Nixon. (Applause). Thank you. (Applause)
Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at

the University of Michigan
Student Union Building Steps, Ann Arbor, Michigan
October 14, 1960
I want to express my thanks to you, as a graduate of the Michigan of the East, Harvard
University.
I come here tonight delighted to have the opportunity to say one or two words about this
campaign that is coming into the last three weeks.
I think in many ways it is the most important campaign since 1933, mostly because of the
problems which press upon the United States, and the opportunities which will be
presented to us in the 1960s. The opportunity must be seized, through the judgment of the
President, and the vigor of the executive, and the cooperation of the Congress. Through
these I think we can make the greatest possible difference.
How many of you who are going to be doctors, are willing to spend your days in Ghana?
Technicians or engineers, how many of you are willing to work in the Foreign Service and
spend your lives traveling around the world? On your willingness to do that, not merely to
serve one year or two years in the service, but on your willingness to contribute part of
your life to this country, I think will depend the answer whether a free society can compete.
I think it can! And I think Americans are willing to contribute. But the effort must be far
greater than we have ever made in the past.
Therefore, I am delighted to come to Michigan, to this University, because unless we have
those resources in this school, unless you comprehend the nature of what is being asked of
you this country can't possibly move through the next ten years in a period of relative
strength.
So I come here tonight to go to bed! But I also come here tonight to ask you to join in the
effort. . . .
This University. . . this is the longest short speech I've ever made. . . therefore , I'll finish it!
Let me say in conclusion, this University is not maintained by its alumni, or by the state,
merely to help its graduates have an economic advantage in the life struggle. There is
certainly a greater purpose, and I'm sure you recognize it. Therefore, I do not apologize for
asking for your support in this campaign. I come here tonight asking your support for this
country over the next decade.
Thank you.
"Face-to-Face, Nixon-Kennedy" Vice

President Richard M. Nixon and Senator
John F. Kennedy Fourth Joint Television-
Radio Broadcast
Friday, October 21, 1960
Originating ABC, New York, N.Y., All Networks Carried
Moderator: Quincy Howe, ABC.
Moderator: Quincy Howe, ABC.
Panelists: John Edwards, ABC; Walter Cronkite, CBS; Frank Singiser, MBS; John
Chancellor, NBC.
MR. HOWE. I am Quincy Howe of CB--of ABC News saying good evening from New
York where the two major candidates for President of the United States are about to engage
in their fourth radio-television discussion of the present campaign.
Tonight these men will confine that discussion to foreign policy. Good evening, Vice
President Nixon.
MR. NIXON. Good evening, Mr. Howe.
MR. HOWE. And good evening, Senator Kennedy.
MR. KENNEDY. Good evening, Mr. Howe.
MR. HOWE. Now let me read the rules and conditions under which the candidates
themselves have agreed to proceed. As they did in their first meeting, both men will make
opening statements of about 8 minutes each, and closing statements of equal time, running
3 to 5 minutes each. During the half hour between the opening and closing statements the
candidates will answer and comment upon questions from a panel of four correspondents
chosen by the nationwide networks that carry the program.
Each candidate will be questioned in turn with opportunity for comment by the other. Each
answer will be limited to 2 1/2 minutes. Each comment to 1 1/2 minutes.
The correspondents are free to ask any questions they choose in the field of foreign affairs.
Neither candidate knows what questions will be asked.
Time alone will determine the final question.
Reversing the order in their first meeting, Senator Kennedy will make the second opening
statement and the first closing statement.
For the first opening statement, here is Vice President Nixon.
MR. NIXON. Mr. Howe, Senator Kennedy, my fellow Americans. Since this campaign
began I have had a very rare privilege. I have traveled to 48 of the 50 states and in my
travels I have learned what the people of the United States are thinking about.
There is one issue that stands out above all the rest; one in which every American is
concerned, regardless of what group he may be a member and regardless of where he may
live. And that issue, very simply stated, is this: How can we keep the peace; keep it without
surrender? How can we extend freedom; extend it without war?
Now, in determining how we deal with this issue, we must find the answer to a very
important but simple question: Who threatens the peace? Who threatens freedom in the
world?
There is only one threat to peace and one threat to freedom: that that is presented by the
international Communist movement; and therefore, if we are to have peace, if we are to
keep our own freedom and extend it to others without war, we must know how to deal with
the Communists and their leaders.
I know Mr. Khrushchev. I also have had the opportunity of knowing and meeting other
Communist leaders in the world. I believe there are certain principles we must find in
dealing with him and his colleagues, principles if followed, that will keep the peace and
that also can extend freedom.
First, we have to learn from the past, because we cannot afford to make the mistakes of the
past. In the 7 years before this administration came into power in Washington, we found
that 600 million people went behind the Iron Curtain, and at the end of that 7 years we
were engaged in a war in Korea which cost of over 30,000 American lives.
In the past 7 years, in President Eisenhower's administration, this situation has been
reversed. We ended the Korean War by strong, firm leadership. We have kept out of other
wars and we have avoided surrender of principle or territory at the conference table.
Now, why were we successful as our predecessors were not successful? I think there're
several reasons. In the first place, they made a fatal error in misjudging the Communists in
trying to apply to them the same rules of conduct that you would apply to the leaders of the
free world.
One of the major errors they made was the one that led to the Korean War. In ruling out the
defense of Korea, they invited aggression in that area. They thought they were going to
have peace. It brought war. We learned from their mistakes. And so, in our 7 years, we find
that we have been firm in our diplomacy.
We have never made concessions without getting concessions in return. We have always
been willing to go the extra mile to negotiate for disarmament or in any other area, but we
have never been willing to do anything that, in effect, surrendered freedom any place in the
world. That is why President Eisenhower was correct in not apologizing or expressing
regrets to Mr. Khrushchev at the Paris Conference, as Senator Kennedy suggested he could
have done. That is why Senator--President Eisenhower was also correct in his policy in the
Formosa Straits where he declined and refused to follow the recommendations,
recommendations which Senator Kennedy voted for in 1955, again made in 1959, again
repeated in his debates, that you have heard, recommendations with regard to again slicing
off a piece of free territory, and abandoning it effect, to the Communists.
Why did the President feel this was wrong and why was the President right and his critics
wrong? Because again, this showed a lack of understanding of dictators, a lack of
understanding particularly of Communists because every time you make such a concession
it does not lead to peace. It only encourages them to blackmail you. It encourages them to
begin a war.
And so I say that the record shows that we know how to keep the peace, to keep it without
surrender. Let us move now to the future.
It is not enough to stand on this record because we are dealing with the most ruthless,
fanatical leaders that the world has ever seen. That is why I say that in this period of the
sixties America must move forward in every area. First of all, although we are today, as
Senator Kennedy has admitted, the strongest nation in the world militarily, we must
increase our strength, increase it so that we will always have enough strength that
regardless of what our potential opponents have, if they should launch a surprise attack we
will be able to destroy their war-making capabilities.
They must know, in other words, that it is national suicide if they begin anything. We need
this kind of strength because we're the guardians of the peace.
In addition to military strength we need to see that the economy of this country continues to
grow. It has grown in the past 7 years. It can and will grow even more in the next 4. And
the reason that it must grow even more is because we have things to do at home, and also
because we're in a race for survival; a race in which it isn't enough to be ahead; it isn't
enough simply to be complacent. We have to move ahead in order to stay ahead. And that
is why, in this field I have made recommendations which I am confident will move the
American economy ahead, move it firmly and soundly so that there will never be a time
when the Soviet Union will be able to challenge our superiority in this field.
And so we need military strength. We need economic strength. We also need the right
diplomatic policies. What are they? Again we turn to the past. Firmness but no
belligerence, and by "no belligerence" I mean that we do not answer insult by insult.
When you are proud and confident of your strength, you do not get down to the level of
Mr. Khrushchev and his colleagues.
And that example that President Eisenhower has set we will continue to follow.
But all this by itself, is not enough. It is not enough for us simply to be the strongest nation
militarily, the strongest economically and also to have firm diplomacy.
We must have a great goal, and that is: Not just to keep freedom for ourselves but to extend
it to all the world. To extend it to all the world because that is America's destiny. To extend
it to all the world because the Communist aim is not to hold their own but to extend
communism. And you cannot fight a victory for communism or a strategy of victory for
communism with a strategy simply of holding the line.
And so I say that we believe that our policies of military strength, of economic strength, of
diplomatic firmness first will keep the peace and keep it without surrender.
We also believe that in the great field of ideals that we can lead America to the victory for
freedom, victory in the newly developing countries, victory also in the captive countries,
provided we have faith in ourselves and faith in our principles.
MR. HOWE. Now the opening statement of Senator Kennedy.
MR. KENNEDY. Mr. Howe, Mr. Vice President, first let me again try to correct the record
on the matter of Quemoy and Matsu. I voted for the Formosa resolution in 1955. I have
sustained it since then. I have said that I agree with the administration policy. Mr. Nixon
earlier indicated that he would defend Quemoy and Matsu even if the attack on these
islands, 2 miles off the coast of China, were not part of a general attack an Formosa and the
Pescadores. I indicated that I would defend those islands if the attack were directed against
Pescadores and Formosa, which is part of the Eisenhower policy. I have supported that
policy.
In the last week, as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I reread the
testimony of General Twining representing the administration in 1959, and the Assistant
Secretary of State before the Foreign Relations Committee in 1958, and I have accurately
described the administration policy, and I support it wholeheartedly. So that really isn't an
issue in this campaign. It isn't an issue with Mr. Nixon, who now says that he also supports
the Eisenhower policy.
Nor is the question that all Americans want peace and security an issue in this campaign.
The question is: Are we moving in the direction of peace and security? Is our relative
strength growing? Is--as Mr. Nixon says--our prestige at an alltime high, as he said a week
ago, and that of the Communists at an alltime low? I don't believe it is. I don't believe that
our relative strength is increasing, and I say that not as a Democratic standard bearer, but as
a citizen of the United States who is concerned about the United States.
I look at Cuba, 90 miles off the coast of the United States. In 1957 I was in Havana. I
talked to the American Ambassador there. He said that he was the second most powerful
man in Cuba, and yet even though Ambassador Smith and Ambassador Gardner, both
Republican Ambassadors, both warned of Castro, the Marxist influences around Castro, the
Communist influences around Castro, both of them have testified in the last 6 weeks, that
in spite of their warnings to the American Government, nothing was done.
Our security depends upon Latin America. Can any American, looking at the situation in
Latin America, feel contented with what's happening today, when a candidate for the
Presidency of Brazil feels it necessary to call, not on Washington during the campaign, but
on Castro in Havana, in order to pick up the support of the Castro supporters in Brazil?
At the American Conference--Inter-American Conference this summer, when we wanted
them to join together in the denunciation of Castro and the Cuban Communists, we couldn't
even get the Inter-American group to join together in denouncing Castro. It was rather a
vague statement that they finally made.
Do you know today that the Comm--the Russians broadcast 10 times as many programs in
Spanish to Latin America as we do?
Do you know we don't have a single program sponsored by our Government to Cuba, to
tell them our story, to tell them that we are their friends, that we want them to be free
again?
Africa is now the emerging area of the world. It contains 25 percent of all the members of
the General Assembly. We didn't even have a Bureau of African Affairs until 1957. In the
Africa, south of the Sahara, which is the major new section, we have less students from all
of Africa in that area studying under Government auspices today than from the country of
Thailand. If there's one thing Africa needs, it's technical assistance, and yet last year we
gave them less than 5 percent of all the technical assistance funds that we distributed
around the world. We relied in the Middle East on the Baghdad Pact, and yet when the
Iraqi Government was changed, the Baghdad Pact broke down.
We relied on the Eisenhower Doctrine for the Middle East which passed the Senate. There
isn't one country in the Middle East that now endorses the Eisenhower Doctrine.
We look to Euro--to Asia, because the struggle is in the underdeveloped world. Which
system, communism or freedom, will triumph in the next 5 or 10 years? That's what should
concern us, not the history of 10 or 15 or 20 years ago. But are we doing enough in these
areas? What are freedom's chances in those areas?
By 1965 or 1970 will there be other Cubas in Latin America? Will Guinea and Ghana,
which have now voted with the Communists frequently as newly independent countries of
Africa, will there be others? Will the Congo go Communist? Will other countries? Are we
doing enough in that area?
And what about Asia? Is India going to win the economic struggle or is China going to win
it? Who will dominate Asia in the next 5 or 10 years? Communism? The Chinese? Or will
freedom?
The question which we have to decide as Americans: Are we doing enough today? Is our
strength and prestige rising? Do people want to be identified with us? Do they want to
follow the United States leadership? I don't think they do enough. And that's what concerns
me.
In Africa these countries that have newly joined the United Nations, on the question of
admission of Red China, only two countries in all of Africa voted with us: Liberia and the
Union of South Africa. The rest either abstained or voted against us. More countries in
Asia voted against us on that question than voted with us.
I believe that this struggle is going to go on and it may be well decided in the next decade.
I have seen Cuba go to the Communists. I have seen Communist influence and Castro
influence rise in Latin America. I have seen us ignore Africa. There are six countries in
Africa that are members of the United Nations. There isn't a single American diplomatic
representative in any of those six.
When Guinea became independent, the Soviet Ambassador showed up that very day. We
didn't recognize them for 2 months; the American Ambassador didn't show up for nearly 8
months. I believe that the world is changing fast, and I don't think this administration has
shown the foresight, has shown the knowledge, has been identified with the great fight
which these people are waging to be free, to get a better standard of living, to live better.
The average income in some of those countries is $25 a year. The Communists say, "Come
with us; look what we've done." And we've been, on the whole, uninterested.
I think we're going to have to do better. Mr. Nixon talks about our being the strongest
country in the world. I think we are today, but we were far stronger relative to the
Communists 5 years ago, and what is of great concern is that the balance of power is in
danger of moving with them.
They made a breakthrough in missiles, and by 1961, '2, and '3, they will be outnumbering
us in missiles.
I'm not as confident as he is that we will be the strongest military power by 1963.
He talks about economic growth as a great indicator of freedom. I agree with him. What we
do in this country, the kind of society that we build: That will tell whether freedom will be
sustained around the world and yet in the last 9 months of this year we've had a drop in our
economic growth rather than a gain.
We've had the lowest rate of increase of economic growth in the last 9 months of any major
industrialized society in the world.
I look up and see the Soviet flag on the moon. The fact is that the State Department polls
on our prestige and influence around the world have shown such a sharp drop that up till
now the State Department has been unwilling to release them and yet they were polled by
the USIA.
The point of all this is: This is a struggle in which we're engaged. We want peace. We want
freedom. We want security. We want to be stronger. We want freedom to gain. But I don't
believe, in these changing and revolutionary times, this administration has known that the
world is changing, has identified itself with that change.
I think the Communists have been moving with vigor. Laos, Africa, Cuba--all around the
world they're on the move. I think we have to revita1ize our society. I think we have to
demonstrate to the people of the world that we're determined in this free country of ours to
be first--not first "if" and not first "but" and not first "when" but first.
And when we are strong and when we are first, then freedom gains. Then the prospects for
peace increase. Then the prospects for our society gain.
MR. HOWE. That completes the opening statements. Now the candidates will answer and
comment upon questions put by these four correspondents: Frank Singiser of Mutual News,
John Edwards of ABC News, Walter Cronkite of CBS News, John Chancellor of NBC
News.
Frank Singiser has the first question for Vice President Nixon.
MR. SINGISER. Mr. Vice President, I'd like to pin down the difference between the way
you would handle Castro's regime and prevent the establishment of Communist
governments in the Western Hemisphere and the way that t Senator Kennedy would
proceed. Vice President Nixon, in what important respects do you feel there are differences
between you, and why do you believe your policy is better for the peace and security of the
United States and the Western Hemisphere?
MR. NIXON. Our policies are very different. I think that Senator Kennedy's policies and
recommendations for the handling of the Castro regime are probably the most dangerously
irresponsible recommendations that he's made during the course of this campaign. In effect,
what Senator Kennedy recommends is that the United States Government should give help
to the exiles and to those within Cuba who oppose the Castro regime, provided they are
anti-Batista.
Now let's just see what this means. We have five treaties with Latin America, including the
one setting up the Organization of American States in Bogota in 1948, in which we have
agreed not to intervene in the internal affairs of any other American country, and they as
well have agreed to do likewise.
The charter of the United Nations, its preamble, Article I and Article II also provide that
there shall be no intervention by one nation in the internal affairs of another. Now I don't
know what Senator Kennedy suggests when he says that we should help those who oppose
the Castro regime both in Cuba and without. But I do know this, that if we were to follow
that recommendation that we would lose all of our friends in Latin America, we would
probably be condemned in the United Nations, and we would not accomplish our objective.
I know something else. It would be an open invitation for Mr. Khrushchev to come in, to
come into Latin America and to engage us in what would be a civil war, and possibly even
worse than that.
This is the major recommendation that he's made. Now, what can we do? We can do what
we did with Guatemala. There was a Communist dictator that we inherited from the
previous administration. We quarantined Mr. Arbenz. The result was that the Guatemalan
people themselves eventually rose up and they threw him out. We are quarantining Mr.
Castro today. We are quarantining him diplomatically by bringing back our Ambassador;
economically by cutting off trade--and Senator Kennedy's suggestion that the trade that we
cut off is not significant is just 100 percent wrong. We are cutting off the significant items
that the Cuban regime needs in order to survive. By cutting off trade, by cutting off our
diplomatic relations as we have, we will quarantine this regime so that the people of Cuba
themselves will take care of Mr. Castro. But for us to do what Senator Kennedy has
suggested, would bring results which I know he would not want and certainly which the
American people would not want.
MR. KENNEDY. Mr. Nixon shows himself misinformed. He surely must be aware that
most of the equipment and arms and resources for Castro came from the United States,
flowed out of Florida and other parts of the United States to Castro in the mountains. There
isn't any doubt about that, No. 1.
No. 2, I believe that if any economic sanctions against Latin America are going to be
successful, they have to be multilateral, they have to include the other countries of Latin
America. The very minute effect of the action which has been taken this week on Cuba's
economy, I believe Castro can replace those markets very easily through Latin America,
through Europe, and through Eastern Europe. If the United States had stronger prestige and
influence in Latin America it could persuade, as Franklin Roosevelt did in 1940, the
countries of Latin America to join in an economic quarantine of Castro. That's the only way
you can bring real economic pressure on the Castro regime and also the countries of
Western Europe, Canada, Japan, and the others.
No. 3, Castro is only the beginning of our difficulties throughout Latin America. The big
struggle will be to prevent the influence of Castro spreading to other countries--Mexico,
Panama, Bolivia, Colombia. We're going to have to try to provide closer ties to associate
ourselves with the great desire of these people for a better life if we're going to prevent
Castro's influence from spreading throughout all of Latin America. His influence is strong
enough today to prevent us from getting the other countries of Latin America to join with
us in economic quarantine. His influence is growing, mostly because this administration
has ignored Latin America. You yourself said, Mr. Vice President, a month ago, that if we
had provided the kind of economic aid 5 years ago that we are now providing, we might
never have had Castro. Why didn't we?
MR. HOWE. John Edwards has his first question for Senator Kennedy.
MR. EDWARDS. Senator Kennedy, one test of a new President's leadership will be the
caliber of his appointments. It's a matter of interest here and overseas as to who will be the
new Secretary of State. Now under our rules I must ask this question of you but I would
hope that the Vice President also would answer it.
Will you give us the names of three or four Americans, each of whom, if appointed, would
serve with distinction in your judgment as Secretary of State?
MR. KENNEDY. Mr. Edwards, I don't think it's a wise idea for Presidential candidates to
appoint the members of his cabinet prospectively or suggest four people and indicate that
one of them surely will be appointed. This is a decision that the President of the United
States must make. The last candidate who indicated that--who his Cabinet was going to be,
was Mr. Dewey in 1948. This is a race between the Vice President and myself for the
Presidency of the United States. There are a good many able men who could be Secretary
of State. I have made no judgment about who should be the Secretary of State. I think that
judgment could be made after election if I am successful. The people have to make a choice
between Mr. Nixon and myself, between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party,
between our approach to the problems which now disturb us as a nation and disturb us as a
world power. The President bears the constitutional responsibility, not the Secretary of
State, for the conduct of foreign affairs.
Some Presidents have been strong in foreign policy. Others have relied heavily on the
Secretary of State. I have been a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I
have run for the Presidency with full knowledge that his great responsibility really given to
him by the Constitution and by the force of events is in the field of foreign affairs. I'm
asking the people's support as President; we will select the best man we can get, but I have
not made a judgment and I have not narrowed down a list of three or four people among
whom would be the candidate.
MR. HOWE. Mr. Vice President, do you have a comment?
MR. NIXON. Well Mr. Edwards, as you probably know, I have consistently answered all
questions with regard to who will be in the next Cabinet by saying that that is the
responsibility of the next President and it would be inappropriate to make any decisions on
that or to announce any prior to the time that I had the right to do so. So that is my answer
to this question.
If you don't mind, I would like to use the balance of the time to respond to one of the
comments that Senator Kennedy made on the previous question. He was talking about the
Castro regime and what we had been doing in Latin America. I would like to point out that
when we look at our programs in Latin America, we find that we have appropriated five
times as much for Latin America as was appropriated by the previous administration. We
find that we have $2 billion more for the Export-Import Bank. We have a new bank for
Latin America alone of a billion dollars. We have the new program which was submitted at
the Bogota Conference, this new program that President Eisenhower submitted, approved
by the last Congress for $500 million. We have moved in Latin America very effectively,
and I'd also like to point this out. Senator Kennedy complains very appropriately about our
inadequate radio broadcasts for Latin America. Let me point out again that his Congress,
the Democratic Congress, has cut $80 million off of the Voice of America appropriations.
Now, he has to get a better job out of his Congress if he's going to get us the money that we
need to conduct the foreign affairs of this country in Latin America or any place else.
MR. HOWE. Walter Cronkite, you have your first question for Vice President Nixon.
MR. CRONKITE. Thank you Quincy. Mr. Vice President, Senator Fulbright and now
tonight Senator Kennedy maintain that the administration is suppressing a report by the
United States Information Agency that shows a decline in United States prestige overseas.
Are you aware of such a report, and if you are aware of the existence of such a report,
should not that report because of the great importance this issue has been given in this
campaign, be released to the public?
MR. NIXON. Mr. Cronkite, I naturally am aware of it because I, of course, pay attention to
everything Senator Kennedy says, as well as Senator Fulbright.
Now, in this connection I want to point out that the facts simply aren't as stated. First of all,
the report to which Senator Kennedy refers is one that was made many, many months ago
and related particularly to the period immediately after Sputnik.
Second, as far as this report is concerned, I would have no objection to having it made
public.
Third, I would say this with regard to this report, with regard to Gallup Polls of prestige
abroad and everything else that we've been hearing about "what about American prestige
abroad?"
America's prestige abroad will be just as high as the spokesmen for America allow it to be.
Now, when we have a Presidential candidate--for example, Senator Kennedy--stating over
and over again that the United States is second in space, and the fact of the matter is that
the space score today is 28 to 8; we've had 28 successful shots; they've had 8. When he
states that we are second in education, and I have seen Soviet education and I've seen ours,
and we're not. That we're second in science because they may be ahead in one area or
another, when overall we're way ahead of the Soviet Union and all other countries in
science. When he says, as he did in January of this year, that we have the worst slums, that
we have the most crowded schools, when he says that 17 million people go to bed hungry
every night--when he makes statements like this, what does this do to American prestige?
Well, it can only have the effect, certainly, of reducing it.
Now, let me make one thing clear. Senator Kennedy has a responsibility to criticize those
things that are wrong but he has also a responsibility to be right in his criticisms.
Every one of these items that I have mentioned he's been wrong--dead wrong. And for that
reason he has contributed to any lack of prestige.
Finally, let me say this: As far as prestige is concerned, the first place it would show up
would be in the United Nations. Now Senator Kennedy has referred to the vote on
Communist China. Let's look at the vote on Hungary. There we got more votes for
condemning Hungary and looking into that situation than we got the last year.
Let's look at the reaction to Khrushchev and Eisenhower at the last U.N. session. Did
Khrushchev gain because he took his shoe off and pounded the table and shouted and
insulted? Not at all. The President gained.
America gained by continuing the dignity, the decency that has characterized us and it's
that that keeps the prestige of America up--not running down America the way Senator
Kennedy has been running her down.
MR. HOWE. Comment, Senator Kennedy?
MR. KENNEDY. I really don't need Mr. Nixon to tell me about what my responsibilities
are as a citizen. I've served this country for 14 years in the Congress and before that in the
service. I have just as high a devotion, and just as high an opinion. What I downgrade, Mr.
Nixon, is the leadership the country is getting, not the country. Now, I didn't make most of
the statements that you said I made. I believe the Soviet Union is first in outer space. We
may have made more shots, but the size of their rocket thrust and all the rest--you, yourself,
said to Khrushchev, "You may be ahead of us in rocket thrust but we're ahead of you in
color television" in your famous discussion in the kitchen.
I think that color television is not as important as rocket thrust.
Secondly, I didn't say we had the worst slums in the world. I said we had too many slums,
that they are bad and we ought to do something about them and we ought to support
housing legislation which this administration has opposed. I didn't say we had the worst
education in the world. What I said was that 10 years ago, we were producing twice as
many scientists and engineers as the Soviet Union, and today they're producing twice as
many as we are and that this affects our security around the world.
And fourth, I believe that the polls and other studies and votes in the United Nations and
anyone reading the paper and any citizen of the United States must come to the conclusion
that the United States no longer carries the same image of a vital society, on the move, with
its brightest days ahead as it carried a decade or two decades ago.
Part of that is because we've stood still here at home. Because we haven't met our problems
in the United States. Because we haven't had a moving economy. Part of that, as the Gallup
Poll showed, is because the Soviet Union made a breakthrough in outer space. Mr. George
Allen, head of your Information Services, said that that made the people of the world begin
to wonder whether we were first in science. We are first in other areas of science but in
space, which is the new science, we're not first.
MR. HOWE. John Chancellor, your first question for Senator Kennedy.
MR. CHANCELLOR. Senator, another question in connection with our relations with the
Russians. There have been stories from Washington from the Atomic Energy Commission
hinting that the Russians may have resumed the testing of nuclear devices. Now sir, if this
is true, should the United States resume nuclear testing? And if the Russians do not start
testing, can you foresee any circumstances in 1961 in which the United States might
resume its own series of tests?
MR. KENNEDY. Yes, I think the next President of the United States should make one last
effort to secure an agreement on the cessation of tests--No. 1. I think we should go back to
Geneva--whoever's elected President, Mr. Nixon or myself, and try once again. If we fail
then, if we're unable to come to an agreement, and I hope we can come to an agreement
because it does not merely involve now the United States, Britain, France, and the Soviet
Union as atomic powers. Because new breakthroughs in atomic energy technology, there's
some indications that by the time the next President's term of office has come to an end,
there may be 10, 15, or 20 countries with an atomic capacity, perhaps that many testing
bombs with all the effect that it could have on the atmosphere and with all the chances that
more and more countries will have an atomic capacity, with more and more chance of war.
So, one more effort should be made. I don't think that even if that effort fails that it will be
necessary to carry on tests in the atmosphere which pollute the atmosphere.
They can be carried out underground, they could be carried on in outer space. But I believe
the effort should be made once more by whoever's elected President of the United States. If
we fail, it's been a great serious failure for everyone, for the human race. I hope we can
succeed. But then if we fail responsibility will be clearly on the Russians and then we'll
have to meet our responsibilities to the security of the United States, and there may have to
be testing underground, if the Atomic Energy Committee is prepared for it. There may be
testing in outer space. I hope it will not be necessary for any power to resume testing in the
atmosphere. It's possible to detect those kind of tests. The kind of tests which you can't
detect are underground or in--perhaps in outer space.
So that I'm hopeful we can try once more. If we fail, then we must meet our responsibilities
to ourselves.
But I'm most concerned about the whole problem of the spread of atomic weapons. China
may have it by 1963--Egypt--war has been the constant companion of mankind. So, to have
these weapons disseminated around the world, I believe, means that we're going to move
through a period of hazard in the next few years. We ought to make one last effort.
MR. HOWE. Any comment, Mr. Vice President?
MR. NIXON. Yes. I would say, first of all, that we must have in mind the fact that we have
been negotiating to get tests inspected and to get an agreement for many, many months. As
a matter of fact, there's been a moratorium on testing as a result of the fact that we have
been negotiating. I've reached the conclusion that the Soviet Union is actually filibustering.
I've reached the conclusion, too, based on the reports that have been made that they may be
cheating. I don't think we can wait until the next President is inaugurated and then selects a
new team and then all the months of negotiating that will take place before we reach a
decision. I think that immediately after this election we should set a timetable--the next
President, working with the present President, President Eisenhower--a timetable to break
the Soviet filibuster.
There should be no tests in the atmosphere. That rules out any fallout. But as far as
underground tests for developing peaceful uses of atomic energy, we should not allow this
Soviet filibuster to continue. I think it's time for them to fish or cut bait.
I think that the next President, immediately after his election should sit down with the
President, work out a timetable, and get a decision on this before January of next year.
MR. HOWE. Our second round of questions begins with one from Mr. Edwards for the
Vice President.
MR. EDWARDS. Mr. Nixon, carrying forward this business about a timetable, as you
know, the pressures are increasing for a summit conference. Now, both you and Senator
Kennedy have said that there are certain conditions which must be met before you would
meet with Khrushchev. Will you be more specific about these conditions?
MR. NIXON. Well, the conditions I laid out in one of our previous television debates, and
it's rather difficult to be much more specific than that.
First of all, we have to have adequate preparation for a summit conference. This means at
the Secretary of State level and at the ambassadorial level. By adequate preparation I mean
that at that level we must prepare an agenda, an agenda agreed upon with the approval of
the heads of state involved. Now, this agenda should delineate those issues on which there
is a possibility of some agreement or negotiation. I don't believe we should go to a summit
conference unless we have such an agenda, unless we have some reasonable assurance
from Mr. Khrushchev that he intends seriously to negotiate on those points.
Now this may seem like a rigid, inflexible position. But let's look at the other side of the
coin. If we build up the hopes of the world by having a summit conference that is not
adequately prepared, and then, if Mr. Khrushchev finds some excuse for breaking it up, as
he did this one, because he isn't going to get his way, we set back the cause of peace. We
do not help it.
We can, in other words, negotiate many of these items of difference between us without
going to the summit. I think we have to make a greater effort than we have been making at
the Secretary of State level, at the ambassadorial level, to work out the differences that we
have.
And so far as the summit conference is concerned, it should only be entered in upon, it
should only be agreed upon, if the negotiations have reached a point that we have some
reasonable assurance that something is going to come out of it, other than some "phony
spirit," a spirit of Geneva, or Camp David, or whatever it is. When I say "phony spirit," I
mean phony, not because the spirit is not good on our side, but because the Soviet Union
simply doesn't intend to carry out what they say.
Now, these are the conditions that I can lay out. I could not be more precise than that,
because until we see what Mr. Khrushchev does and what he says, we cannot indicate what
our plans will be.
MR. HOWE. Any comments, Senator Kennedy?
MR. KENNEDY. Well, I think the President of the United States last winter indicated that
before he'd go to the summit in May, as he did last fall, he indicated that there should be
some agenda, that there should be some prior agreement. He hoped that there would be uh -
b- be an agreement in part in disarmament. He also expressed the hope that there should be
some understanding of the general situation in Berlin. The Soviet Union refused to agree to
that, and we went to the summit and it was disastrous.
I believe we should not go to the summit until there is some reason to believe that a
meeting of minds can be obtained on either Berlin, outer space, or general disarmament,
including nuclear testing. In addition, I believe the next President in January and February
should go to work in building the strength of the United States. The Soviet Union does
understand strength. "We arm to parley," Winston Churchill said 10 years ago. If we are
strong, particularly as we face a crisis over Berlin, which we may in the spring or in the
winter, it's important that we maintain our determination here, that we indicate that we're
building our strength, that we are determined to protect our position, that we're determined
to protect our commitments, and then I believe we should indicate our desire to live at
peace with the world.
But until we're strong here, until we're moving here, I believe a summit could not be
successful. I hope that before we do meet, there will be preliminary agreements on those
four questions, or at least two of them, or even one of them, which would warrant such a
meeting.
I think if we had stuck by that position last winter, we would have been in a better position
in May.
MR. HOWE. We have time for only one or two more questions before the closing
statements. Now Walter Cronkite's question for Senator Kennedy.
MR. CRONKITE. Senator, the charge has been made frequently that the United States for
many years has been on the defensive around the world, that our policy has been one of
reaction to the Soviet Union rather than positive action on our own. What areas do you see
where the United States might take the offensive in a challenge to Communism over the
next 4 to 8 years?
MR. KENNEDY. One of the areas, and, of course, the most vulnerable area, I have felt,
has been Eastern Europe. I've been critical of the administration's failure to suggest policies
which would make it possible for us to establish, for example, closer relations with Poland,
particularly after the '55-'56 period and the Hungarian revolution. We indicated at that time
that we were not going to intervene militarily, but there was a period there when Poland
demonstrated a national independence, and even the Polish Government moved some diff--
distance away from the Soviet Union. I suggested that we amend our legislation so that we
could enjoy closer economic ties. We received the support first of the administration, and
then not, and were defeated by one vote in the Senate. We passed a bill in the Senate this
year, but it didn't pass the House. I would say Eastern Europe is the area of vulnerability of
the Soviet Union.
Secondly, the relations between Russia and China. They are now engaged in a debate over
whether war is the means of Communizing the world or whether they should use
subversion, infiltration, economic struggles and all the rest. No one can say what that
course of action will be, but I think the next President of the United States should watch it
carefully. If those two powers should split, it could have great effects throughout the entire
world.
Thirdly, I believe that India represents a great area for affirmative action by the free world.
India started from about the same place that China did. Chinese Communists have been
moving ahead the last 10 years. India, under a free society, has been making some
progress, but if India does not succeed with her 450 million people she can't make freedom
work, then people around the world are going to determine, particularly in the
underdeveloped world, that the only way that they can develop their resources is through
the Communist system.
Fourth, let me say that in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe, the great force on
our side is the desire of people to be free. This has expressed itself in the revolts in Eastern
Europe; it's expressed itself in the desire of the people of Africa to be independent of
Western Europe. They want to be free.
And my judgment is that they don't want to give their freedom up to become Communists.
They want to stay free, independent perhaps of us, but certainly independent of the
Communists. And I believe if we identify ourselves with that force, if we identify ourselves
with it as Lincoln--as Wilson did, as Franklin Roosevelt did, if we become known as the
friend of freedom, sustaining freedom, helping freedom, helping these people in the fight
against poverty and ignorance and disease, helping them build their lives. I believe in Latin
America, Africa, and Asia, eventually in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, certainly in
Western Europe, we can strengthen freedom, we can make it move, we can put the
Communists on the defensive.
MR. HOWE. Your comment, Mr. Vice President?
MR. NIXON. First, with regard to Poland, when I talked to Mr. Gomulka, the present
leader of Poland, for 6 hours in Warsaw last year, I learned something about their problems
and particularly his. Right under the Soviet gun, with Soviet troops there, he is in a very
difficult position in taking anything independent--a position which would be independent
of the Soviet Union. And yet, let's just see what we've done for Poland. A half a billion
dollars worth of aid has gone to Poland, primarily economic, primarily to go to the people
of Poland.
This should continue, and it can be stepped up, to give them hope and to keep alive the
hope for freedom that I can testify they have so deeply within them.
In addition we can have more exchange with Poland or with any other of the Iron Curtain
countries, which show some desire to take a different path than the path that has been taken
by the ones that are complete satellites of the Soviet Union.
Now, as far as the balance of the world is concerned, I, of course don't have as much time
as Senator Kennedy had, I would just like to add this one point. If we are going to have the
initiative in the world, we must remember that the people of Africa and Asia and Latin
America don't want to be pawns simply in a struggle between two great powers, the Soviet
Union and the United States. We have to let them know that we want to help them, not
because we're simply trying to save our own skins, not because we're simply trying to fight
communism, but because we care for them, because we stand for freedom, because if there
were no communism in the world we would still fight poverty, and misery, and disease,
and tyranny. If we can get that across to the people of these countries in this decade of the
sixties the struggle for freedom will be won.
MR. HOWE. John Chancellor's question for Vice President Nixon.
MR. CHANCELLOR. Sir, I'd like to ask you another question about Quemoy and Matsu.
Both you and Senator Kennedy say you agree with the President on this subject and with
our treaty obligations, but the subject remains in the campaign as an issue. Now, sir, is this
because each of you feels obliged to respond to the other when he talks about Quemoy and
Matsu? And if that's true, do you think an end should be called to this discussion, or will it
stay with us as a campaign issue?
MR. NIXON. I would say that the issue will stay with us as a campaign issue just as long
as Senator Kennedy persists in what I think is a fundamental error. He says he supports the
President's position. He says that he voted for the resolution. Well, just let me point this
out; he voted for the resolution in 1955 which gave the President the power to use the
forces of the United States to defend Formosa and the offshore islands. But he also voted
then for an amendment, which was lost, fortunately, an amendment which would have
drawn a line and left out those islands and denied right to the President to defend those
islands if he thought that it was an attack on Formosa.
He repeated that error in 1959 in the speech that he made. He repeated it again in a
television debate that we had.
Now, my point is this: Senator Kennedy has got to be consistent here. Either he's for the
President and he's against the position that those who opposed the President in '55 and '59--
and the Senator's position itself stated the other day in our debate-- either he is for the
President and against that position, or we simply have a disagreement here that must
continue to be debated.
Now, if the Senator in his answer to this question will say "I now will depart, or retract my
previous views; I think I was wrong in I 955; I think I was wrong in 1959; and I think I was
wrong in our television debate, to say that we should draw a line, leaving out Quemoy and
Matsu, draw a line in effect abandoning these islands to the Communists," then this will be
right out of the campaign, because there will be no issue between us.
I support the President's position. I have always opposed drawing a line. I have opposed
drawing a line because I know that the moment you draw a line, that is an encouragement
for the Communists to attack, to step up their blackmail and to force you into the war that
none of us want.
And so I would hope that Senator Kennedy in his answer today would clear it up. It isn't
enough for him to say "I support the President's position, that I voted for the resolution." Of
course he voted for the resolution. It was virtually unanimous. But the point is, what about
his error in voting for the amendment, which was not adopted? And then persisting in it in
'59, persisting in it in the debate?
It's very simple for him to clear it up. He can say now that he no longer believes that a line
should be drawn leaving these islands out of the perimeter of defense. If he says that, this
issue will not be discussed in the campaign.
MR. HOWE. Senator Kennedy, your comment?
MR. KENNEDY. Well, Mr. Nixon, to go back to 1955, the resolution commits the
President and the United States, which I supported, to defend Formosa, the Pescadores, and
if it was his military judgment, these islands. Then the President sent a mission composed
of Admiral Radford and Mr. Robertson to persuade Chiang Kai-shek in the spring of '55 to
withdraw from the two islands because they were exposed. The President was
unsuccessful; Chiang Kai-shek would not withdraw.
I referred to the fact that in 1958, as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
I am very familiar with the position that the United States took in negotiating with the
Chinese Communists on these two islands. General Twining in January '59 described the
position of the United States. The position of the United States has been that this buildup,
in the words of the President has been foolish. Mr. Herter has said these islands are
indefensible. Chiang Kai-shek will not withdraw. Because he will not withdraw, because
he's committed to these islands, because we've been unable to persuade him to withdraw,
we are in a very difficult position, and therefore the President's judgment has been that we
should defend the islands if in his military judgment and the judgment of the commander in
the field, the attack on these islands should be part of an overall attack on Formosa.
I support that, in view of the difficulties we've had with the islands, in view of the
difficulties and disputes we've had with Chiang Kai-shek. That's the only position we can
take. That's not the position you took, however. The first position you took, when this
matter first came up was that we should draw the line and commit ourselves as a matter of
principle to defend these islands, not as part of the defense of Formosa and the Pescadores.
You showed no recognition of the administration program to try to persuade Chiang Kai-
shek for the last 5 years to withdraw from the islands. And I challenge you tonight to deny
that the administration has sent at least several missions to persuade Chiang Kai-shek's
withdrawal from these islands.
MR. HOWE. Under the agreed--
MR. KENNEDY. (continuing). . . and that's the testimony of General Twining and the
Assistant Secretary of State in '58t.
MR. HOWE. Under the agreed rules, gentlemen, we've exhausted the time for questions.
Each candidate will now have 4 minutes and 30 seconds for his closing statement. Senator
Kennedy will make the first final closing statement.
MR. KENNEDY. I said that I've served this country for 14 years. I served it in the war. I
am devoted to it. If I lose this election, I will continue in the Senate to try to build a
stronger country. But I run because I believe this year the United States has a great
opportunity to make a move forward, to make a determination here at home and around the
world, that it's going to reestablish itself as a vigorous society.
My judgment is that the Republican party has stood still here in the United States, and it's
also stood still around the world. We're using about 50 percent of our steel capacity today.
We had a recession in '58. We had a recession in '54. We're not moving ahead in education
the way we should. We didn't make a judgment in '57, in '56, in '55, in '54 that outer space
would be important. If we stand still here, if we appoint people to ambassadorships and
positions in Washington who have a status quo outlook, who don't recognize that this is a
revolutionary time, then the United States does not maintain its influence. And if we fail,
the cause of freedom fails. I believe it incumbent upon the next President of the United
States to get this country moving again, to get our economy moving ahead, to set before the
American people its goals, its unfinished business, and then throughout the world appoint
the best people we can get, ambassadors who can speak the language, not merely people
who made a political contribution, but who can speak the language, bring students here; let
them see what kind of a country we have. Mr. Nixon said that we should not regard them as
pawns in the cold war, we should identify ourselves with them. If that were true why didn't
we identify ourselves with the people of Africa? Why didn't we bring students over here?
Why did we suddenly offer Congo 300 students last June when they had the tremendous
revolt? That was more than we had offered to all of Africa before from the Federal
Government. I believe that this party, Republican party, has stood still really for 25 years;
its leadership has. It opposed all of the programs of President Roosevelt and other, for
minimum wage, and for housing, and economic growth, and development of our natural
resources, the Tennessee Valley and all the rest. And, I believe that if we can get a party
which believes in movement, which believes in going ahead, then we can reestablish our
position in the world, strong in defense, strong in economic growth, justice for our people,
guarantee of constitutional rights, so that people will believe that we practice what we
preach. And then around the world, particularly to try to reestablish the atmosphere which
existed in Latin America at the time of Franklin Roosevelt. He was a good neighbor in
Latin America because he was a good neighbor in the United States, because they saw us
as a society that was compassionate, that cared about people, that was moving this country
ahead.
I believe it my responsibility as the leader of the Democratic party in 1960 to try to warn
the American people that in this crucial time we can no longer afford to stand still. We can
no longer afford to be second best.
I want people all over the world to look to the United States again, to feel that we're on the
move, to feel that our high noon is in the future. I want Mr. Khrushchev to know that a new
generation of Americans who fought in Europe and Italy and the Pacific for freedom in
World War II have now taken over in the United States, and that they're going to put this
country back to work again. I don't believe that there is anything this country cannot do. I
don't believe there's any burden, or any responsibility, that any American would not assume
to protect his country, to protect our security, to advance the cause of freedom. And I
believe it incumbent upon us now to do that.
Franklin Roosevelt said in 1936 that that generation of Americans had a "rendezvous with
destiny." I believe in 1960 and '61e and '2 and '3 we have a "rendezvous with destiny." And
I believe it incumbent upon us to be the defenders of the United States and the defenders of
freedom; and to do that, we must give this country leadership and we must get America
moving again.
MR. HOWE. Now, Vice President Nixon, your closing statement.
MR. NIXON. Well, Senator Kennedy has said tonight again what he has said several times
in the course of these debates and in the campaig: that America is standing still. America is
not standing still; it has not been standing still. And let's set the record straight right now by
looking at the record, as Al Smith used to say. He talks about housing. We built more
houses in the last 7 years than in any administration, and 30 percent more than in the
previous administration. We talk about schools. Three times as many classrooms built in
the past administration in Eisenhower than under the Truman administration.
Let's talk about civil rights; more progress in the past 8 years than in the whole 80 years
before.
He talks about the progress in the field of slum clearance and the like. We find four times
as many projects undertaken and completed in this administration than in the previous one.
Anybody that says America has been standing still for the last 7 1/2 years hasn't been
traveling in America. He's been in some other country. Let's get that straight right away.
Now, the second point we have to understand is this, however, America has not been
standing still. But America cannot stand pat. We can't stand pat for the reason that we're in
a race, as I have indicated.
We can't stand pat because it is essential with the conflict that we have around the world,
that we not just hold our own; that we not keep just freedom for ourselves. It is essential
that we extend freedom--extend it to all the world. And this means more than what we've
been doing. It means keeping America even stronger militarily than she is. It means seeing
that our economy moves forward even faster than it has. It means making more progress in
civil rights than we have so that we can be a splendid example for all the world to see of
democracy in action at its best.
Now, looking at the other parts of the world: South America, talking about our record and
the previous one; we had a good neighbor policy, yes. It sounded fine. But let's look at it.
There were 11 dictators when we came into power in 1953 in Latin America. There are
only three left.
Let's look at Africa. Twenty new countries in Africa during the course of this
administration. Not one of them selected a Communist government. All of them voted for
freedom--a free type of government.
Does this show that communism has the bigger pull, or freedom has the bigger pull? Am I
trying to indicate that we have no problems in Africa or Latin America or Asia? Of course
not.
What I am trying to indicate is that the tide of history is on our side and that we can keep it
on our side because we're on the right side. We're on the side of freedom. We're on the side
of justice, against the forces of slavery, against the forces of injustice.
But we aren't going to move America forward and we aren't going to be able to lead the
world to win this struggle for freedom if we have a permanent inferiority complex about
American achievements. Because we are first in the world in space, as I have indicated. We
are first in science. We are first in education and we're going to move even further ahead
with the kind of leadership that we can provide in these years ahead.
One other point I would make. What could you do? Senator Kennedy and I are candidates
for the Presidency of the United States. And in the years to come it will be written that one
or the other of us was elected and that he was or was not a great President. What will
determine whether Senator Kennedy or I, if I am elected, was a great President? It will not
be our ambition that will determine it, because greatness is not something that is written on
a campaign poster. It will be determined to the extent that we represent the deepest ideals,
the highest feelings and faith of the American people. In other words, the next President, as
he leads America in the free world, can be only as great as the American people are great.
And so I say, in conclusion, keep America's faith strong. See that the young people of
America particularly have faith in the ideals of freedom and faith in God which
distinguishes us from the atheistic materialists who oppose us.
MR. HOWE. Thank you gentlemen. Both candidates have asked me to express their thanks
to the networks for this opportunity to appear on this discussion.
May I repeat that all those concerned in tonight's discussion have sometimes reluctantly
followed the rules and conditions read at the outset and agreed to in advance by the
candidates and the networks.
The opening statements ran 8 minutes each. The closing statements ran 4 minutes 30
seconds. The order of speaking was reversed from their first joint appearance, when they
followed the same procedure. The panel of newsmen questioned each candidate alternately.
Each had 2 1/2 minutes to reply. The other had a minute and a half to comment. But the
first discussion dealt only with domestic policy. This one dealt only with foreign policy.
One last word, as members of a new political generation, Vice President Nixon and Senator
Kennedy have used new means of communication to pioneer a new type of political debate.
The character and courage with which these two men have spoken sets a high standard for
generations to come. Surely, they have set a new precedent. Perhaps they have established
a new tradition.
This is Quincy Howe. Good night from New York.
Acceptance Speech by John F. Kennedy, Hyannis
Armory, Hyannis, Massachusetts, November 8, 1960
This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. No textual copies of the
speech exist at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, and this short speech appears to be at least partly
extemporaneous. This transcription is based on a Boston Globe article from November 9, 1960 and CBS News film
footage housed at the library. Because there is no original textual source available to us, efforts have been made to
follow John F. Kennedy's spoken words as closely as possible. In some cases this has led to apparent errors, where
President-elect Kennedy's grammar becomes somewhat conflicted as he improvises his remarks.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have received the following wire from Vice President Nixon. In that wire he says, "Senator
John F. Kennedy, Hyannis Port, Massachusetts. I want to repeat through this wire the congratulations and best wishes I
extended to you on television last night. I know that you will have united support of all Americans as you lead the nation
in the cause of peace and freedom during the next four years." I reply to the vice president-- I sent him the following
wire: "Vice President Nixon, Los Angeles, California. Your sincere good wishes are gratefully accepted. You are to be
congratulated on a fine race. I know that the nation can continue to count on your unswerving loyalty in whatever effort
you undertake, and that you and I can maintain our long-standing cordial relations in the years ahead. Sincerely, John
Kennedy."
I received also a wire from President Eisenhower which says, "My congratulations to you for the victory you have just
won at the polls. I will be sending you promptly a more comprehensive telegram suggesting certain measures that may
commend themselves to you as you prepare to take over next January the responsibilities of the Presidency. Signed,
Dwight D. Eisenhower.: And I have sent to President Eisenhower the following wire: "I am grateful for your wire and
good wishes. I look forward to working with you in the near future. The whole country is hopeful that your long
experience in the service of your country can be drawn upon further in the years to come. With every good wish, signed,
John Kennedy."
May I say in addition to all citizens of this country, Democrats, independents, Republicans, regardless of how they may
have voted, that it is a satisfying moment to me and I want to express my appreciation to all of them and to Mr. Nixon
personally. I particularly want to thank all of those who worked so long and so hard in this campaign on our behalf and
who were generous to me in my visits throughout the country and who were generous enough to support me in the
election on yesterday. To all Americans I say that the next four years are going to be difficult and challenging years for
all of us. The election may have been a close one, but I think that there is general agreement by all of our citizens that a
supreme national effort will be needed in the years ahead to move this country safely through the 1960s. I ask your help
in this effort and I can assure you that every degree of mind and spirit that I possess will be devoted to the long-range
interests of the United States and to the cause of freedom around the world. So now my wife and I prepare for a new
administration and for a new baby. Thank you.
Address of President-Elect John F.
Kennedy Delivered to a Joint Convention
of the General Court of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
The State House, Boston
January 9, 1961
I have welcomed this opportunity to address this historic body, and, through you, the
people of Massachusetts to whom I am so deeply indebted for a lifetime of friendship and
trust.
For fourteen years I have placed my confidence in the citizens of Massachusetts--and they
have generously responded by placing their confidence in me.
Now, on the Friday after next, I am to assume new and broader responsibilities. But I am
not here to bid farewell to Massachusetts.
For forty-three years--whether I was in London, Washington, the South Pacific, or
elsewhere--this has been my home; and, God willing, wherever I serve this shall remain my
home.
It was here my grandparents were born--it is here I hope my grandchildren will be born.
I speak neither from false provincial pride nor artful political flattery. For no man about to
enter high office in this country can ever be unmindful of the contribution this state has
made to our national greatness.
Its leaders have shaped our destiny long before the great republic was born. Its principles
have guided our footsteps in times of crisis as well as in times of calm. Its democratic
institutions--including this historic body--have served as beacon lights for other nations as
well as our sister states.
For what Pericles said to the Athenians has long been true of this commonwealth: "We do
not imitate--for we are a model to others."
And so it is that I carry with me from this state to that high and lonely office to which I
now succeed more than fond memories of firm friendships. The enduring qualities of
Massachusetts--the common threads woven by the Pilgrim and the Puritan, the fisherman
and the farmer, the Yankee and the immigrant--will not be and could not be forgotten in
this nation's executive mansion.
They are an indelible part of my life, my convictions, my view of the past, and my hopes
for the future.
Allow me to illustrate: During the last sixty days, I have been at the task of constructing an
administration. It has been a long and deliberate process. Some have counseled greater
speed. Others have counseled more expedient tests.
But I have been guided by the standard John Winthrop set before his shipmates on the
flagship Arbella three hundred and thirty-one years ago, as they, too, faced the task of
building a new government on a perilous frontier.
"We must always consider," he said, "that we shall be as a city upon a hill--the eyes of all
people are upon us."
Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us--and our governments, in every branch, at
every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill--constructed and
inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities
For we are setting out upon a voyage in 1961 no less hazardous than that undertaken by the
Arabella in 1630. We are committing ourselves to tasks of statecraft no less awesome than
that of governing the Massachusetts Bay Colony, beset as it was then by terror without and
disorder within.
History will not judge our endeavors--and a government cannot be selected--merely on the
basis of color or creed or even party affiliation. Neither will competence and loyalty and
stature, while essential to the utmost, suffice in times such as these.
For of those to whom much is given, much is required. And when at some future date the
high court of history sits in judgment on each one of us--recording whether in our brief
span of service we fulfilled our responsibilities to the state--our success or failure, in
whatever office we may hold, will be measured by the answers to four questions:
First, were we truly men of courage--with the courage to stand up to one's
enemies--and the courage to stand up, when necessary, to one's associates--the
courage to resist public pressure, as well as private greed?
Secondly, were we truly men of judgment--with perceptive judgment of the future
as well as the past--of our own mistakes as well as the mistakes of others--with
enough wisdom to know that we did not know, and enough candor to admit it?
Third, were we truly men of integrity--men who never ran out on either the
principles in which they believed or the people who believed in them--men who
believed in us--men whom neither financial gain nor political ambition could ever
divert from the fulfillment of our sacred trust?
Finally, were we truly men of dedication--with an honor mortgaged to no single
individual or group, and compromised by no private obligation or aim, but devoted
solely to serving the public good and the national interest.
Courage--judgment--integrity--dedication--these are the historic qualities of the Bay
Colony and the Bay State--the qualities which this state has consistently sent to this
chamber on Beacon Hill here in Boston and to Capitol Hill back in Washington.
And these are the qualities which, with God's help, this son of Massachusetts hopes will
characterize our government's conduct in the four stormy years that lie ahead.
Humbly I ask His help in that undertaking--but aware that on earth His will is worked by
men. I ask for your help and your prayers, as I embark on this new and solemn journey.
Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961

United States Capitol, Washington, D.C.
Date: January 20, 1961
Copyright: Public domain
Credit: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum, Boston, Massachusetts
Transcript
Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice
President Nixon, President Truman, Reverend Clergy, fellow citizens:
We observe today not a victory of party but a celebration of freedom--symbolizing an end
as well as a beginning--signifying renewal as well as change. For I have sworn before you
and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forbears prescribed nearly a century and
three-quarters ago.
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all
forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary
beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the
rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth
from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new
generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and
bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow
undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to
which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear
any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival
and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge--and more.
To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of
faithful friends. United there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures.
Divided there is little we can do--for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and
split asunder.
To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that
one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far
more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we
shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom--and to remember
that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up
inside.
To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of
mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period
is required--not because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes,
but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save
the few who are rich.
To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge--to convert our good
words into good deeds--in a new alliance for progress--to assist free men and free
governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope
cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join
with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every
other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.
To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age
where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our
pledge of support--to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective--to strengthen
its shield of the new and the weak--and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.
Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge
but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of
destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-
destruction.
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond
doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present
course--both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by
the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror
that stays the hand of mankind's final war.
So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness,
and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never
fear to negotiate.
Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which
divide us.
Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection
and control of arms--and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the
absolute control of all nations.
Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us
explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths and encourage
the arts and commerce.
Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah--to "undo the
heavy burdens . . . (and) let the oppressed go free."
And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides
join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law,
where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.
All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first
one thousand days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime
on this planet. But let us begin.
In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine, will rest the final success or failure of
our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been
summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who
answered the call to service surround the globe.
Now the trumpet summons us again--not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need--not
as a call to battle, though embattled we are-- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight
struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"--a struggle against
the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself.
Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and
West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic
effort?
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of
defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this
responsibility--I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with
any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we
bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it--and the glow from that
fire can truly light the world.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can
do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together
we can do for the freedom of man.
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the
same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience
our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the
land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work
must truly be our own.
Statement Upon Signing Order
Establishing the Peace Corps
President John F. Kennedy
March 1, 1961
I have today signed an Executive Order providing for the establishment of a Peace Corps
on a temporary pilot basis. I am also sending to Congress a message proposing
authorization of a permanent Peace Corps. This Corps will be a pool of trained American
men and women sent overseas by the U.S. Government or through private institutions and
organizations to help foreign countries meet their urgent needs for skilled manpower.
It is our hope to have 500 or more people in the field by the end of the year.
The initial reactions to the Peace Corps proposal are convincing proof that we have, in this
country, an immense reservoir of such men and women--anxious to sacrifice their energies
and time and toil to the cause of world peace and human progress.
In establishing our Peace Corps we intend to make full use of the resources and talents of
private institutions and groups. Universities, voluntary agencies, labor unions and industry
will be asked to share in this effort--contributing diverse sources of energy and
imagination--making it clear that the responsibility for peace is the responsibility of our
entire society.
We will only send abroad Americans who are wanted by the host country--who have a real
job to do--and who are qualified to do that job. Programs will be developed with care, and
after full negotiation, in order to make sure that the Peace Corps is wanted and will
contribute to the welfare of other people. Our Peace Corps is not designed as an instrument
of diplomacy or propaganda or ideological conflict. It is designed to permit our people to
exercise more fully their responsibilities in the great common cause of world development.
Life in the Peace Corps will not be easy. There will be no salary and allowances will be at a
level sufficient only to maintain health and meet basic needs. Men and women will be
expected to work and live alongside the nationals of the country in which they are
stationed--doing the same work, eating the same food, talking the same language.
But if the life will not be easy, it will be rich and satisfying. For every young American
who participates in the Peace Corps--who works in a foreign land--will know that he or she
is sharing in the great common task of bringing to man that decent way of life which is the
foundation of freedom and a condition of peace.
(NOTE: The President departed substantially from this written text in his spoken remarks.
The order referred to is Executive Order 10924.)
Address at a White House Reception for
Members of Congress and for the
Diplomatic Corps of the Latin American
Republics
March 13, 1961
It is a great pleasure for Mrs. Kennedy and for me, for the Vice President and Mrs.
Johnson, and for the Members of Congress, to welcome the Ambassadorial Corps of our
Hemisphere, our long time friends, to the White House today. One hundred and thirty-nine
years ago this week the United States, stirred by the heroic struggle of its fellow
Americans, urged the independence and recognition of the new Latin American Republics.
It was then, at the dawn of freedom throughout this hemisphere, that Bolivar spoke of his
desire to see the Americas fashioned into the greatest region in the world, "greatest," he
said, "not so much by virtue of her area and her wealth, as by her freedom and .her glory."
Never in the long history of our hemisphere has this dream been nearer to fulfillment, and
never has it been in greater danger.
The genius of our scientists has given us the tools to bring abundance to our land, strength
to our industry, and knowledge to our people. For the first time we have the capacity to
strike off the remaining bonds of poverty and ignorance -- to free our people for the
spiritual and intellectual fulfillment which has always been the goal of our civilization.
Yet at this very moment of maximum opportunity, we confront the same forces which have
imperiled America throughout its history -- the alien forces which once again seek to
impose the despotisms of the Old World on the people of the New.
I have asked you to come here today so that I might discuss these challenges and these
dangers.
We meet together as firm and ancient friends, united by history and experience and by our
determination to advance the values of American civilization. For this New World of ours
is not a mere accident of geography. Our continents are bound together by a common
history, the endless exploration of new frontiers. Our nations are the product of a common
struggle, the revolt from colonial rule. And our people share a common heritage, the quest
for the dignity and the freedom of man.
The revolutions which gave us birth ignited, in the words of Thomas Paine, "a spark never
to be extinguished." And across vast, turbulent continents these American ideals still stir
man's struggle for national independence and individual freedom. But as we welcome the
spread of the American revolution to other lands, we must also remember that our own
struggle -- the revolution which began in Philadelphia in 1776, and in Caracas in 1811 -- is
not yet finished. Our hemisphere's mission is not yet completed. For our unfulfilled task is
to demonstrate to the entire world that man's unsatisfied aspiration for economic progress
and social justice can best be achieved by free men working within a framework of
democratic institutions. If we can do this in our own hemisphere, and for our own people,
we may yet realize the prophecy of the great Mexican patriot, Benito Juarez, that
"democracy is the destiny of future humanity."
As a citizen of the United States let me be the first to admit that we North Americans have
not always grasped the significance of this common mission, just as it is also true that
many in your own countries have not fully understood the urgency of the need to lift people
from poverty and ignorance and despair. But we must turn from these mistakes -- from the
failures and the misunderstandings of the past to a future full of peril, but bright with hope.
Throughout Latin America, a continent rich in resources and in the spiritual and cultural
achievements of its people, millions of men and women suffer the daily degradations of
poverty and hunger. They lack decent shelter or protection from disease. Their children are
deprived of the education or the jobs which are the gateway to a better life. And each day
the problems grow more urgent. Population growth is outpacing economic growth -- low
living standards are further endangered and discontent -- the discontent of a people who
know that abundance and the tools of progress are at last within their reach -- that
discontent is growing. In the words of Jose Figueres, "once dormant peoples are struggling
upward toward the sun, toward a better life."
If we are to meet a problem so staggering in its dimensions, our approach must itself be
equally bold -- an approach consistent with the majestic concept of Operation Pan America.
Therefore I have called on all people of the hemisphere to join in a new Alliance for
Progress -- Alianza para Progreso --a vast cooperative effort, unparalleled in magnitude
and nobility of purpose, to satisfy the basic needs of the American people for homes, work
and land, health and schools -- techo, trabajo y tierra, salud y escuela.
First, I propose that the American Republics begin on a vast new Ten Year Plan for the
Americas, a plan to transform the 1960's into a historic decade of democratic progress.
These 10 years will be the years of maximum progress-maximum effort, the years when the
greatest obstacles must be overcome, the years when the need for assistance will be the
greatest.
And if we are successful, if our effort is bold enough and determined enough, then the
close of this decade will mark the beginning of a new era in the American experience. The
living standards of every American family will be on the rise, basic education will be
available to all, hunger will be a forgotten experience, the need for massive outside help
will have passed, most nations will have entered a period of self-sustaining growth, and
though there will be still much to do, every American Republic will be the master of its
own revolution and its own hope and progress.
Let me stress that only the most determined efforts of the American nations themselves can
bring success to this effort. They, and they alone, can mobilize their resources, enlist the
energies of their people, and modify their social patterns so that all, and not just a
privileged few, share in the fruits of growth. If this effort is made, then outside assistance
will give vital impetus to progress; without it, no amount of help will advance the welfare
of the people.
Thus if the countries of Latin America are ready to do their part, and I am sure they are,
then I believe the United States, for its part, should help provide resources of a scope and
magnitude sufficient to make this bold development plan a success -- just as we helped to
provide, against equal odds nearly, the resources adequate to help rebuild the economies of
Western Europe. For only an effort of towering dimensions can ensure fulfillment of our
plan for a decade of progress.
Secondly, I will shortly request a ministerial meeting of the Inter-American Economic and
Social Council, a meeting at which we can begin the massive planning effort which will be
at the heart of the Alliance for Progress.
For if our Alliance is to succeed, each Latin nation must formulate long-range plans for its
own development, plans which establish targets and priorities, ensure monetary stability,
establish the machinery for vital social change, stimulate private activity and initiative, and
provide for a maximum national effort. These plans will be the foundation of our
development effort, and the basis for the allocation of outside resources.
A greatly strengthened IA-ECOSOC, working with the Economic Commission for Latin
America and the Inter-American Development Bank, can assemble the leading economists
and experts of the hemisphere to help each country develop its own development plan --
and provide a continuing review of economic progress in this hemisphere.
Third, I have this evening signed a request to the Congress for $500 million as a first step
in fulfilling the Act of Bogotá. This is the first large-scale Inter-American effort, instituted
by my predecessor President Eisenhower, to attack the social barriers which block
economic progress. The money will be used to combat illiteracy, improve the productivity
and use of their land, wipe out disease, attack archaic tax and land tenure structures,
provide educational opportunities, and offer a broad range of projects designed to make the
benefits of increasing abundance available to all. We will begin to commit these funds as
soon as they are appropriated.
Fourth, we must support all economic integration which is a genuine step toward larger
markets and greater competitive opportunity. The fragmentation of Latin American
economies is a serious barrier to industrial growth. Projects such as the Central American
common market and free trade areas in South America can help to remove these obstacles.
Fifth, the United States is ready to cooperate in serious, case-by-case examinations of
commodity market problems. Frequent violent change in commodity prices seriously injure
the economies of many Latin American countries, draining their resources and stultifying
their growth. Together we must find practical methods of bringing an end to this pattern.
Sixth, we will immediately step up our Food for Peace emergency program, help establish
food reserves in areas of recurrent drought, help provide school lunches for children, and
offer feed grains for use in rural development. For hungry men and women cannot wait for
economic discussions or diplomatic meetings -- their need is urgent -- and their hunger
rests heavily on the conscience of their fellow men.
Seventh, all the people of the hemisphere must be allowed to share in the expanding
wonders of science -- wonders which have captured man's imagination, challenged the
powers of his mind, and given him the tools for rapid progress. I invite Latin American
scientists to work with us in new projects in fields such as medicine and agriculture,
physics and astronomy, and desalinization, to help plan for regional research laboratories in
these and other fields, and to strengthen cooperation between American universities and
laboratories.
We also intend to expand our science teacher training programs to include Latin American
instructors, to assist in establishing such programs in other American countries, and
translate and make available revolutionary new teaching materials in physics, chemistry,
biology, and mathematics, so that the young of all nations may contribute their skills to the
advance of science.
Eighth, we must rapidly expand the training of those needed to man the economies of
rapidly developing countries. This means expanded technical training programs, for which
the Peace Corps, for example, will be available when needed. It also means assistance to
Latin American universities, graduate schools, and research institutes.
We welcome proposals in Central America for intimate cooperation in higher education --
cooperation which can achieve a regional effort or increased effectiveness and excellence.
We are ready to help fill the gap in trained manpower, realizing that our ultimate goal must
be a basic education for all who wish to learn.
Ninth, we reaffirm our pledge to come to the defense of any American nation whose
independence is endangered. As its confidence in the collective security system of the OAS
spreads, it will be possible to devote to constructive use a major share of those resources
now spent on the instruments of war. Even now, as the government of Chile has said, the
time has come to take the first steps toward sensible limitations of arms. And the new
generation of military leaders has shown an increasing awareness that armies cannot only
defend their countries -- they can, as we have learned through our own Corps of Engineers,
they can help to build them.
Tenth, we invite our friends in Latin America to contribute to the enrichment of life and
culture in the United States. We need teachers of your literature and history and tradition,
opportunities for our young people to study in your universities, access to your music, your
art, and the thought of your great philosophers. For we know we have much to learn.
In this way you can help bring a fuller spiritual and intellectual life to the people of the
United States -- and contribute to understanding and mutual respect among the nations of
the hemisphere.
With steps such as these, we propose to complete the revolution of the Americas, to build a
hemisphere where all men can hope for a suitable standard of living, and all can live out
their lives in dignity and in freedom.
To achieve this goal political freedom must accompany material progress. Our Alliance for
Progress is an alliance of free governments, and it must work to eliminate tyranny from a
hemisphere in which it has no rightful place. Therefore let us express our special friendship
to the people of Cuba and the Dominican Republic -- and the hope they will soon rejoin,
the society of free men, uniting with us in common effort.
This political freedom must be accompanied by social change. For unless necessary social
reforms, including land and tax reform, are freely made -- unless we broaden the
opportunity for all of our people -- unless the great mass of Americans share in increasing
prosperity -- then our alliance, our revolution, our dream, and our freedom will fail. But we
call for social change by free men change in the spirit of Washington and Jefferson, of
Bolivar and San Martin and Martin -- not change which seeks to impose on men tyrannies
which we cast out a century and a half ago. Our motto is what it has always been --
progress yes, tyranny no -- progreso sí, tiranía no!
But our greatest challenge comes from within -- the task of creating an American
civilization where spiritual and cultural values are strengthened by an ever-broadening base
of material advance -- where, within the rich diversity of its own traditions, each nation is
free to follow its own path towards progress.
The completion of our task will, of course, require the efforts of all governments of our
hemisphere. But the efforts of governments alone will never be enough. In the end, the
people must choose and the people must help themselves.
And so I say to the men and women of the Americas -- to the campesino in the fields, to the
obrero in the cities, to the estudiante in the schools -- prepare your mind and heart for the
task ahead -- call forth your strength and let each devote his energies to the betterment of
all, so that your children and our children in this hemisphere can find an ever richer and a
freer life.
Let us once again transform the American continent into a vast crucible of revolutionary
ideas and efforts -- a tribute to the power of the creative energies of free men and women --
an example to all the world that liberty and progress walk hand in hand. Let us once again
awaken our American revolution until it guides the struggle of people everywhere -- not
with an imperialism of force or fear -- but the rule of courage and freedom and hope for the
future of man.
Address before the American Society of

Newspaper Editors
Statler Hilton Hotel, Washington, D.C.
April 20, 1961
Mr. Catledge, members o f the American Society of Newspaper Editors, ladies and
gentlemen:
The President of a great democracy such as ours, and the editors of great newspapers such
as yours, owe a common obligation to the people: an obligation to present the facts, to
present them with candor, and to present them in perspective. It is with that obligation in
mind that I have decided in the last 24 hours to discuss briefly at this time the recent events
in Cuba.
On that unhappy island, as in so many other arenas of the contest for freedom, the news has
grown worse instead of better. I have emphasized before that this was a struggle of Cuban
patriots against a Cuban dictator. While we could not be expected to hide our sympathies,
we made it repeatedly clear that the armed forces of this country would not intervene in any
way.
Any unilateral American intervention, in the absence of an external attack upon ourselves
or an ally, would have been contrary to our traditions and to our international obligations.
But let the record show that our restraint is not inexhaustible. Should it ever appear that the
inter-American doctrine of non-interference merely conceals or excuses a policy of
nonaction-if the nations of this Hemisphere should fail to meet their commitments against
outside Communist penetration-then I want it clearly understood that this Government will
not hesitate in meeting its primary obligations which are to the security of our Nation!
Should that time ever come, we do not intend to be lectured on "intervention" by those
whose character was stamped for all time on the bloody streets of Budapest! Nor would we
expect or accept the same outcome which this small band of gallant Cuban refugees must
have known that they were chancing, determined as they were against heavy odds to pursue
their courageous attempts to regain their Island's freedom.
But Cuba is not an island unto itself; and our concern is not ended by mere expressions of
nonintervention or regret. This is not the first time in either ancient or recent history that a
small band of freedom fighters has engaged the armor of totalitarianism.
It is not the first time that Communist tanks have rolled over gallant men and women
fighting to redeem the independence of their homeland. Nor is it by any means the final
episode in the eternal struggle of liberty against tyranny, anywhere on the face of the globe,
including Cuba itself.
Mr. Castro has said that these were mercenaries. According to press reports, the final
message to be relayed from the refugee forces on the beach came from the rebel
commander when asked if he wished to be evacuated. His answer was: "I will never leave
this country." That is not the reply of a mercenary. He has gone now to join in the
mountains countless other guerrilla fighters, who are equally determined that the dedication
of those who gave their lives shall not be forgotten, and that Cuba must not be abandoned
to the Communists. And we do not intend to abandon it either!
The Cuban people have not yet spoken their final piece. And I have no doubt that they and
their Revolutionary Council, led by Dr. Cardona-and members of the families of the
Revolutionary Council, I am informed by the Doctor yesterday, are involved themselves in
the Islands-will continue to speak up for a free and independent Cuba.
Meanwhile we will not accept Mr. Castro's attempts to blame this nation for the hatred
which his onetime supporters now regard his repression. But there are from this sobering
episode useful lessons for us all to learn. Some may be still obscure, and await further
information. Some are clear today.
First, it is clear that the forces of communism are not to be underestimated, in Cuba or
anywhere else in the world. The advantages of a police state-its use of mass terror and
arrests to prevent the spread of free dissent--cannot be overlooked by those who expect the
fall of every fanatic tyrant. If the self-discipline of the free cannot match the iron discipline
of the mailed fist-in economic, political, scientific and all the other kinds of struggles as
well as the military-then the peril to freedom will continue to rise.
Secondly, it is clear that this Nation, in concert with all the free nations of this hemisphere,
must take an ever closer and more realistic look at the menace of external Communist
intervention and domination in Cuba. The American people are not complacent about Iron
Curtain tanks and planes less than 90 miles from their shore. But a nation of Cuba's size is
less a threat to our survival than it is a base for subverting the survival of other free nations
throughout the hemisphere. It is not primarily our interest or our security but theirs which is
now, today, in the greater peril. It is for their sake as well as our own that we must show
our will.
The evidence is clear-and the hour is late. We and our Latin friends will have to face the
fact that we cannot postpone any longer the real issue of survival of freedom in this
hemisphere itself. On that issue, unlike perhaps some others, there can be no middle
ground. Together we must build a hemisphere where freedom can flourish; and where any
free nation under outside attack of any kind can be assured that all of our resources stand
ready to respond to any request for assistance.
Third, and finally, it is clearer than ever that we face a relentless struggle in every corner of
the globe that goes far beyond the clash of armies or even nuclear armaments. The armies
are there, and in large number. The nuclear armaments are there. But they serve primarily
as the shield behind which subversion, infiltration, and a host of other tactics steadily
advance, picking off vulnerable areas one by one in situations which do not permit our own
armed intervention.
Power is the hallmark of this offensive power and discipline and deceit. The legitimate
discontent of yearning people is exploited. The legitimate trappings of self-determination
are employed. But once in power, all talk of discontent is repressed; all self-determination
disappears, and the promise of a revolution of hope is betrayed, as in Cuba, into-a reign of
terror. Those who on instruction staged automatic "riots" in the streets of free nations over
the efforts of a small group of young Cubans to regain their freedom should recall the long
roll call of refugees who cannot now go back-to Hungary, to North Korea, to North Viet-
Nam, to East Germany, or to Poland, or to any of the other lands from which a steady
stream of refugees pours forth, in eloquent testimony to the cruel oppression now holding
sway in their homeland.
We dare not fail to see the insidious nature of this new and deeper struggle. We dare not
fail to grasp the new concepts, the new tools, the new sense of urgency we will need to
combat it-whether in Cuba or South Viet-Nam. And we dare not fail to realize that this
struggle is taking place every day, without fanfare, in thousands of villages and markets-
day and night-and in classrooms all over the globe.
The message of Cuba, of Laos, of the rising din of Communist voices in Asia and Latin
America-these messages are all the same. The complacent, the self-indulgent, the soft
societies are about to be swept away with the debris of history. Only the strong, only the
industrious, only the determined, only the courageous, only the visionary who determine
the real nature of our struggle can possibly survive.
No greater task faces this country or this administration. No other challenge is more
deserving of our every effort and energy. Too long we have fixed our eyes on traditional
military needs, on armies prepared to cross borders, on missiles poised for flight. Now it
should be clear that this is no longer enough-that our security may be lost piece by piece,
country by country, without the bring of a single missile or the crossing of a single border.
We intend to profit from this lesson. We intend to reexamine and reorient our forces of all
kinds-cur tactics and our institutions here in this community. We intend to intensify our
efforts for a struggle in many ways more difficult than war, where disappointment will
often accompany us.
For I am convinced that we in this country and in the free world possess the necessary
resource, and the skill, and the added strength that comes from a belief in the freedom of
man. And I am equally convinced that history will record the fact that this bitter struggle
reached its climax in the late 1950's and the early 1960's Let me then make clear as the
President of the United States that I am determined upon our system's survival and success,
regardless of the cost and regardless of the peril!
(NOTE: In the President's opening words "Mr. Catledge" referred to Turner Catledge,
President of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, and Managing Editor of the New
York Times. Later in his remarks the President referred to Dr. Jose Miró Cardona,
President of the Cuban Revolutionary Council.)
The President and the Press: Address

before the American Newspaper
Publishers Association
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
New York City, April 27, 1961
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:
I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.
You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded
me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your
profession.
You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and
publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist
by the name of Karl Marx.
We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and
undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an
increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels
ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."
But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of
livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting
his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism,
Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.
If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx
had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all
publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal
for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.
I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may
suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But
those are not my sentiments tonight.
It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded
recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it
was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press,
for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called
one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about
political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to
discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly
beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to
observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed
by your Washington correspondents.
Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the
press should allow to any President and his family.
If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been
attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.
On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be
complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that
they once did.
It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in
action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.
My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The
events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the
dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our
hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping
either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a
challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to
the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in
tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer,
first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater
official secrecy.
I
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people
inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret
proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted
concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.
Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its
arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation
if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced
need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to
the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the
extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is
high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to
censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press
and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine
his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the
government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-
discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present
danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must
yield to the public's need for national security.
Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be
declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make
themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in
danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching
troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat
conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you
are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has
never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the
government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies
primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of
invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on
guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast
human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine
that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political
operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its
dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no
secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no
democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and
the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to
oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring
through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through
theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the
enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe
alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and
our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news
media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case,
the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed
required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-
meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have
published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of
journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether
additional tests should not now be adopted.
The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No
governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in
my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of
the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your
attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that
these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call
out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common
good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business
consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of
news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security
classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek
to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the
industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and
the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger
imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is
that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that
every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will
ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting
tests.
And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of
specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly
with those recommendations.
Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma
faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion
of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this
is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.
II
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second
obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the
American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and
understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the
choices that we face.
No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes
understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are
necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking
your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have
complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully
informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This
Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error
does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full
responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no
republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any
citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First
Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not
primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to
simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our
dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate
and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away
and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved
understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that
government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible
information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.
III
It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent
inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press.
Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of
the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one
world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned
mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.
And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his
conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that
with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.
Special Message to the Congress on Urgent

National Needs
Delivered in person before a joint session of Congress
May 25, 1961
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, my copartners in Government, gentlemen-and ladies:
The Constitution imposes upon me the obligation to "from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of
the Union." While this has traditionally been interpreted as an annual affair, this tradition has been broken in
extraordinary times.
These are extraordinary times. And we face an extraordinary challenge. Our strength as well as our convictions have
imposed upon this nation the role of leader in freedom's cause.
No role in history could be more difficult or more important. We stand for freedom.
That is our conviction for ourselves--that is our only commitment to others. No friend, no neutral and no adversary
should think otherwise. We are not against any man--or any nation--or any system--except as it is hostile to freedom.
Nor am I here to present a new military doctrine, bearing any one name or aimed at any one area. I am here to promote
the freedom doctrine.
I.
The great battleground for the defense and expansion of freedom today is the whole southern half of the globe--Asia,
Latin America, Africa and the Middle East--the lands of the rising peoples. Their revolution is the greatest in human
history. They seek an end to injustice, tyranny, and exploitation. More than an end, they seek a beginning.
And theirs is a revolution which we would support regardless of the Cold War, and regardless of which political or
economic route they should choose to freedom.
For the adversaries of freedom did not create the revolution; nor did they create the conditions which compel it. But they
are seeking to ride the crest of its wave--to capture it for themselves.
Yet their aggression is more often concealed than open. They have fired no missiles; and their troops are seldom seen.
They send arms, agitators, aid, technicians and propaganda to every troubled area. But where fighting is required, it is
usually done by others--by guerrillas striking at night, by assassins striking alone--assassins who have taken the lives of
four thousand civil officers in the last twelve months in Vietnam alone--by subversives and saboteurs and
insurrectionists, who in some cases control whole areas inside of independent nations.
[At this point the following paragraph, which appears in the text as signed and transmitted to the Senate and
House of Representatives, was omitted in the reading of the message:
They possess a powerful intercontinental striking force, large forces for conventional war, a well-trained
underground in nearly every country, the power to conscript talent and manpower for any purpose, the capacity
for quick decisions, a closed society without dissent or free information, and long experience in the techniques
of violence and subversion. They make the most of their scientific successes, their economic progress and their
pose as a foe of colonialism and friend of popular revolution. They prey on unstable or unpopular governments,
unsealed, or unknown boundaries, unfilled hopes, convulsive change, massive poverty, illiteracy, unrest and
frustration.]
With these formidable weapons, the adversaries of freedom plan to consolidate their territory--to exploit, to control, and
finally to destroy the hopes of the world's newest nations; and they have ambition to do it before the end of this decade.
It is a contest of will and purpose as well as force and violence--a battle for minds and souls as well as lives and
territory. And in that contest, we cannot stand aside.
We stand, as we have always stood from our earliest beginnings, for the independence and equality of all nations. This
nation was born of revolution and raised in freedom. And we do not intend to leave an open road for despotism.
There is no single simple policy which meets this challenge. Experience has taught us that no one nation has the power
or the wisdom to solve all the problems of the world or manage its revolutionary tides--that extending our commitments
does not always increase our security--that any initiative carries with it the risk of a temporary defeat--that nuclear
weapons cannot prevent subversion--that no free people can be kept free without will and energy of their own--and that
no two nations or situations are exactly alike.
Yet there is much we can do--and must do. The proposals I bring before you are numerous and varied. They arise from
the host of special opportunities and dangers which have become increasingly clear in recent months. Taken together, I
believe that they can mark another step forward in our effort as a people. I am here to ask the help of this Congress and
the nation in approving these necessary measures.
II. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROGRESS AT HOME
The first and basic task confronting this nation this year was to turn recession into recovery. An affirmative anti-
recession program, initiated with your cooperation, supported the natural forces in the private sector; and our economy
is now enjoying renewed confidence and energy. The recession has been halted. Recovery is under way.
But the task of abating unemployment and achieving a full use of our resources does remain a serious challenge for us
all. Large-scale unemployment during a recession is bad enough, but large-scale unemployment during a period of
prosperity would be intolerable.
I am therefore transmitting to the Congress a new Manpower Development and Training program, to train or retrain
several hundred thousand workers, particularly in those areas where we have seen chronic unemployment as a result of
technological factors in new occupational skills over a four-year period, in order to replace those skills made obsolete by
automation and industrial change with the new skills which the new processes demand.
It should be a satisfaction to us all that we have made great strides in restoring world confidence in the dollar, halting the
outflow of gold and improving our balance of payments. During the last two months, our gold stocks actually increased
by seventeen million dollars, compared to a loss of 635 million dollars during the last two months of 1960. We must
maintain this progress--and this will require the cooperation and restraint of everyone. As recovery progresses, there will
be temptations to seek unjustified price and wage increases. These we cannot afford. They will only handicap our efforts
to compete abroad and to achieve full recovery here at home. Labor and management must--and I am confident that they
will--pursue responsible wage and price policies in these critical times. I look to the President's Advisory Committee on
Labor Management Policy to give a strong lead in this direction.
Moreover, if the budget deficit now increased by the needs of our security is to be held within manageable proportions,
it will be necessary to hold tightly to prudent fiscal standards; and I request the cooperation of the Congress in this
regard--to refrain from adding funds or programs, desirable as they may be, to the Budget--to end the postal deficit, as
my predecessor also recommended, through increased rates--a deficit incidentally, this year, which exceeds the fiscal
1962 cost of all the space and defense measures that I am submitting today--to provide full pay-as-you-go highway
financing--and to close those tax loopholes earlier specified. Our security and progress cannot be cheaply purchased;
and their price must be found in what we all forego as well as what we all must pay.
III. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROGRESS ABROAD
I stress the strength of our economy because it is essential to the strength of our nation. And what is true in our case is
true in the case of other countries. Their strength in the struggle for freedom depends on the strength of their economic
and their social progress.
We would be badly mistaken to consider their problems in military terms alone. For no amount of arms and armies can
help stabilize those governments which are unable or unwilling to achieve social and economic reform and
development. Military pacts cannot help nations whose social injustice and economic chaos invite insurgency and
penetration and subversion. The most skillful counter-guerrilla efforts cannot succeed where the local population is too
caught up in its own misery to be concerned about the advance of communism.
But for those who share this view, we stand ready now, as we have in the past, to provide generously of our skills, and
our capital, and our food to assist the peoples of the less-developed nations to reach their goals in freedom--to help them
before they are engulfed in crisis.
This is also our great opportunity in 1961. If we grasp it, then subversion to prevent its success is exposed as an
unjustifiable attempt to keep these nations from either being free or equal. But if we do not pursue it, and if they do not
pursue it, the bankruptcy of unstable governments, one by one, and of unfilled hopes will surely lead to a series of
totalitarian receiverships.
Earlier in the year, I outlined to the Congress a new program for aiding emerging nations; and it is my intention to
transmit shortly draft legislation to implement this program, to establish a new Act for International Development, and
to add to the figures previously requested, in view of the swift pace of critical events, an additional 250 million dollars
for a Presidential Contingency Fund, to be used only upon a Presidential determination in each case, with regular and
complete reports to the Congress in each case, when there is a sudden and extraordinary drain upon our regular funds
which we cannot foresee--as illustrated by recent events in Southeast Asia--and it makes necessary the use of this
emergency reserve. The total amount requested--now raised to 2..65 billion dollars--is both minimal and crucial. I do not
see how anyone who is concerned--as we all are--about the growing threats to freedom around the globe--and who is
asking what more we can do as a people--can weaken or oppose the single most important program available for
building the frontiers of freedom.
IV.
All that I have said makes it clear that we are engaged in a world-wide struggle in which we bear a heavy burden to
preserve and promote the ideals that we share with all mankind, or have alien ideals forced upon them. That struggle has
highlighted the role of our Information Agency. It is essential that the funds previously requested for this effort be not
only approved in full, but increased by 2 million, 400 thousand dollars, to a total of 121 million dollars.
This new request is for additional radio and television to Latin America and Southeast Asia. These tools are particularly
effective and essential in the cities and villages of those great continents as a means of reaching millions of uncertain
peoples to tell them of our interest in their fight for freedom. In Latin America, we are proposing to increase our Spanish
and Portuguese broadcasts to a total of 154 hours a week, compared to 42 hours today, none of which is in Portuguese,
the language of about one-third of the people of South America. The Soviets, Red Chinese and satellites already
broadcast into Latin America more than 134 hours a week in Spanish and Portuguese. Communist China alone does
more public information broadcasting in our own hemisphere than we do. Moreover, powerful propaganda broadcasts
from Havana now are heard throughout Latin America, encouraging new revolutions in several countries.
Similarly, in Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Thailand, we must communicate our determination and support to those
upon whom our hopes for resisting the communist tide in that continent ultimately depend. Our interest is in the truth.
V. OUR PARTNERSHIP FOR SELF-DEFENSE
But while we talk of sharing and building and the competition of ideas, others talk of arms and threaten war. So we have
learned to keep our defenses strong--and to cooperate with others in a partnership of self-defense. The events of recent
weeks have caused us to look anew at these efforts.
The center of freedom's defense is our network of world alliances, extending from NATO, recommended by a
Democratic President and approved by a Republican Congress, to SEATO, recommended by a Republican President and
approved by a Democratic Congress. These alliances were constructed in the 1940's and 1950's--it is our task and
responsibility in the 1960's to strengthen them.
To meet the changing conditions of power--and power relationships have changed--we have endorsed an increased
emphasis on NATO's conventional strength. At the same time we are affirming our conviction that the NATO nuclear
deterrent must also be kept strong. I have made clear our intention to commit to the NATO command, for this purpose,
the 5 Polaris submarines originally suggested by President Eisenhower, with the possibility, if needed, of more to come.
Second, a major part of our partnership for self-defense is the Military Assistance Program. The main burden of local
defense against local attack, subversion, insurrection or guerrilla warfare must of necessity rest with local forces. Where
these forces have the necessary will and capacity to cope with such threats, our intervention is rarely necessary or
helpful. Where the will is present and only capacity is lacking, our Military Assistance Program can be of help.
But this program, like economic assistance, needs a new emphasis. It cannot be extended without regard to the social,
political and military reforms essential to internal respect and stability. The equipment and training provided must be
tailored to legitimate local needs and to our own foreign and military policies, not to our supply of military stocks or a
local leader's desire for military display. And military assistance can, in addition to its military purposes, make a
contribution to economic progress, as do our own Army Engineers.
In an earlier message, I requested 1.6 billion dollars for Military Assistance, stating that this would maintain existing
force levels, but that I could not foresee how much more might be required. It is now clear that this is not enough. The
present crisis in Southeast Asia, on which the Vice President has made a valuable report--the rising threat of
communism in Latin America--the increased arms traffic in Africa--and all the new pressures on every nation found on
the map by tracing your fingers along the borders of the Communist bloc in Asia and the Middle East--all make clear the
dimension of our needs.
I therefore request the Congress to provide a total of 1.885 billion dollars for Military Assistance in the coming fiscal
year--an amount less than that requested a year ago--but a minimum which must be assured if we are to help those
nations make secure their independence. This must be prudently and wisely spent--and that will be our common
endeavor. Military and economic assistance has been a heavy burden on our citizens for a long time, and I recognize the
strong pressures against it; but this battle is far from over, it is reaching a crucial stage, and I believe we should
participate in it. We cannot merely state our opposition to totalitarian advance without paying the price of helping those
now under the greatest pressure.
VI. OUR OWN MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE SHIELD
In line with these developments, I have directed a further reinforcement of our own capacity to deter or resist non-
nuclear aggression. In the conventional field, with one exception, I find no present need for large new levies of men.
What is needed is rather a change of position to give us still further increases in flexibility.
Therefore, I am directing the Secretary of Defense to undertake a reorganization and modernization of the Army's
divisional structure, to increase its non-nuclear firepower, to improve its tactical mobility in any environment, to insure
its flexibility to meet any direct or indirect threat, to facilitate its coordination with our major allies, and to provide more
modern mechanized divisions in Europe and bring their equipment up to date, and new airborne brigades in both the
Pacific and Europe.
And secondly, I am asking the Congress for an additional 100 million dollars to begin the procurement task necessary to
re-equip this new Army structure with the most modern material. New helicopters, new armored personnel carriers, and
new howitzers, for example, must be obtained now.
Third, I am directing the Secretary of Defense to expand rapidly and substantially, in cooperation with our Allies, the
orientation of existing forces for the conduct of non-nuclear war, paramilitary operations and sub-limited or
unconventional wars.
In addition our special forces and unconventional warfare units will be increased and reoriented. Throughout the
services new emphasis must be placed on the special skills and languages which are required to work with local
populations.
Fourth, the Army is developing plans to make possible a much more rapid deployment of a major portion of its highly
trained reserve forces. When these plans are completed and the reserve is strengthened, two combat-equipped divisions,
plus their supporting forces, a total of 89,000 men, could be ready in an emergency for operations with but 3 weeks'
notice--2 more divisions with but 5 weeks' notice--and six additional divisions and their supporting forces, making a
total of 10 divisions, could be deployable with less than 8 weeks' notice. In short, these new plans will allow us to
almost double the combat power of the Army in less than two months, compared to the nearly nine months heretofore
required.
Fifth, to enhance the already formidable ability of the Marine Corps to respond to limited war emergencies, I am asking
the Congress for 60 million dollars to increase the Marine Corps strength to 190,000 men. This will increase the initial
impact and staying power of our three Marine divisions and three air wings, and provide a trained nucleus for further
expansion, if necessary for self-defense.
Finally, to cite one other area of activities that are both legitimate and necessary as a means of self-defense in an age of
hidden perils, our whole intelligence effort must be reviewed, and its coordination with other elements of policy assured.
The Congress and the American people are entitled to know that we will institute whatever new organization, policies,
and control are necessary.
VII. CIVIL DEFENSE
One major element of the national security program which this nation has never squarely faced up to is civil defense.
This problem arises not from present trends but from national inaction in which most of us have participated. In the past
decade we have intermittently considered a variety of programs, but we have never adopted a consistent policy. Public
considerations have been largely characterized by apathy, indifference and skepticism; while, at the same time, many of
the civil defense plans have been so far-reaching and unrealistic that they have not gained essential support.
This Administration has been looking hard at exactly what civil defense can and cannot do. It cannot be obtained
cheaply. It cannot give an assurance of blast protection that will be proof against surprise attack or guaranteed against
obsolescence or destruction. And it cannot deter a nuclear attack.
We will deter an enemy from making a nuclear attack only if our retaliatory power is so strong and so invulnerable that
he knows he would be destroyed by our response. If we have that strength, civil defense is not needed to deter an attack.
If we should ever lack it, civil defense would not be an adequate substitute.
But this deterrent concept assumes rational calculations by rational men. And the history of this planet, and particularly
the history of the 20th century, is sufficient to remind us of the possibilities of an irrational attack, a miscalculation, an
accidental war, [or a war of escalation in which the stakes by each side gradually increase to the point of maximum
danger] which cannot be either foreseen or deterred. It is on this basis that civil defense can be readily justifiable--as
insurance for the civilian population in case of an enemy miscalculation. It is insurance we trust will never be needed--
but insurance which we could never forgive ourselves for foregoing in the event of catastrophe.
Once the validity of this concept is recognized, there is no point in delaying the initiation of a nation-wide long-range
program of identifying present fallout shelter capacity and providing shelter in new and existing structures. Such a
program would protect millions of people against the hazards of radioactive fallout in the event of large-scale nuclear
attack. Effective performance of the entire program not only requires new legislative authority and more funds, but also
sound organizational arrangements.
Therefore, under the authority vested in me by Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1958, I am assigning responsibility for this
program to the top civilian authority already responsible for continental defense, the Secretary of Defense. It is
important that this function remain civilian, in nature and leadership; and this feature will not be changed.
The Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization will be reconstituted as a small staff agency to assist in the coordination of
these functions. To more accurately describe its role, its title should be changed to the Office of Emergency Planning.
As soon as those newly charged with these responsibilities have prepared new authorization and appropriation requests,
such requests will be transmitted to the Congress for a much strengthened Federal-State civil defense program. Such a
program will provide Federal funds for identifying fallout shelter capacity in existing, structures, and it will include,
where appropriate, incorporation of shelter in Federal buildings, new requirements for shelter in buildings constructed
with Federal assistance, and matching grants and other incentives for constructing shelter in State and local and private
buildings.
Federal appropriations for civil defense in fiscal 1962 under this program will in all likelihood be more than triple the
pending budget requests; and they will increase sharply in subsequent years. Financial participation will also be required
from State and local governments and from private citizens. But no insurance is cost-free; and every American citizen
and his community must decide for themselves whether this form of survival insurance justifies the expenditure of
effort, time and money. For myself, I am convinced that it does.
VIII. DISARMAMENT
I cannot end this discussion of defense and armaments without emphasizing our strongest hope: the creation of an
orderly world where disarmament will be possible. Our aims do not prepare for war--they are efforts to discourage and
resist the adventures of others that could end in war.
That is why it is consistent with these efforts that we continue to press for properly safeguarded disarmament measures.
At Geneva, in cooperation with the United Kingdom, we have put forward concrete proposals to make clear our wish to
meet the Soviets half way in an effective nuclear test ban treaty--the first significant but essential step on the road
towards disarmament. Up to now, their response has not been what we hoped, but Mr. Dean returned last night to
Geneva, and we intend to go the last mile in patience to secure this gain if we can.
Meanwhile, we are determined to keep disarmament high on our agenda--to make an intensified effort to develop
acceptable political and technical alternatives to the present arms race. To this end I shall send to the Congress a
measure to establish a strengthened and enlarged Disarmament Agency.
IX. SPACE
Finally, if we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic
achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the
impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road
they should take. Since early in my term, our efforts in space have been under review. With the advice of the Vice
President, who is Chairman of the National Space Council, we have examined where we are strong and where we are
not, where we may succeed and where we may not. Now it is time to take longer strides--time for a great new American
enterprise--time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the
key to our future on earth.
I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the
national decisions or marshalled the national resources required for such leadership. We have never specified long-range
goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to insure their fulfillment.
Recognizing the head start obtained by the Soviets with their large rocket engines, which gives them many months of
leadtime, and recognizing the likelihood that they will exploit this lead for some time to come in still more impressive
successes, we nevertheless are required to make new efforts on our own. For while we cannot guarantee that we shall
one day be first, we can guarantee that any failure to make this effort will make us last. We take an additional risk by
making it in full view of the world, but as shown by the feat of astronaut Shepard, this very risk enhances our stature
when we are successful. But this is not merely a race. Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is
not governed by the efforts of others. We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully
share.
I therefore ask the Congress, above and beyond the increases I have earlier requested for space activities, to provide the
funds which are needed to meet the following national goals:
First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on
the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to
mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to
accomplish. We propose to accelerate the development of the appropriate lunar space craft. We propose to develop
alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger than any now being developed, until certain which is superior. We
propose additional funds for other engine development and for unmanned explorations--explorations which are
particularly important for one purpose which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first makes
this daring flight. But in a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon--if we make this judgment
affirmatively, it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there.
Secondly, an additional 23 million dollars, together with 7 million dollars already available, will accelerate development
of the Rover nuclear rocket. This gives promise of some day providing a means for even more exciting and ambitious
exploration of space, perhaps beyond the moon, perhaps to the very end of the solar system itself.
Third, an additional 50 million dollars will make the most of our present leadership, by accelerating the use of space
satellites for world-wide communications.
Fourth, an additional 75 million dollars--of which 53 million dollars is for the Weather Bureau--will help give us at the
earliest possible time a satellite system for world-wide weather observation.
Let it be clear--and this is a judgment which the Members of the Congress must finally make--let it be clear that I am
asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action, a course which will last for
many years and carry very heavy costs: 531 million dollars in fiscal '62--an estimated seven to nine billion dollars
additional over the next five years. If we are to go only half way, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in my
judgment it would be better not to go at all.
Now this is a choice which this country must make, and I am confident that under the leadership of the Space
Committees of the Congress, and the Appropriating Committees, that you will consider the matter carefully.
It is a most important decision that we make as a nation. But all of you have lived through the last four years and have
seen the significance of space and the adventures in space, and no one can predict with certainty what the ultimate
meaning will be of mastery of space.
I believe we should go to the moon. But I think every citizen of this country as well as the Members of the Congress
should consider the matter carefully in making their judgment, to which we have given attention over many weeks and
months, because it is a heavy burden, and there is no sense in agreeing or desiring that the United States take an
affirmative position in outer space, unless we are prepared to do the work and bear the burdens to make it successful. If
we are not, we should decide today and this year.
This decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and technical manpower, materiel and facilities, and
the possibility of their diversion from other important activities where they are already thinly spread. It means a degree
of dedication, organization and discipline which have not always characterized our research and development efforts. It
means we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated costs of material or talent, wasteful interagency rivalries, or a
high turnover of key personnel.
New objectives and new money cannot solve these problems. They could in fact, aggravate them further--unless every
scientist, every engineer, every serviceman, every technician, contractor, and civil servant gives his personal pledge that
this nation will move forward, with the full speed of freedom, in the exciting adventure of space.
X. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, let me emphasize one point. It is not a pleasure for any President of the United States, as I am sure it was
not a pleasure for my predecessors, to come before the Congress and ask for new appropriations which place burdens on
our people. I came to this conclusion with some reluctance. But in my judgment, this is a most serious time in the life of
our country and in the life of freedom around the globe, and it is the obligation, I believe, of the President of the United
States to at least make his recommendations to the Members of the Congress, so that they can reach their own
conclusions with that judgment before them. You must decide yourselves, as I have decided, and I am confident that
whether you finally decide in the way that I have decided or not, that your judgment--as my judgment--is reached on
what is in the best interests of our country.
In conclusion, let me emphasize one point: that we are determined, as a nation in 1961 that freedom shall survive and
succeed--and whatever the peril and set-backs, we have some very large advantages.
The first is the simple fact that we are on the side of liberty--and since the beginning of history, and particularly since
the end of the Second World War, liberty has been winning out all over the globe.
A second real asset is that we are not alone. We have friends and allies all over the world who share our devotion to
freedom. May I cite as a symbol of traditional and effective friendship the great ally I am about to visit--France. I look
forward to my visit to France, and to my discussion with a great Captain of the Western World, President de Gaulle, as a
meeting of particular significance, permitting the kind of close and ranging consultation that will strengthen both our
countries and serve the common purposes of world-wide peace and liberty. Such serious conversations do not require a
pale unanimity--they are rather the instruments of trust and understanding over a long road.
A third asset is our desire for peace. It is sincere, and I believe the world knows it. We are proving it in our patience at
the test ban table, and we are proving it in the UN where our efforts have been directed to maintaining that
organization's usefulness as a protector of the independence of small nations. In these and other instances, the response
of our opponents has not been encouraging.
Yet it is important to know that our patience at the bargaining table is nearly inexhaustible, though our credulity is
limited that our hopes for peace are unfailing, while our determination to protect our security is resolute. For these
reasons I have long thought it wise to meet with the Soviet Premier for a personal exchange of views. A meeting in
Vienna turned out to be convenient for us both; and the Austrian government has kindly made us welcome. No formal
agenda is planned and no negotiations will be undertaken; but we will make clear America's enduring concern is for
both peace and freedom--that we are anxious to live in harmony with the Russian people--that we seek no conquests, no
satellites, no riches--that we seek only the day when "nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they
learn war any more."
Finally, our greatest asset in this struggle is the American people--their willingness to pay the price for these programs--
to understand and accept a long struggle--to share their resources with other less fortunate people--to meet the tax levels
and close the tax loopholes I have requested--to exercise self-restraint instead of pushing up wages or prices, or over-
producing certain crops, or spreading military secrets, or urging unessential expenditures or improper monopolies or
harmful work stoppages--to serve in the Peace Corps or the Armed Services or the Federal Civil Service or the
Congress--to strive for excellence in their schools, in their cities and in their physical fitness and that of their children--
to take part in Civil Defense--to pay higher postal rates, and higher payroll taxes and higher teachers' salaries, in order to
strengthen our society--to show friendship to students and visitors from other lands who visit us and go back in many
cases to be the future leaders, with an image of America--and I want that image, and I know you do, to be affirmative
and positive--and, finally, to practice democracy at home, in all States, with all races, to respect each other and to protect
the Constitutional rights of all citizens.
I have not asked for a single program which did not cause one or all Americans some inconvenience, or some hardship,
or some sacrifice. But they have responded and you in the Congress have responded to your duty--and I feel confident in
asking today for a similar response to these new and larger demands. It is heartening to know, as I journey abroad, that
our country is united in its commitment to freedom and is ready to do its duty.
Radio and Television Report to the

American People on the Berlin Crisis
The White House
July 25, 1961
Good evening:
Seven weeks ago tonight I returned from Europe to report on my meeting with Premier Khrushchev and the others. His
grim warnings about the future of the world, his aide memoire on Berlin, his subsequent speeches and threats which he
and his agents have launched, and the increase in the Soviet military budget that he has announced, have all prompted a
series of decisions by the Administration and a series of consultations with the members of the NATO organization. In
Berlin, as you recall, he intends to bring to an end, through a stroke of the pen, first our legal rights to be in West Berlin
--and secondly our ability to make good on our commitment to the two million free people of that city. That we cannot
permit.
We are clear about what must be done--and we intend to do it. I want to talk frankly with you tonight about the first
steps that we shall take. These actions will require sacrifice on the part of many of our citizens. More will be required in
the future. They will require, from all of us, courage and perseverance in the years to come. But if we and our allies act
out of strength and unity of purpose--with calm determination and steady nerves--using restraint in our words as well as
our weapons--I am hopeful that both peace and freedom will be sustained.
The immediate threat to free men is in West Berlin. But that isolated outpost is not an isolated problem. The threat is
worldwide. Our effort must be equally wide and strong, and not be obsessed by any single manufactured crisis. We face
a challenge in Berlin, but there is also a challenge in Southeast Asia, where the borders are less guarded, the enemy
harder to find, and the dangers of communism less apparent to those who have so little. We face a challenge in our own
hemisphere, and indeed wherever else the freedom of human beings is at stake.
Let me remind you that the fortunes of war and diplomacy left the free people of West Berlin, in 1945, 110 miles behind
the Iron Curtain.
This map makes very clear the problem that we face. The white is West Germany--the East is the area controlled by the
Soviet Union, and as you can see from the chart, West Berlin is 110 miles within the area which the Soviets now
dominate--which is immediately controlled by the so-called East German regime.
We are there as a result of our victory over Nazi Germany--and our basic rights to be there, deriving from that victory,
include both our presence in West Berlin and the enjoyment of access across East Germany. These rights have been
repeatedly confirmed and recognized in special agreements with the Soviet Union. Berlin is not a part of East Germany,
but a separate territory under the control of the allied powers. Thus our rights there arc clear and deep-rooted. But in
addition to those rights is our commitment to sustain--and defend, if need be--the opportunity for more than two million
people to determine their own future and choose their own way of life.
II.
Thus, our presence in West Berlin, and our access thereto, cannot be ended by any act of the Soviet government. The
NATO shield was long ago extended to cover West Berlin--and we have given our word that an attack upon that city
will be regarded as an attack upon us all.
For West Berlin--lying exposed110 miles inside East Germany, surrounded by Soviet troops and close to Soviet supply
lines, has many roles. It is more than a showcase of liberty, a symbol, an island of freedom in a Communist sea. It is
even more than a link with the Free World, a beacon of hope behind the Iron Curtain, an escape hatch for refugees.
West Berlin is all of that. But above all it has now become--as never before--the great testing place of Western courage
and will, a focal point where our solemn commitments stretching back over the years since 1945, and Soviet ambitions
now meet in basic confrontation.
It would be a mistake for others to look upon Berlin, because of its location, as a tempting target. The United States is
there; the United Kingdom and France are there; the pledge of NATO is there--and the people of Berlin are there. It is as
secure, in that sense, as the rest of us--for we cannot separate its safety from our own.
I hear it said that West Berlin is militarily untenable. And so was Bastogne. And so, in fact, was Stalingrad. Any
dangerous spot is tenable if men--brave men--will make it so.
We do not want to fight--but we have fought before. And others in earlier times have made the same dangerous mistake
of assuming that the West was too selfish and too soft and too divided to resist invasions of freedom in other lands.
Those who threaten to unleash the forces of war on a dispute over West Berlin should recall the words of the ancient
philosopher: "A man who causes fear cannot be free from fear."
We cannot and will not permit the Communists to drive us out of Berlin, either gradually or by force. For the fulfillment
of our pledge to that city is essential to the morale and security of Western Germany, to the unity of Western Europe,
and to the faith of the entire Free World. Soviet strategy has long been aimed, not merely at Berlin, but at dividing and
neutralizing all of Europe, forcing us back on our own shores. We must meet our oft-stated pledge to the free peoples of
West Berlin--and maintain our rights and their safety, even in the face of force--in order to maintain the confidence of
other free peoples in our word and our resolve. The strength of the alliance on which our security depends is dependent
in turn on our willingness to meet our commitments to them.
III.
So long as the Communists insist that they are preparing to end by themselves unilaterally our rights in West Berlin and
our commitments to its people, we must be prepared to defend those rights and those commitments. We will at all times
be ready to talk, if talk will help. But we must also be ready to resist with force, if force is used upon us. Either alone
would fail. Together, they can serve the cause of freedom and peace.
The new preparations that we shall make to defend the peace are part of the long-term build-up in our strength which
has been underway since January. They are based on our needs to meet a world-wide threat, on a basis which stretches
far beyond the present Berlin crisis. Our primary purpose is neither propaganda nor provocation--but preparation.
A first need is to hasten progress toward the military goals which the North Atlantic allies have set for themselves. In
Europe today nothing less will suffice. We will put even greater resources into fulfilling those goals, and we look to our
allies to do the same.
The supplementary defense build-ups that I asked from the Congress in March and May have already started moving us
toward these and our other defense goals. They included an increase in the size of the Marine Corps, improved readiness
of our reserves, expansion of our air and sea lift, and stepped-up procurement of needed weapons, ammunition, and
other items. To insure a continuing invulnerable capacity to deter or destroy any aggressor, they provided for the
strengthening of our missile power and for putting 50% of our B-52 and B-47 bombers on a ground alert which would
send them on their way with 15 minutes' warning.
These measures must be speeded up, and still others must now be taken. We must have sea and air lift capable of
moving our forces quickly and in large numbers to any part of the world.
But even more importantly, we need the capability of placing in any critical area at the appropriate time a force which,
combined with those of our allies, is large enough to make clear our determination and our ability to defend our rights at
all costs--and to meet all levels of aggressor pressure with whatever levels of force are required. We intend to have a
wider choice than humiliation or all-out nuclear action.
While it is unwise at this time either to call up or send abroad excessive numbers of these troops before they are needed,
let me make it clear that I intend to take, as time goes on, whatever steps are necessary to make certain that such forces
can be deployed at the appropriate time without lessening our ability to meet our commitments elsewhere.
Thus, in the days and months ahead, I shall not hesitate to ask the Congress for additional measures, or exercise any of
the executive powers that I possess to meet this threat to peace. Everything essential to the security of freedom must be
done; and if that should require more men, or more taxes, or more controls, or other new powers, I shall not hesitate to
ask them. The measures proposed today will be constantly studied, and altered as necessary. But while we will not let
panic shape our policy, neither will we permit timidity to direct our program.
Accordingly, I am now taking the following steps:
(1) I am tomorrow requesting the Congress for the current fiscal year an additional $3,247,000,000 of appropriations for
the Armed Forces.
(2) To fill out our present Army Divisions, and to make more men available for prompt deployment, I am requesting an
increase in the Army's total authorized strength from 875,000 to approximately I million men.
(3) 1 am requesting an increase of 29,000 and 63,000 men respectively in the active duty strength of the Navy and the
Air Force.
(4) To fulfill these manpower needs, I am ordering that our draft calls be doubled and tripled in the coming months; I am
asking the Congress for authority to order to active duty certain ready reserve units and individual reservists, and to
extend tours of duty; and, under that authority, I am planning to order to active duty a number of air transport squadrons
and Air National Guard tactical air squadrons, to give us the airlift capacity and protection that we need. Other reserve
forces will be called up when needed.
(5) Many ships and planes once headed for retirement are to be retained or reactivated, increasing our air power
tactically and our sealift, airlift, and anti-submarine warfare capability. In addition, our strategic air power will be
increased by delaying the deactivation of B-47 bombers.
(6) Finally, some $1.8 billion--about half of the total sum--is needed for the procurement of non-nuclear weapons,
ammunition and equipment.
The details on all these requests will be presented to the Congress tomorrow. Subsequent steps will be taken to suit
subsequent needs. Comparable efforts for the common defense are being discussed with our NATO allies. For their
commitment and interest are as precise as our own.
And let me add that I am well aware of the fact that many American families will bear the burden of these requests.
Studies or careers will be interrupted; husbands and sons will be called away; incomes in some cases will be reduced.
But these are burdens which must be borne if freedom is to be defended--Americans have willingly borne them before--
and they will not flinch from the task now.
IV.
We have another sober responsibility. To recognize the possibilities of nuclear war in the missile age, without our
citizens knowing what they should do and where they should go if bombs begin to fall, would be a failure of
responsibility. In May, I pledged a new start on Civil Defense. Last week, I assigned, on the recommendation of the
Civil Defense Director, basic responsibility for this program to the Secretary of Defense, to make certain it is
administered and coordinated with our continental defense efforts at the highest civilian level. Tomorrow, I am
requesting of the Congress new funds for the following immediate objectives: to identify and mark space in existing
structures--public and private--that could be used for fall-out shelters in case of attack; to stock those shelters with food,
water, first-aid kits and other minimum essentials for survival; to increase their capacity; to improve our air-raid warning
and fallout detection systems, including a new household warning system which is now under development; and to take
other measures that will be effective at an early date to save millions of lives if needed.
In the event of an attack, the lives of those families which are not hit in a nuclear blast and fire can still be saved--if they
can be warned to take shelter and if that shelter is available. We owe that kind of insurance to our families--and to our
country. In contrast to our friends in Europe, the need for this kind of protection is new to our shores. But the time to
start is now. In the coming months, I hope to let every citizen know what steps he can take without delay to protect his
family in case of attack. I know that you will want to do no less.
V.
The addition of $207 million in Civil Defense appropriations brings our total new defense budget requests to $3.454
billion, and a total of $47.5 billion for the year. This is an increase in the defense budget of $6 billion since January, and
has resulted in official estimates of a budget deficit of over $5 billion. The Secretary of the Treasury and other economic
advisers assure me, however, that our economy has the capacity to bear this new request.
We are recovering strongly from this year's recession. The increase in this last quarter of our year of our total national
output was greater than that for any postwar period of initial recovery. And yet, wholesale prices are actually lower than
they were during the recession, and consumer prices are only 1/4 of 1% higher than they were last October. In fact, this
last quarter was the first in eight years in which our production has increased without an increase in the overall-price
index. And for the first time since the fall of 1959, our gold position has improved and the dollar is more respected
abroad. These gains, it should be stressed, are being accomplished with Budget deficits far smaller than those of the
1958 recession.
This improved business outlook means improved revenues; and I intend to submit to the Congress in January a budget
for the next fiscal year which will be strictly in balance. Nevertheless, should an increase in taxes be needed--because of
events in the next few months--to achieve that balance, or because of subsequent defense rises, those increased taxes
will be requested in January.
Meanwhile, to help make certain that the current deficit is held to a safe level, we must keep down all expenditures not
thoroughly justified in budget requests. The luxury of our current post-office deficit must be ended. Costs in military
procurement will be closely scrutinized--and in this effort I welcome the cooperation of the Congress. The tax loopholes
I have specified--on expense accounts, overseas income, dividends, interest, cooperatives and others--must be closed.
I realize that no public revenue measure is welcomed by everyone. But I am certain that every American wants to pay
his fair share, and not leave the burden of defending freedom entirely to those who bear arms. For we have mortgaged
our very future on this defense--and we cannot fail to meet our responsibilities.
VI.
But I must emphasize again that the choice is not merely between resistance and retreat, between atomic holocaust and
surrender. Our peace-time military posture is traditionally defensive; but our diplomatic posture need not be. Our
response to the Berlin crisis will not be merely military or negative. It will be more than merely standing firm. For we do
not intend to leave it to others to choose and monopolize the forum and the framework of discussion. We do not intend
to abandon our duty to mankind to seek a peaceful solution.As signers of the UN Charter, we shall always be prepared
to discuss international problems with any and all nations that are willing to talk--and listen--with reason. If they have
proposals--not demands--we shall hear them. If they seek genuine understanding--not concessions of our rights--we
shall meet with them. We have previously indicated our readiness to remove any actual irritants in West Berlin, but the
freedom of that city is riot negotiable. We cannot negotiate with those who say "What's mine is mine and what's yours is
negotiable." But we are willing to consider any arrangement or treaty in Germany consistent with the maintenance of
peace and freedom, and with the legitimate security interests of all nations.
We recognize the Soviet Union's historical concern about their security in Central and Eastern Europe, after a series of
ravaging invasions, and we believe arrangements can be worked out which will help to meet those concerns, and make it
possible for both security and freedom to exist in this troubled area.
For it is not the freedom of West Berlin which is "abnormal" in Germany today, but the situation in that entire divided
country. If anyone doubts the legality of our rights in Berlin, we are ready to have it submitted to international
adjudication. If anyone doubts the extent to which our presence is desired by the people of West Berlin, compared to
East German feelings about their regime, we are ready to have that question submitted to a free vote in Berlin and, if
possible, among all the German people. And let us hear at that time from the two and one-half million refugees who
have fled the Communist regime in East Germany--voting for Western-type freedom with their feet.
The world is not deceived by the Communist attempt to label Berlin as a hot-bed of war. There is peace in Berlin today.
The source of world trouble and tension is Moscow, not Berlin. And if war begins, it will have begun in Moscow and
not Berlin.
For the choice of peace or war is largely theirs, not ours. It is the Soviets who have stirred up this crisis. It is they who
are trying to force a change. It is they who have opposed free elections. It is they who have rejected an all-German peace
treaty, and the rulings of international law. And as Americans know from our history on our own old frontier, gun
battles are caused by outlaws, and not by officers of the peace.
In short, while we are ready to defend our interests, we shall also be ready to search for peace--in quiet exploratory
talks--in formal or informal meetings. We do not want military considerations to dominate the thinking of either East or
West., And Mr. Khrushchev may find that his invitation to other nations to join in a meaningless treaty may lead to their
inviting him to join in the community of peaceful men, in abandoning the use of force, and in respecting the sanctity of
agreements.
While all of these efforts go on, we must not be diverted from our total responsibilities, from other dangers, from other
tasks. If new threats in Berlin or elsewhere should cause us to weaken our program of assistance to the developing
nations who are also under heavy pressure from the same source, or to halt our efforts for realistic disarmament, or to
disrupt or slow down our economy, or to neglect the education of our children, then those threats will surely be the most
successful and least costly maneuver in Communist history. For we can afford all these efforts, and more--but we cannot
afford not to meet this challenge.
And the challenge is not to us alone. It is a challenge to every nation which asserts its sovereignty under a system of
liberty. It is a challenge to all those who want a world of free choice. It is a special challenge to the Atlantic
Community--the heartland of human freedom.
We in the West must move together in building military strength. We must consult one another more closely than ever
before. We must together design our proposals for peace, and labor together as they are pressed at the conference table.
And together we must share the burdens and the risks of this effort.
The Atlantic Community, as we know it, has been built in response to challenge: the challenge of European chaos in
1947, of the Berlin blockade in 1948, the challenge of Communist aggression in Korea in 1950. Now, standing strong
and prosperous, after an unprecedented decade of progress, the Atlantic Community will not forget either its history or
the principles which gave it meaning.
The solemn vow each of us gave to West Berlin in time of peace will not be broken in time of danger. If we do not meet
our commitments to Berlin, where will we later stand? If we are not true to our word there, all that we have achieved in
collective security, which relies on these words, will mean nothing. And if there is one path above all others to war, it is
the path of weakness and disunity.
Today, the endangered frontier of freedom runs through divided Berlin. We want it to remain a frontier of peace. This is
the hope of every citizen of the Atlantic Community; every citizen of Eastern Europe; and, I am confident, every citizen
of the Soviet Union. For I cannot believe that the Russian people--who bravely suffered enormous losses in the Second
World War would now wish to see the peace upset once more in Germany. The Soviet government alone can convert
Berlin's frontier of peace into a pretext for war.
The steps I have indicated tonight are aimed at avoiding that war. To sum it all up: we seek peace--but we shall not
surrender. That is the central meaning of this crisis, and the meaning of your government's policy.
With your help, and the help of other free men, this crisis can be surmounted. Freedom can prevail--and peace can
endure.
I would like to close with a personal word. When I ran for the Presidency of the United States, I knew that this country
faced serious challenges, but I could not realize--nor could any man realize who does not bear the burdens of this
office--how heavy and constant would be those burdens.
Three times in my life-time our country and Europe have been involved in major wars. In each case serious
misjudgments were made on both sides of the intentions of others, which brought about great devastation.
Now, in the thermonuclear age, any misjudgment on either side about the intentions of the other could rain more
devastation in several hours than has been wrought in all the wars of human history.
Therefore I, as President and Commander-in-Chief, and all of us as Americans, are moving through serious days. I shall
bear this responsibility under our Constitution for the next three and one-half .years, but I am sure that we all, regardless
of our occupations, will do our very best for our country, and for our cause. For all of us want to see our children grow
up in a country at peace, and in a world where freedom endures.
I know that sometimes we get impatient, we wish for some immediate action that would end our perils. But I must tell
you that there is no quick and easy solution. The Communists control over a billion people, and they recognize that if we
should falter, their success would be imminent.
We must look to long days ahead, which if we are courageous and persevering can bring us what we all desire.
In these days and weeks I ask for your help, and your advice. I ask for your suggestions, when you think we could do
better.
All of us, I know, love our country, and we shall all do our best to serve it.
In meeting my responsibilities in these coming months as President, I need your good will, and your support--and above
all, your prayers.
Thank you, and good night

Address Before the General Assembly of
the United Nations
New York City
September 25, 1961
Mr. President, honored delegates, ladies and gentlemen:
We meet in an hour of grief and challenge. Dag Hammarskjold is dead. But the United
Nations lives. His tragedy is deep in our hearts, but the task for which he died is at the top
of our agenda. A noble servant of peace is gone. But the quest for peace lies before us.
The problem is not the death of one man--the problem is the life of this organization. It will
either grow to meet the challenges of our age, or it will be gone with the wind, without
influence, without force, without respect. Were we to let it die, to enfeeble its vigor, to
cripple its powers, we would condemn our future.
For in the development of this organization rests the only true alternative to war--and war
appeals no longer as a rational alternative. Unconditional war can no longer lead to
unconditional victory. It can no longer serve to settle disputes. It can no longer concern the
great powers alone. For a nuclear disaster, spread by wind and water and fear, could well
engulf the great and the small, the rich and the poor, the committed and the uncommitted
alike. Mankind must put an end to war--or war will put an end to mankind.
So let us here resolve that Dag Hammarskjold did not live, or die, in vain. Let us call a
truce to terror. Let us invoke the blessings of peace. And as we build an international
capacity to keep peace, let us join in dismantling the national capacity to wage war.
II
This will require new strength and new roles for the United Nations. For disarmament
without checks is but a shadow--and a community without law is but a shell. Already the
United Nations has become both the measure and the vehicle of man's most generous
impulses. Already it has provided--in the Middle East, in Asia, in Africa this year in the
Congo--a means of holding man's violence within bounds.
But the great question which confronted this body in 1945 is still before us: whether man's
cherished hopes for progress and peace are to be destroyed by terror and disruption,
whether the "foul winds of war" can be tamed in time to free the cooling winds of reason,
and whether the pledges of our Charter are to be fulfilled or defied--pledges to secure
peace, progress, human rights and world law.
In this Hall, there are not three forces, but two. One is composed of those who are trying to
build the kind of world described in Articles I and II of the Charter. The other, seeking a far
different world, would undermine this organization in the process.
Today, of all days our dedication to the Charter must be maintained. It must be
strengthened first of all by the selection of an outstanding civil servant to carry forward the
responsibilities of the Secretary General--a man endowed with both the wisdom and the
power to make meaningful the moral force of the world community. The late Secretary
General nurtured and sharpened the United Nations' obligation to act. But he did not invent
it. It was there in the Charter. It is still there in the Charter.
However difficult it may be to fill Mr. Hammarskjold's place, it can better be filled by one
man rather than three. Even the three horses of the Troika did not have three drivers, all
going in different directions. They had only one--and so must the United Nations
executive. To install a triumvirate, or any panel, or any rotating authority, in the United
Nations administrative offices would replace order with anarchy, action with paralysis,
confidence with confusion.
The Secretary General, in a very real sense, is the servant of the General Assembly.
Diminish his authority and you diminish the authority of the only body where all nations,
regardless of power, are equal and sovereign. Until all the powerful are just, the weak will
be secure only in the strength of this Assembly.
Effective and independent executive action is not the same question as balanced
representation. In view of the enormous change in membership in this body since its
founding, the American delegation will join in any effort for the prompt review and
revision of the composition of United Nations bodies.
But to give this organization three drivers--to permit each great power to decide its own
case, would entrench the Cold War in the headquarters of peace. Whatever advantages such
a plan may hold out to my own country, as one of the great powers, we reject it. For we far
prefer world law, in the age of self-determination, to world war, in the age of mass
extermination.
III
Today, every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no
longer be habitable. Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of
Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by
accident or miscalculation or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before
they abolish us.
Men no longer debate whether armaments are a symptom or a cause of tension. The mere
existence of modern weapons--ten million times more powerful than any that the world has
ever seen, and only minutes away from any target on earth--is a source of horror, and
discord and distrust. Men no longer maintain that disarmament must await the settlement of
all disputes--for disarmament must be a part of any permanent settlement. And men may no
longer pretend that the quest for disarmament is a sign of weakness--for in a spiraling arms
race, a nation's security may well be shrinking even as its arms increase.
For fifteen years this organization has sought the reduction and destruction of arms. Now
that goal is no longer a dream--it is a practical matter of life or death. The risks inherent in
disarmament pale in comparison to the risks inherent in an unlimited arms race.
It is in this spirit that the recent Belgrade Conference--recognizing that this is no longer a
Soviet problem or an American problem, but a human problem--endorsed a program of
"general, complete and strictly an internationally controlled disarmament." It is in this same
spirit that we in the United States have labored this year, with a new urgency, and with a
new, now statutory agency fully endorsed by the Congress, to find an approach to
disarmament which would be so far-reaching, yet realistic, so mutually balanced and
beneficial, that it could be accepted by every nation. And it is in this spirit that we have
presented with the agreement of the Soviet Union--under the label both nations now accept
of "general and complete disarmament"--a new statement of newly-agreed principles for
negotiation.
But we are well aware that all issues of principle are not settled, and that principles alone
are not enough. It is therefore our intention to challenge the Soviet Union, not to an arms
race, but to a peace race- -to advance together step by step, stage by stage, until general and
complete disarmament has been achieved. We invite them now to go beyond agreement in
principle to reach agreement on actual plans.
The program to be presented to this assembly--for general and complete disarmament
under effective international control--moves to bridge the gap between those who insist on
a gradual approach and those who talk only of the final and total achievement. It would
create machinery to keep the peace as it destroys the machinery of war. It would proceed
through balanced and safeguarded stages designed to give no state a military advantage
over another. It would place the final responsibility for verification and control where it
belongs, not with the big powers alone, not with one's adversary or one's self, but in an
international organization within the framework of the United Nations. It would assure that
indispensable condition of disarmament--true inspection--and apply it in stages
proportionate to the stage of disarmament. It would cover delivery systems as well as
weapons. It would ultimately halt their production as well as their testing, their transfer as
well as their possession. It would achieve under the eyes of an international disarmament
organization, a steady reduction in force, both nuclear and conventional, until it has
abolished all armies and all weapons except those needed for internal order and a new
United Nations Peace Force. And it starts that process now, today, even as the talks begin.
In short, general and complete disarmament must no longer be a slogan, used to resist the
first steps. It is no longer to be a goal without means of achieving it, without means of
verifying its progress, without means of keeping the peace. It is now a realistic plan, and a
test--a test of those only willing to talk and a test of those willing to act.
Such a plan would not bring a world free from conflict and greed-- but it would bring a
world free from the terrors of mass destruction. It would not usher in the era of the super
state--but it would usher in an era in which no state could annihilate or be annihilated by
another.
In 1945, this Nation proposed the Baruch Plan to internationalize the atom before other
nations even possessed the bomb or demilitarized their troops. We proposed with our allies
the Disarmament plan of 1951 while still at war in Korea. And we make our proposals
today, while building up our defenses over Berlin, not because we are inconsistent or
insincere or intimidated, but because we know the rights of free men will prevail--because
while we are compelled against our will to rearm, we look confidently beyond Berlin to the
kind of disarmed world we all prefer.
I therefore propose on the basis of this Plan, that disarmament negotiations resume
promptly, and continue without interruption until an entire program for general and
complete disarmament has not only been agreed but has actually been achieved.
IV
The logical place to begin is a treaty assuring the end of nuclear tests of all kinds, in every
environment, under workable controls. The United States and the United Kingdom have
proposed such a treaty that is both reasonable, effective and ready for signature. We are
still prepared to sign that treaty today.
We also proposed a mutual ban on atmospheric testing, without inspection or controls, in
order to save the human race from the poison of radioactive fallout. We regret that the offer
has not been accepted.
For 15 years we have sought to make the atom an instrument of peaceful growth rather than
of war. But for 15 years our concessions have been matched by obstruction, our patience
by intransigence. And the pleas of mankind for peace have met with disregard.
Finally, as the explosions of others beclouded the skies, my country was left with no
alternative but to act in the interests of its own and the free world's security. We cannot
endanger that security by refraining from testing while others improve their arsenals. Nor
can we endanger it by another long, uninspected ban on testing. For three years we
accepted those risks in our open society while seeking agreement on inspection. But this
year, while we were negotiating in good faith in Geneva, others were secretly preparing
new experiments in destruction.
Our tests are not polluting the atmosphere. Our deterrent weapons are guarded against
accidental explosion or use. Our doctors and scientists stand ready to help any nation
measure and meet the hazards to health which inevitably result from the tests in the
atmosphere.
But to halt the spread of these terrible weapons, to halt the contamination of the air, to halt
the spiralling nuclear arms race, we remain ready to seek new avenues of agreement, our
new Disarmament Program thus includes the following proposals:
--First, signing the test-ban treaty by all nations. This can be done now. Test ban
negotiations need not and should not await general disarmament.
--Second, stopping the production of fissionable materials for use in weapons, and
preventing their transfer to any nation now lacking in nuclear weapons.
--Third, prohibiting the transfer of control over nuclear weapons to states that do
not own them.
--Fourth, keeping nuclear weapons from seeding new battlegrounds in outer space.
--Fifth, gradually destroying existing nuclear weapons and converting their
materials to peaceful uses; and
--Finally, halting the unlimited testing and production of strategic nuclear delivery
vehicles, and gradually destroying them as well.
V
To destroy arms, however, is not enough. We must create even as we destroy--creating
worldwide law and law enforcement as we outlaw worldwide war and weapons. In the
world we seek, the United Nations Emergency Forces which have been hastily assembled,
uncertainly supplied, and inadequately financed, will never be enough.
Therefore, the United States recommends that all member nations earmark special peace-
keeping units in their armed forces--to be on call of the United Nations, to be specially
trained and quickly available, and with advanced provision for financial and logistic
support.
In addition, the American delegation will suggest a series of steps to improve the United
Nations' machinery for the peaceful settlement of disputes--for on-the-spot fact-finding,
mediation and adjudication--for extending the rule of international law. For peace is not
solely a matter of military or technical problems--it is primarily a problem of politics and
people. And unless man can match his strides in weaponry and technology with equal
strides in social and political development, our great strength, like that of the dinosaur, will
become incapable of proper control--and like the dinosaur vanish from the earth.
VI
As we extend the rule of law on earth, so must we also extend it to man's new domain--
outer space.
All of us salute the brave cosmonauts of the Soviet Union. The new horizons of outer space
must not be driven by the old bitter concepts of imperialism and sovereign claims. The cold
reaches of the universe must not become the new arena of an even colder war.
To this end, we shall urge proposals extending the United Nations Charter to the limits of
man's exploration of the universe, reserving outer space for peaceful use, prohibiting
weapons of mass destruction in space or on celestial bodies, and opening the mysteries and
benefits of space to every nation. We shall propose further cooperative efforts between all
nations in weather prediction and eventually in weather control. We shall propose, finally,
a global system of communications satellites linking the whole world in telegraph and
telephone and radio and television. The day need not be far away when such a system will
televise the proceedings of this body to every corner of the world for the benefit of peace.
VII
But the mysteries of outer space must not divert our eyes or our energies from the harsh
realities that face our fellow men. Political sovereignty is but a mockery without the means
of meeting poverty and illiteracy and disease. Self-determination is but a slogan if the
future holds no hope.
That is why my nation, which has freely shared its capital and its technology to help others
help themselves, now proposes officially designating this decade of the 1960s as the United
Nations Decade of Development. Under the framework of that Resolution, the United
Nations' existing efforts in promoting economic growth can be expanded and coordinated.
Regional surveys and training institutes can now pool the talents of many. New research,
technical assistance and pilot projects can unlock the wealth of less developed lands and
untapped waters. And development can become a cooperative and not a competitive
enterprise-- to enable all nations, however diverse in their systems and beliefs, to become
in fact as well as in law free and equal nations.
VIII
My country favors a world of free and equal states. We agree with those who say that
colonialism is a key issue in this Assembly. But let the full facts of that issue be discussed
in full.
On the one hand is the fact that, since the close of World War II, a worldwide declaration
of independence has transformed nearly 1 billion people and 9 million square miles into 42
free and independent states. Less than 2 percent of the world's population now lives in
"dependent" territories.
I do not ignore the remaining problems of traditional colonialism which still confront this
body. Those problems will be solved, with patience, good will, and determination. Within
the limits of our responsibility in such matters, my Country intends to be a participant and
not merely an observer, in the peaceful, expeditious movement of nations from the status of
colonies to the partnership of equals. That continuing tide of self-determination, which runs
so strong, has our sympathy and our support.
But colonialism in its harshest forms is not only the exploitation of new nations by old, of
dark skins by light, or the subjugation of the poor by the rich. My Nation was once a
colony, and we know what colonialism means; the exploitation and subjugation of the
weak by the powerful, of the many by the few, of the governed who have given no consent
to be governed, whatever their continent, their class, their color.
And that is why there is no ignoring the fact that the tide of selfdetermination has not
reached the Communist empire where a population far larger than that officially termed
"dependent" lives under governments installed by foreign troops instead of free
institutions-- under a system which knows only one party and one belief--which suppresses
free debate, and free elections, and free newspapers, and free books, and free trade unions--
and which builds a wall to keep truth a stranger and its own citizens prisoners. Let us
debate colonialism in full--and apply the principle of free choice and the practice of free
plebiscites in every corner of the globe.
IX
Finally, as President of the United States, I consider it my duty to report to this Assembly
on two threats to the peace which are not on your crowded agenda, but which causes us and
most of you, the deepest concern.
The first threat on which I wish to report is widely misunderstood: the smoldering coals of
war in Southeast Asia. South Viet-Nam is already under attack--sometimes by a single
assassin, sometimes by a band of guerrillas, recently by full battalions. The peaceful
borders of Burma, Cambodia, and India have been repeatedly violated. And the peaceful
people of Laos are in danger of losing the independence they gained not so long ago.
No one can call these "wars of liberation." For these are free countries living under their
own governments. Nor are these aggressions any less real because men are knifed in their
homes and not shot in the fields of battle.
The very simple question confronting the world community is whether measures can be
devised to protect the small and the weak from such tactics. For if they are successful in
Laos and South Viet-Nam, the gates will be opened wide.
The United States seeks for itself, no base, no territory, no special position in this area of
any kind. We support a truly neutral and independent Laos, its people free from outside
interference, living at peace with themselves and their neighbors, assured that their territory
will not be used for attacks on others, and under a government comparable (as Mr.
Khrushchev and I agreed at Vienna) to Cambodia and Burma.
But now the negotiations over Laos are reaching a crucial stage. The cease-fire is at best
precarious. The rainy season is coming to an end. Laotian territory is being used to
infiltrate South Viet-Nam. The world community must recognize--and all those who are
involved--that this potent threat to Laotian peace and freedom is indivisible from all other
threats to their own.
Secondly, I wish to report to you on the crisis over Germany and Berlin. This is not the
time or the place for immoderate tones, but the world community is entitled to know the
very simple issues as we see them. If there is a crisis it is because an existing peace is under
threat, because an existing island of free people is under pressure, because solemn
agreements are being treated with indifference. Established international rights are being
threatened with unilateral usurpation. Peaceful circulation has been interrupted by barbed
wire and concrete blocks.
One recalls the order of the Czar in Pushkin's "Boris Godunov:" "Take steps at this very
hour that our frontiers be fenced in by barriers. . . . That not a single soul pass o'er the
border, that not a hare be able to run or a crow to fly."
It is absurd to allege that we are threatening a war merely to prevent the Soviet Union and
East Germany from signing a so-called "treaty" of peace. The Western Allies are not
concerned with any paper arrangement the Soviets may wish to make with a regime of their
own creation, on territory occupied by their own troops and governed by their own agents.
No such action can affect either our rights or our responsibilities.
If there is a dangerous crisis in Berlin--and there is--it is because of threats against the vital
interests and the deep commitments of the Western Powers, and the freedom of West
Berlin. We cannot yield these interests. We cannot fail these commitments. We cannot
surrender the freedom of these people for whom we are responsible. A "peace-treaty"
which carried with it the provisions which destroy the peace would be a fraud. A "free city"
which was not genuinely free would suffocate freedom and would be an infamy.
For a city or a people to be truly free they must have the secure right, without economic,
political or police pressure, to make their own choice and to live their own lives. And as I
have often said before, if anyone doubts the extent to which our presence is desired by the
people of West Berlin, we are ready to have that question submitted to a free vote in all
Berlin and, if possible, among all the German people.
The elementary fact about this crisis is that it is unnecessary. The elementary tools for a
peaceful settlement are to be found in the charter. Under its law, agreements are to be kept,
unless changed by all those who made them. Established rights are to be respected. The
political disposition of peoples should rest upon their own wishes, freely expressed in
plebiscites or free elections. If there are legal problems, they can be solved by legal means.
If there is a threat of force, it must be rejected. If there is desire for change, it must be a
subject for negotiation, and if there is negotiation, it must be rooted in mutual respect and
concern for the rights of others.
The Western Powers have calmly resolved to defend, by whatever means are forced upon
them, their obligations and their access to the free citizens of West Berlin and the self-
determination of those citizens. This generation learned from bitter experience that either
brandishing or yielding to threats can only lead to war. But firmness and reason can lead to
the kind of peaceful solution in which my country profoundly believes.
We are committed to no rigid formula. We see no perfect solution. We recognize that
troops and tanks can, for a time, keep a nation divided against its will, however unwise that
policy may seem to us. But we believe a peaceful agreement is possible which protects the
freedom of West Berlin and allied presence and access, while recognizing the historic and
legitimate interests of others in insuring European security.
The possibilities of negotiation are now being explored; it is too early to report what the
prospects may be. For our part, we would be glad to report at the appropriate time that a
solution has been found. For there is no need for a crisis over Berlin, threatening the
peace-- and if those who created this crisis desire peace, there will be peace and freedom in
Berlin.
X
The events and decisions of the next ten months may well decide the fate of man for the
next ten thousand years. There will be no avoiding those events. There will be no appeal
from these decisions. And we in this hall shall be remembered either as part of the
generation that turned this planet into a flaming funeral pyre or the generation that met its
vow "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war."
In the endeavor to meet that vow, I pledge you every effort this Nation possesses. I pledge
you that we will neither commit nor provoke aggression, that we shall neither flee nor
invoke the threat of force, that we shall never negotiate out of fear, we shall never fear to
negotiate.
Terror is not a new weapon. Throughout history it has been used by those who could not
prevail, either by persuasion or example. But inevitably they fail, either because men are
not afraid to die for a life worth living, or because the terrorists themselves came to realize
that free men cannot be frightened by threats, and that aggression would meet its own
response. And it is in the light of that history that every nation today should know, be he
friend or foe, that the United States has both the will and the weapons to join free men in
standing up to their responsibilities.
But I come here today to look across this world of threats to a world of peace. In that
search we cannot expect any final triumph--for new problems will always arise. We cannot
expect that all nations will adopt like systems--for conformity is the jailor of freedom, and
the enemy of growth. Nor can we expect to reach our goal by contrivance, by fiat or even
by the wishes of all.
But however close we sometimes seem to that dark and final abyss, let no man of peace
and freedom despair. For he does not stand alone. If we all can persevere, if we can in
every land and office look beyond our own shores and ambitions, then surely the age will
dawn in which the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.
Ladies and gentlemen of this Assembly, the decision is ours. Never have the nations of the
world had so much to lose, or so much to gain. Together we shall save our planet, or
together we shall perish in its flames. Save it we can--and save it we must--and then shall
we earn the eternal thanks of mankind and, as peacemakers, the eternal blessing of God.
University of Washington 100th Anniversary Program,

November 16, 1961
Seattle, Washington
Date: November 16, 1961
Transcript
President Odegaard, members o/the regents, members of the faculty, students, ladies and
gentlemen:
It is a great honor on behalf of the people of the United States to extend to you
congratulations on the Centennial Anniversary of this University, which represents 100
years of service to this State and country.
This nation in two of the most critical times in the life of our country, once in the days after
the Revolution in the Northwest ordinance to which Doctor Odegaard referred, and again
during the most difficult days of the Civil War, in the Morrill Act which established our
land grant colleges, this nation made a basic commitment to the maintenance of education,
for the very reasons which Thomas Jefferson gave, that if this nation were to remain free it
could not remain ignorant. The basis of self-government and freedom requires the
development of character and self-restraint and perseverance and the long view. And these
are qualities which require many years of training and education. So that I think this
University and others like it across the country, and its graduates, have recognized that
these schools are not maintained by the people of the various States in order to merely give
the graduates of these schools an economic advantage in the life struggle. Rather, these
schools are supported by our people because our people realize that this country has needed
in the past, and needs today as never before, educated men and women who are committed
to the cause of freedom. So for what this University has done in the past, and what its
graduates can do now and in the future, I salute you.
This University was rounded when the Civil War was already on, and no one could be sure
in 1861 whether this country would survive. But the picture which the student of 1961 has
of the world, and indeed the picture which our citizens have of the world, is infinitely more
complicated and infinitely more dangerous.
In 1961 the world relations of this country have become tangled and complex. One of our
former allies has become our adversary-and he has his own adversaries who are not our
allies. Heroes are removed from their tombs--history rewritten--the names of cities changed
overnight.
We increase our arms at a heavy cost, primarily to make certain that we will not have to
use them. We must face up to the chance of war, if we are to maintain the peace. We must
work with certain countries lacking in freedom in order to strengthen the cause of freedom.
We find some who call themselves neutral who are our friends and sympathetic to us, and
others who call themselves neutral who are unremittingly hostile to us. And as the most
powerful defender of freedom on earth, we find ourselves unable to escape the
responsibilities of freedom, and yet unable to exercise it without restraints imposed by the
very freedoms we seek to protect.
We cannot, as a free nation, compete with our adversaries in tactics of terror, assassination,
false promises, counterfeit mobs and crises.
We cannot, under the scrutiny of a free press and public, tell different stories to different
audiences, foreign and domestic, friendly and hostile.
We cannot abandon the slow processes of consulting with our allies to match the swift
expediencies of those who merely dictate to their satellites.
We can neither abandon nor control the international organization in which we now cast
less than 1 percent of the vote in the General Assembly.
We possess weapons of tremendous power--but they are least effective in combating the
weapons most often used by freedom's foes: subversion, infiltration, guerrilla warfare, civil
disorder.
We send arms to other peoples--just as we send them the ideals of democracy in which we
believe--but we cannot send them the will to use those arms or to abide by those ideals.
And while we believe not only in the force of arms but in the force of right and reason, we
have learned that reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men--that it is not always
true that "a soft answer turneth away wrath"--and that right does not always make might.
In short, we must face problems which do not lend themselves to easy or quick or
permanent solutions. And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent
or omniscient--that we are only 6 percent of the world's population--that we cannot impose
our will upon the other 94 percent of mankind--that we cannot right every wrong or reverse
each adversity--and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world
problem.
These burdens and frustrations are accepted by most Americans with maturity and
understanding. They may long for the days when war meant charging up San Juan Hill-or
when our isolation was guarded by two oceans--or when the atomic bomb was ours alone--
or when much of the industrialized world depended upon our resources and our aid. But
they now know that those days are gone--and that gone with them are the old policies and
the old complacency's. And they know, too, that we must make the best of our new
problems and our new opportunities, whatever the risk and the cost.
But there are others who cannot bear the burden of a long twilight struggle. They lack
confidence in our long-run capacity to survive and succeed. Hating communism, yet they
see communism in the long run, perhaps, as the wave of the future. And they want some
quick and easy and final and cheap solution--now.
There are two groups of these frustrated citizens, far apart in their views yet very much
alike in their approach. On the one hand are those who urge upon us what I regard to be the
pathway of surrender-appeasing our enemies, compromising our commitments, purchasing
peace at any price, disavowing our arms, our friends, our obligations. If their view had
prevailed, the world of free choice would be smaller today.
On the other hand are those who urge upon us what I regard to be the pathway of war:
equating negotiations with appeasement and substituting rigidity for firmness. If their view
had prevailed, we would be at war today, and in more than one place.
It is a curious fact that each of these extreme opposites resembles the other. Each believes
that we have only two choices: appeasement or war, suicide or surrender, humiliation or
holocaust, to be either Red or dead. Each side sees only "hard" and "soft" nations, hard and
soft policies, hard and soft men. Each believes that any departure from its own course
inevitably leads to the other: one group believes that any peaceful solution means
appeasement; the other believes that any arms build-up means war. One group regards
everyone else as warmongers, the other regards everyone else as appeasers. Neither side
admits that its path will lead to disaster--but neither can tell us how or where to draw the
line once we descend the slippery slopes of appeasement or constant intervention.
In short, while both extremes profess to be the true realists of our time, neither could be
more unrealistic. While both claim to be doing the nation a service, they could do it no
greater disservice. This kind of talk and easy solutions to difficult problems, if believed,
could inspire a lack of confidence among our people when they must all--above all else--be
united in recognizing the long and difficult days that lie ahead. It could inspire uncertainty
among our allies when above all else they must be confident in us. And even more
dangerously, it could, if believed, inspire doubt among our adversaries when they must
above all be convinced that we will defend our vital interests.
The essential fact that both of these groups fail to grasp is that diplomacy and defense are
not substitutes for one another. Either alone would fail. A willingness to resist force,
unaccompanied by a willingness to talk, could provoke belligerence--while a willingness to
talk, unaccompanied by a willingness to resist force, could invite disaster.
But as long as we know what comprises our vital interests and our long-range goals, we
have nothing to fear from negotiations at the appropriate time, and nothing to gain by
refusing to take part in them. At a time when a single clash could escalate overnight into a
holocaust of mushroom clouds, a great power does not prove its firmness by leaving the
task of exploring the other's intentions to sentries or those without full responsibility. Nor
can ultimate weapons rightfully be employed, or the ultimate sacrifice rightfully demanded
of our citizens, until every reasonable solution has been explored. "How many wars,"
Winston Churchill has written, "have been averted by patience and persisting good will! ....
How many wars have been precipitated by firebrands!"
If vital interests under duress can be preserved by peaceful means, negotiations will find
that out. If our adversary will accept nothing-less than a concession of our rights,
negotiations will find that out. And if negotiations are to take place, this nation cannot
abdicate to its adversaries the task of choosing the forum and the framework and the time.
For there are carefully defined limits within which any serious negotiations must take
place. With respect to any future talks on Germany and Berlin, for example, we cannot, on
the one hand, confine our proposals to a list of concessions we are willing to make, nor can
we, on the other hand, advance any proposals which compromise the security of free
Germans and West Berliners, or endanger their ties with the West.
No one should be under the illusion that negotiations for the sake of negotiations always
advance the cause of peace. If for lack of preparation they break up in bitterness, the
prospects of peace have been endangered. If they are made a forum for propaganda or a
cover for aggression, the processes of peace have been abused.
But it is a test of our national maturity to accept the fact that negotiations are not a contest
spelling victory or defeat. They may succeed--they may fail. They are likely to be
successful only if both sides reach an agreement which both regard as preferable to the
status quo--an agreement in which each side can consider its own situation to be improved.
And this is most difficult to obtain.
But, while we shall negotiate freely, we shall not negotiate freedom. Our answer to the
classic question of Patrick Henry is still no-life is not so dear, and peace is not so precious,
"as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery." And that is our answer even though,
for the first time since the ancient battles between Greek city-states, war entails the threat
of total annihilation, of everything we know, of society itself. For to save mankind's future
freedom, we must face up to any risk that is necessary. We will always seek peace--but we
will never surrender.
In short, we are neither "warmongers" nor "appeasers," neither "hard" nor "soft." We are
Americans, determined to defend the frontiers of freedom, by an honorable peace if peace
is possible, but by arms if arms are used against us.
And if we are to move forward in that spirit, we shall need all the calm and thoughtful
citizens that this great University can produce, all the light they can shed, all the wisdom
they can bring to bear. It is customary, both here and around the world, to regard life in the
United States as easy. Our advantages are many. But more than any other people on earth,
we bear burdens and accept risks unprecedented in their size and their duration, not for
ourselves alone but for all who wish to be free. No other generation of free men in any
country has ever faced so many and such difficult challenges-not even those who lived in
the days when this University was founded in 1861.
This nation was then torn by war. This territory had only the simplest elements of
civilization. And this city had barely begun to function. But a university was one of their
earliest thoughts--and they summed it up in the motto that they adopted: "Let there be
light." What more can be said today, regarding all the dark and tangled problems we face
than: Let there be light. And to accomplish that illumination, the University of Washington
shall still hold high the torch.
NOTE: The President spoke at the Edmundson Pavilion in Seattle. His opening words
"President Odegaard" referred to Charles E. Odegaard, President of the University.
State of the Union Address, January 11, 1962

U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C.
Transcript
Mr. Vice President, my old colleague from Massachusetts and your new Speaker, John
McCormack, Members of the 87th Congress, ladies and gentlemen:
This week we begin anew our joint and separate efforts to build the American future. But,
sadly, we build without a man who linked a long past with the present and looked strongly
to the future. "Mister Sam" Rayburn is gone. Neither this House nor the Nation is the same
without him.
Members of the Congress, the Constitution makes us not rivals for power but partners for
progress. We are all trustees for the American people, custodians of the American heritage.
It is my task to report the State of the Union--to improve it is the task of us all.
In the past year, I have traveled not only across our own land but to other lands-to the
North and the South, and across the seas. And I have found--as I am sure you have, in your
travels--that people everywhere, in spite of occasional disappointments, look to us--not to
our wealth or power, but to the splendor of our ideals. For our Nation is commissioned by
history to be either an observer of freedom's failure or the cause of its success. Our
overriding obligation in the months ahead is to fulfill the world's hopes by fulfilling our
own faith.
1. STRENGTHENING THE ECONOMY
That task must begin at home. For if we cannot fulfill our own ideals here, we cannot
expect others to accept them. And when the youngest child alive today has grown to the
cares of manhood, our position in the world will be determined first of all by what
provisions we make today--for his education, his health, and his opportunities for a good
home and a good job and a good life.
At home, we began the year in the valley of recession--we completed it on the high road of
recovery and growth. With the help of new congressionally approved or administratively
increased stimulants to our economy, the number of major surplus labor u areas has
declined from 101 to 60; nonagricultural employment has increased by more than a million
jobs; and the average factory work-week has risen to well over 40 hours. At year's end the
economy which Mr. Khrushchev once called a "stumbling horse" was racing to new
records in consumer spending, labor income, and industrial production.
We are gratified--but we are not satisfied. Too many unemployed are still looking for the
blessings of prosperity- As those who leave our schools and farms demand new jobs,
automation takes old jobs away. To expand our growth and job opportunities, I urge on the
Congress three measures:
(1) First, the Manpower Training and Development Act, to stop the waste of able-bodied
men and women who want to work, but whose only skill has been replaced by a machine,
or moved with a mill, or shut down with a mine;
(2) Second, the Youth Employment Opportunities Act, to help train and place not only the
one million young Americans who are both out of school and out of work, but the twenty-
six million young Americans entering the labor market in this decade; and
(3) Third, the 8 percent tax credit for investment in machinery and equipment, which,
combined with planned revisions of depreciation allowances, will spur our modernization,
our growth, and our ability to compete abroad.
Moreover--pleasant as it may be to bask in the warmth of recovery--let us not forget that
we have suffered three recessions in the last 7 years. The time to repair the roof is when the
sun is shining--by filling three basic gaps in our anti-recession protection. We need:
(1) First, presidential standby authority, subject to congressional veto, to adjust personal
income tax rates downward within a specified range and time, to slow down an economic
decline before it has dragged us all down;
(2) Second, presidential standby authority, upon a given rise in the rate of unemployment,
to accelerate Federal and federally-aided capital improvement programs; and
(3) Third, a permanent strengthening of our unemployment compensation system--to
maintain for our fellow citizens searching for a job who cannot find it, their purchasing
power and their living standards without constant resort--as we have seen in recent years by
the Congress and the administrations-to temporary supplements.
If we enact this six-part program, we can show the whole world that a free economy need
not be an unstable economy--that a free system need not leave men unemployed--and that a
free society is not only the most productive but the most stable form of organization yet
fashioned by man.
II. FIGHTING INFLATION
But recession is only one enemy of a free economy--inflation is another. Last year, 1961,
despite rising production and demand, consumer prices held almost steady--and wholesale
prices declined. This is the best record of overall price stability of any comparable period
of recovery since the end of World War II.
Inflation too often follows in the shadow of growth--while price stability is made easy by
stagnation or controls. But we mean to maintain both stability and growth in a climate of
freedom.
Our first line of defense against inflation is the good sense and public spirit of business and
labor--keeping their total increases in wages and profits in step with productivity. There is
no single statistical test to guide each company and each union. But I strongly urge them--
for their country's interest, and for their own--to apply the test of the public interest to these
transactions.
Within this same framework of growth and wage-price stability:
--This administration has helped keep our economy competitive by widening the access of
small business to credit and Government contracts, and by stepping up the drive against
monopoly, price-fixing, and racketeering;
--We will submit a Federal Pay Reform bill aimed at giving our classified, postal, and other
employees new pay scales more comparable to those of private industry;
--We are holding the fiscal 1962 budget deficit far below the level incurred after the last
recession in 1958; and, finally,
--I am submitting for fiscal 1963 a balanced Federal Budget.
This is a joint responsibility, requiring Congressional cooperation on appropriations, and
on three sources of income in particular:
(1) First, an increase in postal rates, to end the postal deficit;
(2) Secondly, passage of the tax reforms previously urged, to remove unwarranted tax
preferences, and to apply to dividends and to interest the same withholding requirements
we have long applied to wages; and
(3) Third, extension of the present excise and corporation tax rates, except for those
changes--which will be recommended in a message--affecting transportation.
III. GETTING AMERICA MOVING
But a stronger nation and economy require more than a balanced Budget. They require
progress in those programs that spur our growth and fortify our strength.
CITIES
A strong America depends on its cities-America's glory, and sometimes America's shame.
To substitute sunlight for congestion and progress for decay, we have stepped up existing
urban renewal and housing programs, and launched new ones--redoubled the attack on
water pollution--speeded aid to airports, hospitals, highways, and our declining mass transit
systems--and secured new weapons to combat organized crime, racketeering, and youth
delinquency, assisted by the coordinated and hard-hitting efforts of our investigative
services: the FBI, the Internal Revenue, the Bureau of Narcotics, and many others. We
shall need further anti-crime, mass transit, and transportation legislation--and new tools to
fight air pollution. And with all this effort under way, both equity and commonsense
require that our nation's urban areas--containing three-fourths of our population--sit as
equals at the Cabinet table. I urge a new Department of Urban Affairs and Housing.
AGRICULTURE AND RESOURCES
A strong America also depends on its farms and natural resources. American farmers took
heart in 1961--from a billion dollar rise in farm income--and from a hopeful start on
reducing the farm surpluses. But we are still operating under a patchwork accumulation of
old laws, which cost us $1 billion a year in CCC carrying charges alone, yet fail to halt
rural poverty or boost farm earnings.
Our task is to master and turn to fully fruitful ends the magnificent productivity of our
farms and farmers. The revolution on our own countryside stands in the sharpest contrast to
the repeated farm failures of the Communist nations and is a source of pride to us all. Since
1950 our agricultural output per man-hour has actually doubled! Without new, realistic
measures, it will someday swamp our farmers and our taxpayers in a national scandal or a
farm depression.
I will, therefore, submit to the Congress a new comprehensive farm program--tailored to fit
the use of our land and the supplies of each crop to the long-range needs of the sixties--and
designed to prevent chaos in the sixties with a program of commonsense.
We also need for the sixties--if we are to bequeath our full national estate to our heirs--a
new long-range conservation and recreation program--expansion of our superb national
parks and forests--preservation of our authentic wilderness areas-new starts on water and
power projects as our population steadily increases--and expanded REA generation and
transmission loans.
CIVIL RIGHTS
But America stands for progress in human rights as well as economic affairs, and a strong
America requires the assurance of full and equal rights to all its citizens, of any race or of
any color. This administration has shown as never before how much could be done through
the full use of Executive powers--through the enforcement of laws already passed by the
Congress-through persuasion, negotiation, and litigation, to secure the constitutional rights
of all: the right to vote, the right to travel Without hindrance across State lines, and the
right to free public education.
I issued last March a comprehensive order to guarantee the right to equal employment
opportunity in all Federal agencies and contractors. The Vice President's Committee thus
created has done much, including the voluntary "Plans for progress" which, in all sections
of the country, are achieving a quiet but striking success in opening up to all races new
professional, supervisory, and other job opportunities.
But there is much more to be done--by the Executive, by the courts, and by the Congress.
Among the bills now pending before you, on which the executive departments will
comment in detail, are appropriate methods of strengthening these basic rights which have
our full support. The right to vote, for example, should no longer be denied through such
arbitrary devices on a local level, sometimes abused, such as literacy tests and poll taxes.
As we approach the 100th anniversary, next January, of the Emancipation Proclamation, let
the acts of every branch of the Government--and every citizen--portray that "righteousness
does exalt a nation."
HEALTH AND WELFARE
Finally, a strong America cannot neglect the aspirations of its citizens--the welfare of the
needy, the health care of the elderly, the education of the young. For we are not developing
the Nation's wealth for its own sake. Wealth is the means--and people arc the ends. All our
material riches will avail us little if we do not use them to expand the opportunities of our
people.
Last year, we improved the diet of needy people--provided more hot lunches and fresh milk
to school children built more college dormitories--and, for the elderly, expanded private
housing, nursing homes, heath services, and social security. But we have just begun.
To help those least fortunate of all, I am recommending a new public welfare program,
stressing services instead of support, rehabilitation instead of relief, and training for useful
work instead of prolonged dependency.
To relieve the critical shortage of doctors and dentists--and this is a matter which should
concern us all--and expand research, I urge action to aid medical and dental colleges and
scholarships and to establish new National Institutes of Health.
To take advantage of modern vaccination achievements, I am proposing a mass
immunization program, aimed at the virtual elimination of such ancient enemies of our
children as polio, diphtheria, whooping cough, and tetanus.
To protect our consumers from the careless and the unscrupulous, I shall recommend
improvements in the Food and Drug laws-strengthening inspection and standards, halting
unsafe and worthless products, preventing misleading labels, and cracking down on the
illicit sale of habit-forming drugs.
But in matters of health, no piece of unfinished business is more important or more urgent
than the enactment under the social security system of health insurance for the aged.
For our older citizens have longer and more frequent illnesses, higher hospital and medical
bills and too little income to pay them. Private health insurance helps very few--for its cost
is high and its coverage limited. Public welfare cannot help those too proud to seek relief
but hard-pressed to pay their own bills. Nor can their children or grandchildren always
sacrifice their own health budgets to meet this constant drain.
Social security has long helped to meet the hardships of retirement, death, and disability. I
now urge that its coverage be extended without further delay to provide health insurance
for the elderly.
EDUCATION
Equally important to our strength is the quality of our education. Eight million adult
Americans are classified as functionally illiterate. This is a disturbing figure--reflected in
Selective Service rejection rates-reflected in welfare rolls and crime rates. And I shall
recommend plans for a massive attack to end this adult illiteracy.
I shall also recommend bills to improve educational quality, to stimulate the arts, and, at
the college level, to provide Federal loans for the construction of academic facilities and
federally financed scholarships.
If this Nation is to grow in wisdom and strength, then every able high school graduate
should have the opportunity to develop his talents. Yet nearly half lack either the funds or
the facilities to attend college. Enrollments are going to double in our colleges in the short
space of 10 years. The annual cost per student is skyrocketing to astronomical levels--now
averaging $1,650 a year, although almost half of our families earn less than $5,000. They
cannot afford such costs--but this Nation cannot afford to maintain its military power and
neglect its brainpower.
But excellence in education must begin at the elementary level. I sent to the Congress last
year a proposal for Federal aid to public school construction and teachers' salaries. I believe
that bill, which passed the Senate and received House Committee approval, offered the
minimum amount required by our needs and--in terms of across-the-board aid--the
maximum scope permitted by our Constitution. I therefore see no reason to weaken or
withdraw that bill: and I urge its passage at this session.
"Civilization," said H. G. Wells, "is a race between education and catastrophe." It is up to
you in this Congress to determine the winner of that race.
These are not unrelated measures addressed to specific gaps or grievances in our national
life. They are the pattern of our intentions and the foundation of our hopes. "I believe in
democracy," said Woodrow Wilson, "because it releases the energy of every human being."
The dynamic of democracy is the power and the purpose of the individual, and the policy
of this administration is to give to the individual the opportunity to realize his own highest
possibilities.
Our program is to open to all the opportunity for steady and productive employment, to
remove from all the handicap of arbitrary or irrational exclusion, to offer to all the facilities
for education and health and welfare, to make society the servant of the individual and the
individual the source of progress, and thus to realize for all the full promise of American
life.
IV. OUR GOALS ABROAD
All of these efforts at home give meaning to our efforts abroad. Since the close of the
Second World War, a global civil war has divided and tormented mankind. But it is not our
military might, or our higher standard of living, that has most distinguished us from our
adversaries. It is our belief that the state is the servant of the citizen and not his master.
This basic clash of ideas and wills is but one of the forces reshaping our globe--swept as it
is by the tides of hope and fear, by crises in the headlines today that become mere footnotes
tomorrow. Both the successes and the setbacks of the past year remain on our agenda of
unfinished business. For every apparent blessing contains the seeds of danger--every area
of trouble gives out a ray of hope--and the one unchangeable certainty is that nothing is
certain or unchangeable.
Yet our basic goal remains the same: a peaceful world community of free and independent
states--free to choose their own future and their own system, so long as it does not threaten
the freedom of others.
Some may choose forms and ways that we would not choose for ourselves--but it is not for
us that they are choosing. We can welcome diversity--the Communists cannot. For we offer
a world of choice--they offer the world of coercion. And the way of the past shows dearly
that freedom, not coercion, is the wave of the future. At times our goal has been obscured
by crisis or endangered by conflict--but it draws sustenance from five basic sources of
strength:
--the moral and physical strength of the United States;
--the united strength of the Atlantic Community;
--the regional strength of our Hemispheric relations;
--the creative strength of our efforts in the new and developing nations; and
--the peace-keeping strength of the United Nations.
V. OUR MILITARY STRENGTH
Our moral and physical strength begins at home as already discussed. But it includes our
military strength as well. So long as fanaticism and fear brood over the affairs of men, we
must arm to deter others from aggression.
In the past 12 months our military posture has steadily improved. We increased the
previous defense budget by 15 percent--not in the expectation of war but for the
preservation of peace. We more than doubled our acquisition rate of Polaris submarines--
we doubled the production capacity for Minuteman missiles--and increased by 50 percent
the number of manned bombers standing ready on a 15 minute alert. This year the
combined force levels planned under our new Defense budget--including nearly three
hundred additional Polaris and Minuteman missiles--have been precisely calculated to
insure the continuing strength of our nuclear deterrent.
But our strength may be tested at many levels. We intend to have at all times the capacity
to resist non-nuclear or limited attacks--as a complement to our nuclear capacity, not as a
substitute. We have rejected any all-or-nothing posture which would leave no choice but
inglorious retreat or unlimited retaliation.
Thus we have doubled the number of ready combat divisions in the Army's strategic
reserve--increased our troops in Europe--built up the Marines--added new sealift and airlift
capacity--modernized our weapons and ammunition--expanded our anti-guerrilla forces--
and increased the active fleet by more than 70 vessels and our tactical air forces by nearly a
dozen wings.
Because we needed to reach this higher long-term level of readiness more quickly, 155,000
members of the Reserve and National Guard were activated under the Act of this Congress.
Some disruptions and distress were inevitable. But the overwhelming majority bear their
burdens--and their Nation's burdens--with admirable and traditional devotion.
In the coming year, our reserve programs will be revised--two Army Divisions will, I hope,
replace those Guard Divisions on duty--and substantial other increases will boost our Air
Force fighter units, the procurement of equipment, and our continental defense and warning
efforts. The Nation's first serious civil defense shelter program is under way, identifying,
marking, and stocking 50 million spaces; and I urge your approval of Federal incentives for
the construction of public fall-out shelters in schools and hospitals and similar centers.
VI. THE UNITED NATIONS
But arms alone are not enough to keep the peace--it must be kept by men. Our instrument
and our hope is the United Nations-and I see little merit in the impatience of those who
would abandon this imperfect world instrument because they dislike our imperfect world.
For the troubles of a world organization merely reflect the troubles of the world itself. And
if the organization is weakened, these troubles can only increase. We may not always agree
with every detailed action taken by every officer of the United Nations, or with every
voting majority. But as an institution, it should have in the future, as it has had in the past
since its inception, no stronger or more faithful member than the United States of America.
In 1961 the peace-keeping strength of the United Nations was reinforced. And those who
preferred or predicted its demise, envisioning a troika in the seat of Hammarskjöld--or Red
China inside the Assembly-have seen instead a new vigor, under a new Secretary General
and a fully independent Secretariat. In making plans for a new forum and principles on
disarmament for peace-keeping in outer space--for a decade of development effort--the UN
fulfilled its Charter's lofty aim.
Eighteen months ago the tangled and turbulent Congo presented the UN with its gravest
challenge. The prospect was one of chaos--or certain big-power confrontation, with all of
its hazards and all of its risks, to us and to others. Today the hopes have improved for
peaceful conciliation within a united Congo. This is the objective of our policy in this
important area.
No policeman is universally popular-particularly when he uses his stick to restore law and
order on his beat. Those members who are willing to contribute their votes and their
views--but very little else--have created a serious deficit by refusing to pay their share of
special UN assessments. Yet they do pay their annual assessments to retain their votes--and
a new UN Bond issue, financing special operations for the next 18 months, is to be repaid
with interest from these regular assessments. This is clearly in our interest. It will not only
keep the UN solvent, but require all voting members to pay their fair share of its activities.
Our share of special operations has long been much higher than our share of the annual
assessment--and the bond issue will in effect reduce our disproportionate obligation, and
for these reasons, I am urging Congress to approve our participation.
With the approval of this Congress, we have undertaken in the past year a great new effort
in outer space. Our aim is not simply to be first on the moon, any more than Charles
Lindbergh's real aim was to be the first to Paris. His aim was to develop the techniques of
our own country and other countries in the field of air and the atmosphere, and our
objective in making this effort, which we hope will place one of our citizens on the moon,
is to develop in a new frontier of science, commerce and cooperation, the position of the
United States and the Free World.
This Nation belongs among the first to explore it, and among the first--if not the first--we
shall be. We are offering our know-how and our cooperation to the United Nations. Our
satellites will soon be providing other nations with improved weather observations. And I
shall soon send to the Congress a measure to govern the financing and operation of an
International Communications Satellite system, in a manner consistent with the public
interest and our foreign policy.
But peace in space will help us naught once peace on earth is gone. World order will be
secured only when the whole world has laid down these weapons which seem to offer us
present security but threaten the future survival of the human race. That armistice day
seems very far away. The vast resources of this planet are being devoted more and more to
the means of destroying, instead of enriching, human life.
But the world was not meant to be a prison in which man awaits his execution. Nor has
mankind survived the tests and trials of thousands of years to surrender everything-
including its existence--now. This Nation has the will and the faith to make a supreme
effort to break the log jam on disarmament and nuclear tests--and we will persist until we
prevail, until the rule of law has replaced the ever dangerous use of force.
VII. LATIN AMERICA
I turn now to a prospect of great promise: our Hemispheric relations. The Alliance for
Progress is being rapidly transformed from proposal to program. Last month in Latin
America I saw for myself the quickening of hope, the revival of confidence, the new trust
in our country--among workers and farmers as well as diplomats. We have pledged our
help in speeding their economic, educational, and social progress. The Latin American
Republics have in turn pledged a new and strenuous effort of self-help and self-reform.
To support this historic undertaking, I am proposing--under the authority contained in the
bills of the last session of the Congress--a special long-term Alliance for Progress fund of
$3 billion. Combined with our Food for Peace, Export-Import Bank, and other resources,
this will provide more than $1 billion a year in new support for the Alliance. In addition,
we have increased twelve-fold our Spanish and Portuguese language broadcasting in Latin
America, .and improved Hemispheric trade and defense. And while the blight of
communism has been increasingly exposed and isolated in the Americas, liberty has scored
a gain. The people of the Dominican Republic, with our firm encouragement and help, and
those of our sister Republics of this Hemisphere are safely passing through the treacherous
course from dictatorship through disorder towards democracy.
VIII. THE NEW AND DEVELOPING NATIONS
Our efforts to help other new or developing nations, and to strengthen their stand for
freedom, have also made progress. A newly unified Agency for International Development
is reorienting our foreign assistance to emphasize long-term development loans instead of
grants, more economic aid instead of military, individual plans to meet the individual needs
of the nations, and new standards on what they must do to marshal their own resources.
A newly conceived Peace Corps is winning friends and helping people in fourteen
countries--supplying trained and dedicated young men and women, to give these new
nations a hand in building a society, and a glimpse of the best that is in our country. If there
is a problem here, it is that we cannot supply the spontaneous and mounting demand.
A newly-expanded Food for Peace Program is feeding the hungry of many lands with the
abundance of our productive farms--providing lunches for children in school, wages for
economic development, relief for the victims of flood and famine, and a better diet for
millions whose daily bread is their chief concern.
These programs help people; and, by helping people, they help freedom. The views of their
governments may sometimes be very different from ours--but events in Africa, the Middle
East, and Eastern Europe teach us never to write off any nation as lost to the Communists-
That is the lesson of our time. We support the independence of those newer or weaker
states whose history, geography, economy or lack of power impels them to remain outside
"entangling alliances"--as we did for more than a century. For the independence of nations
is a bar to the Communists' "grand design"-it is the basis of our own.
In the past year, for example, we have urged a neutral and independent Laos-regained there
a common policy with our major allies--and insisted that a cease-fire precede negotiations.
While a workable formula for supervising its independence is still to be achieved, both the
spread of war-which might have involved this country also--and a Communist occupation
have thus far been prevented.
A satisfactory settlement in Laos would also help to achieve and safeguard the peace in
Viet-Nam--where the foe is increasing his tactics of terror--where our own efforts have
been stepped up--and where the local government has initiated new programs and reforms
to broaden the base of resistance. The systematic aggression now bleeding that country is
not a "war of liberation"--for Viet-Nam is already free. It is a war of attempted
subjugation--and it will be resisted.
IX. THE ATLANTIC COMMUNITY
Finally, the united strength of the Atlantic Community has flourished in the last year under
severe tests. NATO has increased both the number and the readiness of its air, ground, and
naval units--both its nuclear and non-nuclear capabilities. Even greater efforts by all its
members are still required. Nevertheless our unity of purpose and will has been, I believe,
immeasurably strengthened.
The threat to the brave city of Berlin remains. In these last 6 months the Allies have made
it unmistakably clear that our presence in Berlin, our free access thereto, and the freedom
of two million West Berliners would not be surrendered either to force or through
appeasement--and to maintain those rights and obligations, we are prepared to talk, when
appropriate, and to fight, if necessary. Every member of NATO stands with us in a
common commitment to preserve this symbol of free man's will to remain free.
I cannot now predict the course of future negotiations over Berlin. I can only say that we
are sparing no honorable effort to find a peaceful and mutually acceptable resolution of this
problem. I believe such a resolution can be found, and with it an improvement in our
relations with the Soviet Union, if only the leaders in the Kremlin will recognize the basic
rights and interests involved, and the interest of all mankind in peace.
But the Atlantic Community is no longer concerned with purely military aims. As its
common undertakings grow at an ever-increasing pace, we are, and increasingly will be,
partners in aid, trade, defense, diplomacy, and monetary affairs.
The emergence of the new Europe is being matched by the emergence of new ties across
the Atlantic. It is a matter of undramatic daily cooperation in hundreds of workaday tasks:
of currencies kept in effective relation, of development loans meshed together, of
standardized weapons, and concerted diplomatic positions. The Atlantic Community
grows, not like a volcanic mountain, by one mighty explosion, but like a coral reef, from
the accumulating activity of all.
Thus, we in the free world are moving steadily toward unity and cooperation, in the teeth of
that old Bolshevik prophecy, and at the very time when extraordinary rumbles of discord
can be heard across the Iron Curtain. It is not free societies which bear within them the
seeds of inevitable disunity.
X. OUR BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
On one special problem, of great concern to our friends, and to us, I am proud to give the
Congress an encouraging report. Our efforts to safeguard the dollar are progressing. In the
11 months preceding last February 1, we suffered a net loss of nearly $2 billion in gold. In
the 11 months that followed, the loss was just over half a billion dollars. And our deficit in
our basic transactions with the rest of the world--trade, defense, foreign aid, and capital,
excluding volatile short-term flows--has been reduced from $2 billion for 1960 to about
one-third that amount for 1961. Speculative fever against the dollar is ending--and
confidence in the dollar has been restored.
We did not--and could not--achieve these gains through import restrictions, troop
withdrawals, exchange controls, dollar devaluation or choking off domestic recovery. We
acted not in panic but in perspective. But the problem is not yet solved. Persistently large
deficits would endanger our economic growth and our military and defense commitments
abroad. Our goal must be a reasonable equilibrium in our balance of payments. With the
cooperation of the Congress, business, labor, and our major allies, that goal can be reached.
We shall continue to attract foreign tourists and investments to our shores, to seek
increased military purchases here by our allies, to maximize foreign aid procurement from
American firms, to urge increased aid from other fortunate nations to the less fortunate, to
seek tax laws which do not favor investment in other industrialized nations or tax havens,
and to urge coordination of allied fiscal and monetary policies So as to discourage large
and disturbing capital movements.
TRADE
Above all, if we are to pay for our commitments abroad, we must expand our exports. Our
businessmen must be export conscious and export competitive. Our tax policies must spur
modernization of our plants--our wage and price gains must be consistent with productivity
to hold the line on prices--our export credit and promotion campaigns for American
industries must continue to expand.
But the greatest challenge of all is posed by the growth of the European Common Market.
Assuming the accession of the United Kingdom, there will arise across the Atlantic a
trading partner behind a single external tariff similar to ours with an economy which nearly
equals our own. Will we in this country adapt our thinking to these new prospects and
patterns--or will we wait until events have passed us by?
This is the year to decide. The Reciprocal Trade Act is expiring. We need a new law--a
wholly new approach--a bold new instrument of American trade policy. Our decision could
well affect the unity of the West, the course of the Cold War, and the economic growth of
our Nation for a generation to come.
If we move decisively, our factories and farms can increase their sales to their richest,
fastest-growing market. Our exports will increase. Our balance of payments position will
improve. And we will have forged across the Atlantic a trading partnership with vast
resources for freedom.
If, on the other hand, we hang back in deference to local economic pressures, we will find
ourselves cut off from our major allies. Industries--and I believe this is most vital--
industries will move their plants and jobs and capital inside the walls of the Common
Market, and jobs, therefore, will be lost here in the United States if they cannot otherwise
compete for its consumers. Our farm surpluses--our balance of trade, as you all know, to
Europe, the Common Market, in farm products, is nearly three or four to one in our favor,
amounting to one of the best earners of dollars in our balance of payments structure, and
without entrance to this Market, without the ability to enter it, our farm surpluses will pile
up in the Middle West, tobacco in the South, and other commodities, which have gone
through Western Europe for 15 years. Our balance of payments position will worsen. Our
consumers, will lack a wider choice of goods at lower prices. And millions of American
workers-whose jobs depend on the sale or the transportation or the distribution of exports
or imports, or whose jobs will be endangered by the movement of our capital to Europe, or
whose jobs can be maintained only in. an expanding economy--these millions of workers in
your home States and mine will see their real interests sacrificed.
Members of the Congress: The United States did not rise to greatness by waiting for others
to lead. This Nation is the world's foremost manufacturer, farmer, banker, consumer, and
exporter. The Common Market is moving ahead at an economic growth rate twice ours.
The Communist economic offensive is under way. The opportunity is ours--the initiative is
up to us--and I believe that 1962 is the time.
To seize that initiative, I shall shortly send to the Congress a new five-year Trade
Expansion Action, far-reaching in scope but designed with great care to make certain that
its benefits to our people far outweigh any risks. The bill will permit the gradual
elimination of tariffs here in the United States and in the Common Market on those items in
which we together supply 80 percent of the world's trade--mostly items in which our own
ability to compete is demonstrated by the fact that we sell abroad, in these items,
substantially more than we import. This step will make it possible for our major industries
to compete with their counterparts in Western Europe for access to European consumers.
On other goods the bill will permit a gradual reduction of duties up to 50 percent-
permitting bargaining by major categories-and provide for appropriate and tested forms of
assistance to firms and employees adjusting to import competition. We are not neglecting
the safeguards provided by peril points, an escape clause, or the National Security
Amendment. Nor are we abandoning our non-European friends or our traditional "most-
favored nation" principle. On the contrary, the bill will provide new encouragement for
their sale of tropical agricultural products, so important to our friends in Latin America,
who have long depended upon the European market, who now find themselves faced with
new challenges which we must join with them in overcoming.
Concessions, in this bargaining, must of course be reciprocal, not unilateral. The Common
Market will not fulfill its own high promise unless its outside tariff walls are low. The
dangers of restriction or timidity in our own policy have counterparts for our friends in
Europe. For together we face a common challenge: to enlarge the prosperity of free men
everywhere--to build in partnership a new trading community in which all free nations may
gain from the productive energy of free competitive effort.
These various elements in our foreign policy lead, as I have said, to a single goal--the goal
of a peaceful world of free and independent states. This is our guide for the present and our
vision for the future--a free community of nations, independent but interdependent, uniting
north and south, east and west, in one great family of man, outgrowing and transcending
the hates and fears that rend our age.
We will not reach that goal today, or tomorrow. We may not reach it in our own lifetime.
But the quest is the greatest adventure of our century. We sometimes chafe at the burden of
our obligations, the complexity of our decisions, the agony of our choices. But there is no
comfort or security for us in evasion, no solution in abdication, no relief in irresponsibility.
A year ago, in assuming the tasks of the Presidency, I said that few generations, in all
history, had been granted the role of being the great defender of freedom in its hour of
maximum danger. This is our good fortune; and I welcome it now as I did a year ago. For it
is the fate of this generation-of you in the Congress and of me as President--to live with a
struggle we did not start, in a world we did not make. But the pressures of life are not
always distributed by choice. And while no nation has ever faced such a challenge, no
nation has ever been so ready to seize the burden and the glory of freedom.
And in this high endeavor, may God watch over the United States of America.
Address at the Inaugural Anniversary

Dinner
National Guard Armory, Washington, D.C.
January 20, 1962
(Humorous parody of the Inaugural Address)
Mr. Rosenbloom and Mrs. Freeman, Mr. Bailey and Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Speaker:
I first of all want to express, I know, on behalf of all of us, our great appreciation to Miss
Clooney, Miss Remick and Danny Thomas for coming from a far distance to help us
tonight. I wish we could all just applaud them.
I want to also express my appreciation to President Truman. I must say it is nice to have a
former President who speaks well of you, and we are glad to have him here tonight. His
only request has been, since I have been President, to get his piano up from the cellar, and
we have done that--and we are going to run on it.
And I also want to express my appreciation, and the appreciation of us all, to the Vice
President for his tribute to Speaker Rayburn. I must say that the merger of Boston and
Austin, as he said today, was really the last merger that the Attorney General has allowed,
but it has been one of the most successful. And as a loyal and faithful friend, I think we
have worked together better than any President and Vice Presidential team in history, at
least since Roosevelt and Truman.
I spoke a year ago today, to take the Inaugural, and I would like to paraphrase a couple of
statements I made that day by saying that we observe tonight not a celebration of freedom
but a victory of party, for we have sworn to pay off the same party debt our forebears ran
up nearly a year and three months ago.
Our deficit will not be paid off in the next hundred days, nor will it be paid off in the first
one thousand days, nor in the life of this administration. Nor perhaps even in our lifetime
on this planet, but let us begin--remembering that generosity is not a sign of weakness and
that Ambassadors are always subject to Senate confirmation, for if the Democratic Party
cannot be helped by the many who are poor, it cannot be saved by the few who are rich. So
let us begin.
I want to express our thanks to all of you for helping. What we are attempting to do tonight
is to lay the groundwork for the Congressional campaigns of 1962, and we realize, I think,
all the Members of the House and Senate, that history is not with us, that in this century
only in 1934, during the periods of the great pre-eminence of the Democratic Party did the
party in power ever win seats, let alone hold its own. But we believe in 1962 that the
Democratic Party, both at home and abroad, is best fitted to lead this country--and therefore
we start tonight on the campaigns of 1962.
This is--though we like to think of ourselves as a young country-- this is the oldest republic
in the world. When the United States was founded there was a King in France, and a Czar
in Russia, and an Emperor in Peking. They have all been wiped away, but the United States
has still survived.
We are also members of the oldest political party on earth, and it is a source of satisfaction
to me that when we attempt, in this administration, to rebuild our ties with Latin America,
to strengthen our Alliance for Progress, we trod in the same steps that Franklin Roosevelt
trod in, nearly 25 or 30 years ago.
And when we attempt this year to build more closely the Atlantic Community, we trod in
the same steps that President Truman trod in, nearly 14 years ago, when he developed the
Marshall plan and NATO.
And when we stand with the United Nations against the desires of those who make
themselves our adversaries, and even our friends, we stand where Woodrow Wilson stood
nearly 50 years ago.
And when we make a great national effort, to make sure that free men are not second in
space, we move in the same direction that Thomas Jefferson moved in when he sent Lewis
and Clark to the far reaches of this country during his term of office.
I am proud to be a Democrat, and in my opinion, in November of 1962, any Member of the
House, the Senate, the State Legislature and the Governor can stand with pride on the
record of the Democratic Party.
To govern is to choose, and the people of the United States, I believe in this vital year,
when we are faced with the greatest hazards that we have faced in our long history, should
be faced with a choice. I do not believe there is room in the United States for two parties
who believe in lying at anchor.
The role of the Democratic Party, the reason it has outlived the Federal Party, the Whig
Party, and now holds responsibility in the executive branch and in the House and Senate,
after this long history, has been because it has believed in moving out, in moving ahead, in
starting on new areas, and bringing new programs here and abroad.
This is the function of our party. We have no other function. And I believe in 1962 the
Democratic Party should run as it has run in the past, as a progressive party, ready to
defend its record, ready to recognize in a changing and vital world that our party must
move with it.
So we come tonight in the beginning of a long campaign, and we ask your help, because
what we start tonight, we believe can be finished in November, and I believe that the
interests of this country will be served by our party as it has on so many vital occasions in
the past-- and the fire from our effort can light the world.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at the National Guard Armory in Washington. In his opening
remarks he referred to Carroll Rosenbloom of Baltimore, Md., who acted as chairman of
the dinner; Mrs. Orville L. Freeman, wife of the Secretary of Agriculture; John M. Bailey,
chairman of the Democratic National Committee; Matthew H. McCloskey, former
treasurer of the Democratic National Committee; and John W. McCormack, Speaker of the
House of Representatives. He also referred to Miss Rosemary Clooney, Miss Lee Remick,
and Mr. Danny Thomas who entertained at the dinner.
Address At The University Of California

At Berkeley
Memorial Stadium
March 23, 1962
Mr. President, Governor Brown, Dr. Pauley, Chancellor, members of the Board of
Regents, members of the faculty and fellow students, ladies and gentlemen:
The last time that I came to this stadium was 22 years ago, when I visited it in November of
1940 as a student at a nearby small school for the game with Stanford. And we got a--I
must say I had a much warmer reception today than I did from my Coast friends on that
occasion. In those days we used to fill these universities for football, and now we do it for
academic events, and I'm not sure whether this doesn't represent a rather dangerous trend
for the future of our country.
I am delighted to be here on this occasion for though it is the 94th anniversary of the
Charter, in a sense this is the hundredth anniversary. For this university and so many other
universities across our country owe their birth to the most extraordinary piece of legislation
this country has ever adopted, and that is the Morrill Act, signed by President Abraham
Lincoln in the darkest and most uncertain days of the Civil War, which set before the
country the opportunity to build the great land grant colleges of which this is so
distinguished a part. Six years later this university obtained its Charter.
In its first graduating class it included a future Governor of California, a future
Congressman, a judge, a State assemblyman, a clergyman, a lawyer, a doctor--all in a
graduating class of 12 students!
This college, therefore, from its earliest beginnings, has recognized and its graduates have
recognized, that the purpose of education is not merely to advance the economic self-
interest of its graduates. The people of California, as much if not more than the people of
any other State, have supported their colleges and universities and their schools because
they recognize how important it is to the maintenance of a free society that its citizens be
well educated.
"Every man" said Professor Woodrow Wilson, "sent out from a university should be a man
of his nation as well as a man of his time."
And Prince Bismarck was even more specific. One third, he said, of the students of German
universities broke down from overwork, another third, broke down from dissipation, and
the other third ruled Germany.
I do not know which third of students are here today, but I am confident that I am talking to
the future leaders of this State and country who recognize their responsibilities to the public
interest.
Today you carry on that tradition. Our distinguished and courageous Secretary of Defense,
our distinguished Secretary of State, the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, the
Director of the CIA and others, all are graduates of this University. It is a disturbing fact to
me, and it may be to some of you, that the New Frontier owes as much to Berkeley as it
does to Harvard University.
This has been a week of momentous events around the world. The long and painful
struggle in Algeria which comes to an end. Both nuclear powers and neutrals labored at
Geneva for a solution to the problem of a spiraling arms race, and also to the problems
which so vex our relations with the Soviet Union. The Congress opened hearings on a trade
bill which is far more than a trade bill, but an opportunity to build a stronger and closer
Atlantic Community. And my wife had her first and last ride on an elephant!
But history may well remember this as a week for an act of lesser immediate impact, and
that is the decision by the United States and the Soviet Union to seek concrete agreements
on the joint exploration of space. Experience has taught us that an agreement to negotiate
does not always mean a negotiated agreement. But should such a joint effort be realized, its
significance could well be tremendous for us all. In terms of space science, our combined
knowledge and efforts can benefit the people of all the nations: joint weather satellites to
provide more ample warnings against destructive storms--joint communications systems to
draw the world more closely together--and cooperation in space medicine research and
space tracking operations to speed the day when man will go to the moon and beyond.
But the scientific gains from such a joint effort would offer, I believe, less realized returns
than the gains for world peace. For a cooperative Soviet-American effort in space science
and exploration would emphasize the interests that must unite us, rather than those that
always divide us. It offers us an area in which the stale and sterile dogmas of the cold war
could be literally left a quarter of a million miles behind. And it would remind us on both
sides that knowledge, not hate, is the passkey to the future--that knowledge transcends
national antagonisms--that it speaks a universal language--that it is the possession not of a
single class, or of a single nation or a single ideology, but of all mankind.
I need hardly emphasize the happy pursuit of knowledge in this place. Your faculty
includes more Nobel laureates than any other faculty in the world--more in this one
community than our principal adversary has received since the awards began in 1901. And
we take pride in that, only from a national point of view, because it indicates, as the
Chancellor pointed out, the great intellectual benefits of a free society. This University of
California will continue to grow as an intellectual center because your presidents and your
chancellors and your professors have rigorously defended that unhampered freedom of
discussion and inquiry which is the soul of the intellectual enterprise and the heart of a free
university.
We may be proud as a nation of our record in scientific achievement--but at the same time
we must be impressed by the interdependence of all knowledge. I am certain that every
scholar and scientist here today would agree that his own work has benefited immeasurably
from the work of the men and women in other countries. The prospect of a partnership with
Soviet scientists in the exploration of space opens up exciting prospects of collaboration in
other areas of learning. And cooperation in the pursuit of knowledge can hopefully lead to
cooperation in the pursuit of peace.
Yet the pursuit of knowledge itself implies a world where men are free to follow out the
logic of their own ideas. It implies a world where nations are free to solve their own
problems and to realize their own ideals. It implies, in short, a world where collaboration
emerges from the voluntary decisions of nations strong in their own independence and their
own self-respect. It implies, I believe, the kind of world which is emerging before our
eyes--the world produced by the revolution of national independence which has today, and
has been since 1945, sweeping across the face of the world.
I sometimes think that we are too much impressed by the clamor of daily events. The
newspaper headlines and the television screens give us a short view. They so flood us with
the stop-press details of daily stories that we lose sight of one of the great movements of
history. Yet it is the profound tendencies of history and not the passing excitements that
will shape our future.
The short view gives us the impression as a nation being shoved and harried, everywhere
on the defense. But this impression is surely an optical illusion. From the perspective of
Moscow, the world today may seem ever more troublesome, more intractable, more
frustrating than it does to us. The leaders of the Communist world are confronted not only
by acute internal problems in each Communist country--the failure of agriculture, the rising
discontent of the youth and the intellectuals, the demands of technical and managerial
groups for status and security. They are confronted in addition by profound divisions
within the Communist world itself--divisions which have already shattered the image of
Communism as a universal system guaranteed to abolish all social and international
conflicts--the most valuable asset the Communists had for many years.
Wisdom requires the long view. And the long view shows us that the revolution of national
independence is a fundamental fact of our era. This revolution will not be stopped. As new
nations emerge from the oblivion of centuries, their first aspiration is to affirm their
national identity. Their deepest hope is for a world where, within a framework of
international cooperation, every country can solve its own problems according to its own
traditions and ideals.
It is in the interests of the pursuit of knowledge--and it is in our own national interest--that
this revolution of national independence succeed. For the Communists rest everything on
the idea of a monolithic world--a world where all knowledge has a single pattern, all
societies move toward a single model, and all problems and roads have a single solution
and a single destination. The pursuit of knowledge, on the other hand, rests everything on
the opposite idea--on the idea of a world based on diversity, self-determination, freedom.
And that is the kind of world to which we Americans, as a nation, are committed by the
principles upon which the great Republic was founded.
As men conduct the pursuit of knowledge, they create a world which freely unites national
diversity and international partnership. This emerging world is incompatible with the
Communist world order. It will irresistibly burst the bonds of the Communist organization
and the Communist ideology. And diversity and independence, far from being opposed to
the American conception of world order, represent the very essence of our view of the
future of the world.
There used to be so much talk a few years ago about the inevitable triumph of communism.
We hear such talk much less now. No one who examines the modern world can doubt that
the great currents of history are carrying the world away from the monolithic idea towards
the pluralistic idea--away from communism and towards national independence and
freedom. No one can doubt that the wave of the future is not the conquest of the world by a
single dogmatic creed but the liberation of the diverse energies of free nations and free
men. No one can doubt that cooperation in the pursuit of knowledge must lead to freedom
of the mind and freedom of the soul.
Beyond the drumfire of daily crisis, therefore, there is arising the outlines of a robust and
vital world community, founded on nations secure in their own independence, and united
by their allegiance to world peace. It would be foolish to say that this world will be won
tomorrow, or the day after. The processes of history are fitful and uncertain and
aggravating. There will be frustrations and setbacks. There will be times of anxiety and
gloom. The specter of thermonuclear war will continue to hang over mankind; and we must
heed the advice of Oliver Wendell Holmes of "freedom leaning on her spear" until all
nations are wise enough to disarm safely and effectively.
Yet we can have a new confidence today in the direction in which history is moving.
Nothing is more stirring than the recognition of great public purpose. Every great age is
marked by innovation and daring--by the ability to meet unprecedented problems with
intelligent solutions. In a time of turbulence and change, it is more true than ever that
knowledge is power; for only by true understanding and steadfast judgment are we able to
master the challenge of history.
If this is so, we must strive to acquire knowledge--and to apply it with wisdom. We must
reject over-simplified theories of international life--the theory that American power is
unlimited, or that the American mission is to remake the world in the American image. We
must seize the vision of a free and diverse world--and shape our policies to speed progress
toward a more flexible world order.
This is the unifying spirit of our policies in the world today. The purpose of our aid
programs must be to help developing countries to move forward as rapidly as possible on
the road to genuine national independence. Our military policies must assist nations to
protect the processes of democratic reform and development against the forces of
disruption and intervention. Our diplomatic policies must strengthen our relations with the
whole world, with our several alliances and within the United Nations.
As we press forward on every front to realize a flexible world order, the role of the
university becomes ever more important, both as a reservoir of ideas and as a repository of
the long view of the shore dimly seen.
"Knowledge is the great sun of the firmament" said Senator Daniel Webster. "Life and
power are scattered with all its beams."
In its light we must think and act not only for the moment but for our time. I am reminded
of the story of the great French Marshal Lyautey, who once asked his gardener to plant a
tree. The gardener objected that the tree was slow-growing and would not reach maturity
for a hundred years. The Marshal replied, "In that case, there is no time to lose, plant it this
afternoon."
Today a world of knowledge--a world of cooperation--a just and lasting peace--may be
years away. But we have no time to lose. Let us plant our trees this afternoon.
Remarks at West Point to the Graduating Class of the U.S.

Military Academy, June 6, 1962
field house, United States Military Academy, West Point, New York
Date: June 06, 1962
General Westmoreland, General Lemnitzer, Mr. Secretary, General Decker, General
Taylor, members of the graduating class and their parents, gentlemen:
I want to express my appreciation for your generous invitation to come to this graduating
class. I am sure that all of you who sit here today realize, particularly in view of the song
we have just heard, that you are part of a long tradition stretching back to the earliest days
of this country's history, and that where you sit sat once some of the most celebrated names
in our Nation's history, and also some who are not so well known, but who, on 100
different battlefields in many wars involving every generation of this country's history,
have given very clear evidence of their commitment to their country.
So that I know you feel a sense of pride in being part of that tradition, and as a citizen of
the United States, as well as President, I want to express our high regard to all of you in
appreciation for what you are doing and what you will do for our country in the days ahead.
I would also like to announce at this time that as Commander in Chief I am exercising my
privilege of directing the Secretary of the Army and the Superintendent of West Point to
remit all existing confinements and other cadet punishments, and I hope that it will be
possible to carry this out today.
General Westmoreland was slightly pained to hear that this was impending in view of the
fact that one cadet, who I am confident will some day be the head of the Army, has just
been remitted for 8 months, and is about to be released. But I am glad to have the
opportunity to participate in the advancement of his military career.
My own confinement goes for another two and a half years, and I may ask for it to be
extended instead of remitted.
I want to say that I wish all of you, the graduates, success. While I say that, I am not
unmindful of the fact that two graduates of this Academy have reached the White House,
and neither was a member of my party. Until I am more certain that this trend will be
broken, I wish that all of you may be generals and not Commanders in Chief.
I want to say that I am sure you recognize that your schooling is only interrupted by today's
occasion and not ended because the demands that will be made upon you in the service of
your country in the coming months and years will be really more pressing, and in many
ways more burdensome, as well as more challenging, than ever before in our history. I
know that many of you may feel, and many of our citizens may feel that in these days of
the nuclear age, when war may last in its final form a day or two or three days before much
of the world is burned up, that your service to your country will be only standing and
waiting. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. I am sure that many Americans
believe that the days before World War II were the golden age when the stars were falling
on all the graduates of West Point, that that was the golden time of service, and that you
have moved into a period where military service, while vital, is not as challenging as it was
then. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The fact of the matter is that the period just ahead in the next decade will offer more
opportunities for service to the graduates of this Academy than ever before in the history of
the United States, because all around the world, in countries which are heavily engaged in
the maintenance of their freedom, graduates of this Academy are heavily involved.
Whether it is in Viet-Nam or in Laos or in Thailand, whether it is a military advisory group
in Iran, whether it is a military attach? in some Latin American country during a difficult
and challenging period, whether it is the commander of our troops in South Korea--the
burdens that will be placed upon you when you fill those positions as you must inevitably,
will require more from you than ever before in our history. The graduates of West Point,
the Naval Academy, and the Air Academy in the next 10 years will have the greatest
opportunity for the defense of freedom that this Academy's graduates have ever had. And I
am sure that the Joint Chiefs of Staff endorse that view, knowing as they do and I do, the
heavy burdens that are required of this Academy's graduates every day-General Tucker in
Laos, or General Harkins in Viet-Nam, and a dozen others who hold key and significant
positions involving the security of the United States and the defense of freedom. You are
going to follow in their footsteps and I must say that I think that you will be privileged in
the years ahead to find yourselves so heavily involved in the great interests of this country.
Therefore, I hope that you realize--and I hope every American realizes--how much we
depend upon you. Your strictly military responsibilities, therefore, will require a versatility
and an adaptability never before required in either war or in peace. They may involve the
command and control of modern nuclear weapons and modern delivery systems, so
complex that only a few scientists can understand their operation, so devastating that their
inadvertent use would be of worldwide concern, but so new that their employment and
their effects have never been tested in combat conditions.
On the other hand, your responsibilities may involve the command of more traditional
forces, but in less traditional roles. Men risking their lives, not as combatants, but as
instructors or advisers, or as symbols of our Nation's commitments. The fact that the
United States is not directly at war in these areas in no way diminishes the skill and the
courage that will be required, the service to our country which is rendered, or the pain of
the casualties which are suffered.
To cite one final example of the range of responsibilities that will fall upon you: you may
hold a position of command with our special forces, forces which are too unconventional to
be called conventional, forces which are growing in number and importance and
significance, for we now know that it is wholly misleading to call this "the nuclear age," or
to say that our security rests only on the doctrine of massive retaliation.
Korea has not been the only battleground since the end of the Second World War. Men
have fought and died in Malaya, in Greece, in the Philippines, in Algeria and Cuba and
Cyprus, and almost continuously on the Indo-Chinese Peninsula. No nuclear weapons have
been fired. No massive nuclear retaliation has been considered appropriate. This is another
type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origin--war by guerrillas, subversives,
insurgents, assassins, war by ambush instead of by combat; by infiltration, instead of
aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him.
It is a form of warfare uniquely adapted to what has been strangely called "wars of
liberation," to undermine the efforts of new and poor countries to maintain the freedom that
they have finally achieved. It preys on economic unrest and ethnic conflicts. It requires in
those situations where we must counter it, and these are the kinds of challenges that will be
before us in the next decade if freedom is to be saved, a whole new kind of strategy, a
wholly different kind of force, and therefore a new and wholly different kind of military
training.
But I have spoken thus far only of the military challenges which your education must
prepare you for. The nonmilitary problems which you will face will also be most
demanding, diplomatic, political, and economic. In the years ahead, some of you will serve
as advisers to foreign aid missions or even to foreign governments. Some will negotiate
terms of a cease-fire with broad political as well as military ramifications. Some of you will
go to the far corners of the earth, and to the far reaches of space. Some of you will sit in the
highest councils of the Pentagon. Others will hold delicate command posts which are
international in character. Still others will advise on plans to abolish arms instead of using
them to abolish others. Whatever your position, the scope of your decisions will not be
confined to the traditional tenets of military competence and training. You will need to
know and understand not only the foreign policy of the United States but the foreign policy
of all countries scattered around the world who 20 years ago were the most distant names
to us. You will need to give orders in different tongues and read maps by different systems.
You will be involved in economic judgments which most economists would hesitate to
make. At what point, for example, does military aid become burdensome to a country and
make its freedom endangered rather than helping to secure it? To what extent can the gold
and dollar cost of our overseas deployments be offset by foreign procurement? Or at what
stage can a new weapons system be considered sufficiently advanced to justify large dollar
appropriations?
In many countries, your posture and performance will provide the local population with the
only evidence of what our country is really like. In other countries, your military mission,
its advice and action, will play a key role in determining whether those people will remain
free. You will need to understand the importance of military power and also the limits of
military power, to decide what arms should be used to fight and when they should be used
to prevent a fight, to determine what represents our vital interests and what interests are
only marginal.
Above all, you will have a responsibility to deter war as well as to fight it. For the basic
problems facing the world today are not susceptible of a final military solution. While we
will long require the services and admire the dedication and commitment of the fighting
men of this country, neither our strategy nor our psychology as a nation, and certainly not
our economy, must become permanently dependent upon an ever-increasing military
establishment.
Our forces, therefore, must fulfill a broader role as a complement to our diplomacy, as an
arm of our diplomacy, as a deterrent to our adversaries, and as a symbol to our allies of our
determination to support them.
That is why this Academy has seen its curriculum grow and expand in dimension, in
substance, and in difficulty. That is why you cannot possibly have crowded into these 4
busy years all of the knowledge and all of the range of experience which you must bring to
these subtle and delicate tasks which I have described. And that is why go to school year
after year so you can serve this country to the best of your ability and your talent.
To talk of such talent and effort raises in the minds, I am sure, of everyone, and the minds
of all of our countrymen, why--why should men such as you, able to master the complex
arts of science, mathematics, language, economy, and all the rest devote their lives to a
military career, with all of its risks and hardships? Why should their families be expected to
make the personal and financial sacrifices that a military career inevitably brings with it?
When there is a visible enemy to fight in open combat, the answer is not so difficult. Many
serve, all applaud, and the tide of patriotism runs high. But when there is a long, slow
struggle, with no immediate visible foe, your choice will seem hard indeed. And you will
recall, I am sure, the lines found in an old sentry box in Gibraltar:
God and the soldier all men adore
In time of trouble--and no more,
For when war is over, and all things righted,
God is neglected--and the old soldier slighted.
But you have one satisfaction, however difficult those days may be: when you are asked by
a President of the United States or by any other American what you are doing for your
country, no man's answer will be clearer than your own. And that moral motivation which
brought you here in the first place is part of your training here as well. West Point was not
built to produce technical experts alone. It was built to produce men committed to the
defense of their country, leaders of men who understand the great stakes which are
involved, leaders who can be entrusted with the heavy responsibility which modern
weapons and the fight for freedom entail, leaders who can inspire in their men the same
sense of obligation to duty which you bring to it.
There is no single slogan that you can repeat to yourself in hard days or give to those who
may be associated with you. In times past, a simple phrase, "54-40 or fight" or "to make the
world safe for democracy"-that was enough. But the times, the weapons, and the issues are
now more complicated than ever.
Eighteen years ago today, Ernie Pyle, describing those tens of thousands of young men
who crossed the "ageless and indifferent" sea of the English Channel, searched in vain for a
word to describe what they were fighting for. And finally he concluded that they were at
least fighting for each other.
You and I leave here today to meet our separate responsibilities, to protect our Nation's
vital interests by peaceful means if possible, by resolute action if necessary. And we go
forth confident of support and success because we know that we are working and fighting
for each other and for all those men and women all over the globe who are determined to
be free.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10 a.m. at the field House. In his opening words he referred
to Maj. Gen. William C. Westmoreland, Superintendent of the Military Academy; Gen.
Lyman L. Lemnitzer, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; Elvis J. Stahr, Jr., Secretary of the
Army; Gen. George H. Decker, Army Chief of Staff; and to Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor, the
President's Military Representative.
Commencement Address at Yale

University
June 11, 1962
President Griswold, members of the faculty and fellows, graduates and their families,
ladies and gentlemen:
Let me begin by expressing my appreciation for the very deep honor which you have
conferred upon me. As General de Gaulle occasionally acknowledges America to be the
daughter of Europe, so I am pleased to come to Yale, the daughter of Harvard. It might be
said now that I have the best of both worlds, a Harvard education and a Yale degree.
I am particularly glad to become a Yale man because as I think about my troubles, I find
that a lot of them come from other Yale men. Among businessmen I have had a minor
disagreement with Roger Blough of the law school class of 1931, and I have had some
complaints from my friend Henry Ford of the class of 1940. In journalism I seem to have a
difference with John Hay Whitney, of the class of 1926--and sometimes I also displease
Henry Luce of the class of 1920, not to mention also William F. Buckley, Jr. of the class of
1950. I even have some trouble with my Yale advisers. I get along with them, but I am not
always sure how they get along with each other.
I have the warmest feelings for Chester Bowles of the class of 1924, and for Dean Acheson
of the class of 1915, and my assistant, McGeorge Bundy, of the class of 1940. But I am not
100 percent sure that these three wise and experienced Yale men wholly agree with each
other on every issue.
So this administration which aims for peaceful cooperation among all Americans has been
the victim of a certain natural pugnacity developed in this city among Yale men. Now that
I, too, am a Yale man, it is time for peace. Last week at West Point, in the historic tradition
of that Academy, I availed myself of the powers of the Commander in Chief to remit all
sentences of offending cadets. In that same spirit, and in the historic tradition of Yale, let
me now offer to smoke the clay pipe of friendship with all my brother Elis, and I hope that
they may be friends not only with me but even with each other.
In any event, I am very glad to be here and as a new member of the club, I have been
checking to see what earlier links existed between the institution of the Presidency and
Yale. I found that a member of the class of 1878, William Howard Taft, served one term in
the White House as preparation for becoming a member of this faculty. And a graduate of
1804, John C. Calhoun, regarded the Vice Presidency, quite naturally, as too lowly a status
for a Yale alumnus--and became the only man in history to ever resign that office.
Calhoun in 1804 and Taft in 1878 graduated into a world very different from ours today.
They and their contemporaries spent entire careers stretching over 40 years in grappling
with a few dramatic issues on which the Nation was sharply and emotionally divided,
issues that occupied the attention of a generation at a time: the national bank, the disposal
of the public lands, nullification or union, freedom or slavery, gold or silver. Today these
old sweeping issues very largely have disappeared. The central domestic issues of our time
are more subtle and less simple. They relate not to basic clashes of philosophy or ideology
but to ways and means of reaching common goals--to research for sophisticated solutions
to complex and obstinate issues. The world of Calhoun, the world of Taft had its own hard
problems and notable challenges. But its problems are not our problems. Their age is not
our age. As every past generation has had to disenthrall itself from an inheritance of
truisms and stereotypes, so in our own time we must move on from the reassuring
repetition of stale phrases to a new, difficult, but essential confrontation with reality.
For the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest--
but the myth--persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches
of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the
comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
Mythology distracts us everywhere--in government as in business, in politics as in
economics, in foreign affairs as in domestic affairs. But today I want to particularly
consider the myth and reality in our national economy. In recent months many have come
to feel, as I do, that the dialog between the parties--between business and government,
between the government and the public--is clogged by illusion and platitude and fails to
reflect the true realities of contemporary American society.
I speak of these matters here at Yale because of the self-evident truth that a great university
is always enlisted against the spread of illusion and on the side of reality. No one has said it
more clearly than your President Griswold: "Liberal learning is both a safeguard against
false ideas of freedom and a source of true ones." Your role as university men, whatever
your calling, will be to increase each new generation's grasp of its duties.
There are three great areas of our domestic affairs in which, today, there is a danger that
illusion may prevent effective action. They are, first, the question of the size and the shape
of the government's responsibilities; second, the question of public fiscal policy; and third,
the matter of confidence, business confidence or public confidence, or simply confidence in
America. I want to talk about all three, and I want to talk about them carefully and
dispassionately--and I emphasize that I am concerned here not with political debate but
with finding ways to separate false problems from real ones.
If a contest in angry argument were forced upon it, no administration could shrink from
response, and history does not suggest that American Presidents are totally without
resources in an engagement forced upon them because of hostility in one sector of society.
But in the wider national interest, we need not partisan wrangling but common
concentration on common problems. I come here to this distinguished university to ask you
to join in this great task.
Let us take first the question of the size and shape of government. The myth here is that
government is big, and bad--and steadily getting bigger and worse. Obviously this myth
has some excuse for existence. It is true that in recent history each new administration has
spent much more money than its predecessor. Thus President Roosevelt outspent President
Hoover, and with allowances for the special case of the Second World War, President
Truman outspent President Roosevelt. Just to prove that this was not a partisan matter,
President Eisenhower then outspent President Truman by the handsome figure of $182
billion. It is even possible, some think, that this trend will continue.
But does it follow from this that big government is growing relatively bigger? It does not--
for the fact is for the last 15 years, the Federal Government--and also the Federal debt--and
also the Federal bureaucracy--have grown less rapidly than the economy as a whole. If we
leave defense and space expenditures aside, the Federal Government since the Second
World War has expanded less than any other major sector of our national life--less than
industry, less than commerce, less than agriculture, less than higher education, and very
much less than the noise about big government.
The truth about big government is the truth about any other great activity--it is complex.
Certainly it is true that size brings dangers- -but it is also true that size can bring benefits.
Here at Yale which has contributed so much to our national progress in science and
medicine, it may be proper for me to note one great and little noticed expansion of
government which has brought strength to our whole society-- the new role of our Federal
Government as the major patron of research in science and in medicine. Few people realize
that in 1961, in support of all university research in science and medicine, three dollars out
of every four came from the Federal Government. I need hardly point out that this has
taken place without undue enlargement of Government control--that American scientists
remain second to none in their independence and in their individualism.
I am not suggesting that Federal expenditures cannot bring some measure of control. The
whole thrust of Federal expenditures in agriculture have been related by purpose and
design to control, as a means of dealing with the problems created by our farmers and our
growing productivity. Each sector, my point is, of activity must be approached on its own
merits and on terms of specific national needs. Generalities in regard to Federal
expenditures, therefore, can be misleading--each case, science, urban renewal, education,
agriculture, natural resources, each case must be determined on its merits if we are to profit
from our unrivaled ability to combine the strength of public and private purpose.
Next, let us turn to the problem of our fiscal policy. Here the myths are legion and the truth
hard to find. But let me take as a prime example the problem of the Federal budget. We
persist in measuring our Federal fiscal integrity today by the conventional or administrative
budget--with results which would be considered absurd in any business firm--in any
country of Europe--or in any careful assessment of the reality of our national finances. The
administrative budget has sound administrative uses. But for wider purposes it is less
helpful. It omits our special trust funds and the effect they have on our economy; it neglects
changes in assets and inventories. It cannot tell a loan from a straight expenditure--and
worst of all it cannot distinguish between operating expenditures and long term
investments.
This budget, in relation to the great problems of Federal fiscal policy which are basic to our
economy in 1962, is not simply irrelevant; it can be actively misleading. And yet there is a
mythology that measures all of our national soundness or unsoundness on the single simple
basis of this same annual administrative budget. If our Federal budget is to serve not the
debate but the country, we must and will find ways of clarifying this area of discourse.
Still in the area of fiscal policy, let me say a word about deficits. The myth persists that
Federal deficits create inflation and budget surpluses prevent it. Yet sizeable budget
surpluses after the war did not prevent inflation, and persistent deficits for the last several
years have not upset our basic price stability. Obviously deficits are sometimes dangerous--
and so are surpluses. But honest assessment plainly requires a more sophisticated view than
the old and automatic cliche that deficits automatically bring inflation.
There are myths also about our public debt. It is widely supposed that this debt is growing
at a dangerously rapid rate. In fact, both the debt per person and the debt as a proportion of
our national product have declined sharply since the Second World War. In absolute terms
the national debt since the end of World War II has increased only 8 percent, while private
debt was increasing 305 percent, and the debts of state and local governments--on whom
people frequently suggest we should place additional burdens--the debts of state and local
governments have increased 378 percent. Moreover, debts public and private, are neither
good nor bad, in and of themselves. Borrowing can lead to over-extension and collapse--
but it can also lead to expansion and strength. There is no single, simple slogan in this field
that we can trust.
Finally, I come to the matter of confidence. Confidence is a matter of myth and also a
matter of truth--and this time let me make the truth of the matter first.
It is true--and of high importance--that the prosperity of this country depends on the
assurance that all major elements within it will live up to their responsibilities. If business
were to neglect its obligations to the public, if labor were blind to all public responsibility,
above all, if government were to abandon its obvious--and statutory--duty of watchful
concern for our economical health--if any of these things should happen, then confidence
might well be weakened and the danger of stagnation would increase. This is the true issue
of confidence.
But there is also the false issue--and its simplest form is the assertion that any and all of the
unfavorable turns of the speculative wheel--however temporary and however plainly
speculative in character-- are the result of, and I quote, "a lack of confidence in the national
administration." This I must tell you, while comforting, is not wholly true. Worse, it
obscures the reality--which is also simple. The solid ground of mutual confidence is the
necessary partnership of government with all of the sectors of our society in the steady
quest for economic progress.
Corporate plans are not based on political confidence in party leaders but on an economic
confidence in the Nation's ability to invest and produce and consume. Business had full
confidence in the administrations in power in 1929, 1954, 1958, and 1960--but this was not
enough to prevent recession when business lacked full confidence in the economy. What
matters is the capacity of the Nation as a whole to deal with its economic problems and its
opportunities.
The stereotypes I have been discussing distract our attention and divide our effort. These
stereotypes do our Nation a disservice, not just because they are exhausted and irrelevant,
but above all because they are misleading--because they stand in the way of the solution of
hard and complicated facts. It is not new that past debates should obscure present realities.
But the damage of such a false dialogue is greater today than ever before simply because
today the safety of all the world--the very future of freedom--depends as never before on
the sensible and clearheaded management of the domestic affairs of the United States.
The real issues of our time are rarely as dramatic as the issues of Calhoun. The differences
today are usually matters of degree. And we cannot understand and attack our
contemporary problems in 1962 if we are bound by traditional labels and worn out slogans
of an earlier era. But the unfortunate fact of the matter is that our rhetoric has not kept pace
with the speed of social and economic change. Our political debates, our public discourse--
on current domestic and economic issues-- too often bear little or no relation to the actual
problems the United States faces.
What is at stake in our economic decisions today is not some grand warfare of rival
ideologies which will sweep the country with passion, but the practical management of a
modern economy. What we need is not labels and cliches but more basic discussion of the
sophisticated and technical questions involved in keeping a great economic machinery
moving ahead.
The national interest lies in high employment and steady expansion of output, in stable
prices and a strong dollar. The declaration of such an objective is easy; their attainment in
an intricate and interdependent economy and world is a little more difficult. To attain them,
we require not some automatic response but hard thought. Let me end by suggesting a few
of the real questions on our national agenda.
First, how can our budget and tax policies supply adequate revenues and preserve our
balance of payments position without slowing up our economic growth?
Two, how are we to set our interest rates and regulate the flow of money, in ways which
will stimulate the economy at home, without weakening the dollar abroad? Given the
spectrum of our domestic and international responsibilities, what should be the mix
between fiscal and monetary policy?
Let me give several examples from my experience of the complexity of these matters and
how political labels and ideological approaches are irrelevant to the solution.
Last week, a distinguished graduate of this school, Senator Proxmire, of the class of 1938,
who is ordinarily regarded as a liberal Democrat, suggested that we should follow in
meeting our economic problems a stiff fiscal policy, with emphasis on budget balance and
an easy monetary policy with low interest rates in order to keep our economy going. In the
same week, the Bank for International Settlement in Basel, Switzerland, a conservative
organization representing the central bankers of Europe suggested that the appropriate
economic policy in the United States should be the very opposite; that we should follow a
flexible budget policy, as in Europe, with deficits when the economy is down and a high
monetary policy on interest rates, as in Europe, in order to control inflation and protect
goals. Both may be right or wrong. It will depend on many different factors.
The point is that this is basically an administrative or executive problem in which political
labels or cliches do not give us a solution.
A well-known business journal this morning, as I journeyed to New Haven, raised the
prospects that a further budget deficit would bring inflation and encourage the flow of gold.
We have had several budget deficits beginning with a $12 1/2 billion budget deficit in
1958, and it is true that in the fall of 1960 we had a gold dollar loss running at $5 billion
annually. This would seem to prove the case that a deficit produces inflation and that we
lose gold, yet there was no inflation following the deficit of 1958 nor has there been
inflation since then.
Our wholesale price index since 1958 has remained completely level in spite of several
deficits, because the loss of gold has been due to other reasons: price instability, relative
interest rates, relative export-import balances, national security expenditures--all the rest.
Let me give you a third and final example. At the World Bank meeting in September, a
number of American bankers attending predicted to their European colleagues that because
of the fiscal 1962 budget deficit, there would be a strong inflationary pressure on the dollar
and a loss of gold. Their predictions on inflation were shared by many in business and
helped push the market up. The recent reality of noninflation helped bring it down. We
have had no inflation because we have had other factors in our economy that have
contributed to price stability.
I do not suggest that the government is right and they are wrong. The fact of the matter is in
the Federal Reserve Board and in the administration this fall, a similar view was held by
many well-informed and disinterested men that inflation was the major problem that we
would face in the winter of 1962. But it was not. What I do suggest is that these problems
are endlessly complicated and yet they go to the future of this country and its ability to
prove to the world what we believe it must prove.
I am suggesting that the problems of fiscal and monetary policies in the sixties as opposed
to the kinds of problems we faced in the thirties demand subtle challenges for which
technical answers, not political answers, must be provided. These are matters upon which
government and business may and in many cases will disagree. They are certainly matters
which government and business should be discussing in the most sober, dispassionate and
careful way if we are to maintain the kind of vigorous economy upon which our country
depends.
How can we develop and sustain strong and stable world markets for basic commodities
without unfairness to the consumer and without undue stimulus to the producer? How can
we generate the buying power which can consume what we produce on our farms and in
our factories? How can we take advantage of the miracles of automation with the great
demand that it will put upon highly skilled labor and yet offer employment to the half
million of unskilled school dropouts each year who enter the labor market, eight million of
them in the 1960's?
How do we eradicate the barriers which separate substantial minorities of our citizens from
access to education and employment on equal terms with the rest?
How, in sum, can we make our free economy work at full capacity-- that is, provide
adequate profits for enterprise, adequate wages for labor, adequate utilization of plant, and
opportunity for all?
These are the problems that we should be talking about--that the political parties and the
various groups in our country should be discussing. They cannot be solved by incantations
from the forgotten past. But the example of Western Europe shows that they are capable of
solution--that governments, and many of them are conservative governments, prepared to
face technical problems without ideological preconceptions, can coordinate the elements of
a national economy, and bring about growth and prosperity--a decade of it.
Some conversations I have heard in our own country sound like old records, long-playing,
left over from the middle thirties. The debate of the thirties had its great significance and
produced great results, but it took place in a different world with different needs and
different tasks. It is our responsibility today to live in our own world, and to identify the
needs and discharge the tasks of the 1960's.
If there is any current trend toward meeting present problems with old cliches, this is the
moment to stop it--before it lands us all in a bog of sterile acrimony.
Discussion is essential; and I am hopeful that the debate of recent weeks, though up to now
somewhat barren, may represent the start of a serious dialog of the kind which has led in
Europe to such fruitful collaboration among all the elements of economic society and to a
decade of unrivaled economic progress. But let us not engage in the wrong argument at the
wrong time between the wrong people in the wrong country--while the real problems of our
own time grow and multiply, fertilized by our neglect.
Nearly 150 years ago Thomas Jefferson wrote, "The new circumstances under which we
are placed call for new words, new phrases, and for the transfer of old words to new
objects." New words, new phrases, the transfer of old words to new objects--that is truer
today than it was in the time of Jefferson, because the role of this country is so vastly more
significant. There is a show in England called "Stop the World, I Want to Get Off." You
have not chosen to exercise that option. You are part of the world and you must participate
in these days of our years in the solution of the problems that pour upon us, requiring the
most sophisticated and technical judgment; and as we work in consonance to meet the
authentic problems of our times, we will generate a vision and an energy which will
demonstrate anew to the world the superior vitality and strength of the free society.
Address at Independence Hall

Philadelphia, July 4, 1962
Governor Powell, Your Excellency the Archbishop, Governor Lawrence, Mayor Tate,
Senator Clark, Congressman Green, distinguished Governors, ladies and gentlemen,
citizens of Philadelphia:
It is a high honor for any citizen of our great Republic to speak at this Hall of Independence
on this day of Independence. To speak as President of the United States to the Chief
Executives of our 50 States is both an opportunity and an obligation. The necessity for
comity between the National Government and the several States is an indelible lesson of
our long history.
Because our system is designed to encourage both differences and dissent, because its
checks and balances are designed to preserve the rights of the individual and the locality
against preeminent central authority, you and I, Governors, recognize how dependent we
both are, one upon the other, for the successful operation of our unique and happy form of
government. Our system and our freedom permit the legislative to be pitted against the
executive, the State against the Federal Government, the city against the countryside, party
against party, interest against interest, all in competition or in contention one with another.
Our task--your task in the State House and my task in the White House--is to weave from
all these tangled threads a fabric of law and progress. We are not permitted the luxury of
irresolution. Others may confine themselves to debate, discussion, and that ultimate
luxury--free advice. Our responsibility is one of decision--for to govern is to choose.
Thus, in a very real sense, you and I are the executors of the testament handed down by
those who gathered in this historic hall 186 years ago today. For they gathered to affix their
names to a document which was, above all else, a document not of rhetoric but of bold
decision. It was, it is true, a document of protest--but protests had been made before. It set
forth their grievances with eloquence--but such eloquence had been heard before. But what
distinguished this paper from all the others was the final irrevocable decision that it took--
to assert the independence of free States in place of colonies, and to commit to that goal
their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
Today, 186 years later, that Declaration whose yellowing parchment and fading, almost
illegible lines I saw in the past week in the National Archives in Washington is still a
revolutionary document. To read it today is to hear a trumpet call. For that Declaration
unleashed not merely a revolution against the British, but a revolution in human affairs. Its
authors were highly conscious of its worldwide implications. And George Washington
declared that liberty and self-government everywhere were, in his words, "finally staked on
the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people."
This prophecy has been borne out. For 186 years this doctrine of national independence has
shaken the globe--and it remains the most powerful force anywhere in the world today.
There are those struggling to eke out a bare existence in a barren land who have never
heard of free enterprise, but who cherish the idea of independence. There are those who are
grappling with overpowering problems of illiteracy and ill-health and who are ill-equipped
to hold free elections. But they are determined to hold fast to their national independence.
Even those unwilling or unable to take part in any struggle between East and West are
strongly on the side of their own national independence.
If there is a single issue that divides the world today, it is independence--the independence
of Berlin or Laos or Viet-Nam; the longing for independence behind the Iron Curtain; the
peaceful transition to independence in those newly emerging areas whose troubles some
hope to exploit.
The theory of independence is as old as man himself, and it was not invented in this hall.
But it was in this hall that the theory became a practice; that the word went out to all, in
Thomas Jefferson's phrase, that "the God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same
time." And today this Nation--conceived in revolution, nurtured in liberty, maturing in
independence--has no intention of abdicating its leadership in that worldwide movement
for independence to any nation or society committed to systematic human oppression.
As apt and applicable as the Declaration of Independence is today, we would do well to
honor that other historic document drafted in this hall--the Constitution of the United
States. For it stressed not independence but interdependence--not the individual liberty of
one but the indivisible liberty of all.
In most of the old colonial world, the struggle for independence is coming to an end. Even
in areas behind the Curtain, that which Jefferson called "the disease of liberty" still appears
to be infectious. With the passing of ancient empires, today less than 2 percent of the
world's population lives in territories officially termed "dependent." As this effort for
independence, inspired by the American Declaration of Independence, now approaches a
successful close, a great new effort--for interdependence--is transforming the world about
us. And the spirit of that new effort is the same spirit which gave birth to the American
Constitution.
That spirit is today most clearly seen across the Atlantic Ocean. The nations of Western
Europe, long divided by feuds far more bitter than any which existed among the 13
colonies, are today joining together, seeking, as our forefathers sought, to find freedom in
diversity and in unity, strength.
The United States looks on this vast new enterprise with hope and admiration. We do not
regard a strong and united Europe as a rival but as a partner. To aid its progress has been
the basic object of our foreign policy for 17 years. We believe that a united Europe will be
capable of playing a greater role in the common defense, of responding more generously to
the needs of poorer nations, of joining with the United States and others in lowering trade
barriers, resolving problems of commerce, commodities, and currency, and developing
coordinated policies in all economic, political, and diplomatic areas. We see in such a
Europe a partner with whom we can deal on a basis of full equality in all the great and
burdensome tasks of building and defending a community of free nations.
It would be premature at this time to do more than indicate the high regard with which we
view the formation of this partnership. The first order of business is for our European
friends to go forward in forming the more perfect union which will someday make this
partnership possible.
A great new edifice is not built overnight. It was 11 years from the Declaration of
Independence to the writing of the Constitution. The construction of workable federal
institutions required still another generation. The greatest works of our Nation's founders
lay not in documents and in declarations, but in creative, determined action. The building
of the new house of Europe has followed the same practical, purposeful course. Building
the Atlantic partnership now will not be easily or cheaply finished.
But I will say here and now, on this Day of Independence, that the United States will be
ready for a Declaration of Interdependence, that we will be prepared to discuss with a
united Europe the ways and means of forming a concrete Atlantic partnership, a mutually
beneficial partnership between the new union now emerging in Europe and the old
American Union founded here 175 years ago.
All this will not be completed in a year, but let the world know it is our goal.
In urging the adoption of the United States Constitution, Alexander Hamilton told his
fellow New Yorkers "to think continentally." Today Americans must learn to think
intercontinentally.
Acting on our own, by ourselves, we cannot establish justice throughout the world; we
cannot insure its domestic tranquility, or provide for its common defense, or promote its
general welfare, or secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. But joined
with other free nations, we can do all this and more. We can assist the developing nations
to throw off the yoke of poverty. We can balance our worldwide trade and payments at the
highest possible level of growth. We can mount a deterrent powerful enough to deter any
aggression. And ultimately we can help to achieve a world of law and free choice,
banishing the world of war and coercion.
For the Atlantic partnership of which I speak would not look inward only, preoccupied
with its own welfare and advancement. It must look outward to cooperate with all nations
in meeting their common concern. It would serve as a nucleus for the eventual union of all
free men--those who are now free and those who are vowing that some day they will be
free.
On Washington's birthday in 1861, standing right there, President-elect Abraham Lincoln
spoke in this hall on his way to the Nation's Capital. And he paid a brief but eloquent
tribute to the men who wrote, who fought for, and who died for the Declaration of
Independence. Its essence, he said, was its promise not only of liberty "to the people of this
country, but hope to the world . . . [hope] that in due time the weights should be lifted from
the shoulders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance."
On this fourth day of July, 1962, we who are gathered at this same hall, entrusted with the
fate and future of our States and Nation, declare now our vow to do our part to lift the
weights from the shoulders of all, to join other men and nations in preserving both peace
and freedom, and to regard any threat to the peace or freedom of one as a threat to the
peace and freedom of all. "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on
the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our
Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:40 a.m. in Independence Square in Philadelphia. In his
opening words he referred to Governor Wesley Powell of New Hampshire, chairman of the
Governors' Conference, the Most Reverend John Krol, Archbishop of Philadelphia,
Governor David L. Lawrence of Pennsylvania, Mayor James H. J. Tate of Philadelphia,
and U.S. Senator Joseph S. Clark and U.S. Representative William J. Green, Jr., of
Pennsylvania.
Included in the audience were members of the 54th National Governors' Conference.
Address at Rice University on the Nation's

Space Effort
Houston, Texas
September 12, 1962
President Pitzer, Mr. Vice President, Governor, Congressman Thomas, Senator Wiley, and
Congressman Miller, Mr. Webb, Mr. Bell, scientists, distinguished guests, and ladies and
gentlemen:
I appreciate your president having made me an honorary visiting professor, and I will
assure you that my first lecture will be very brief.
I am delighted to be here and I'm particularly delighted to be here on this occasion.
We meet at a college noted for knowledge, in a city noted for progress, in a State noted for
strength, and we stand in need of all three, for we meet in an hour of change and challenge,
in a decade of hope and fear, in an age of both knowledge and ignorance. The greater our
knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds.
Despite the striking fact that most of the scientists that the world has ever known are alive
and working today, despite the fact that this Nation¹s own scientific manpower is doubling
every 12 years in a rate of growth more than three times that of our population as a whole,
despite that, the vast stretches of the unknown and the unanswered and the unfinished still
far outstrip our collective comprehension.
No man can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come, but condense, if you will, the
50,000 years of man¹s recorded history in a time span of but a half a century. Stated in
these terms, we know very little about the first 40 years, except at the end of them
advanced man had learned to use the skins of animals to cover them. Then about 10 years
ago, under this standard, man emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter.
Only five years ago man learned to write and use a cart with wheels. Christianity began
less than two years ago. The printing press came this year, and then less than two months
ago, during this whole 50-year span of human history, the steam engine provided a new
source of power.
Newton explored the meaning of gravity. Last month electric lights and telephones and
automobiles and airplanes became available. Only last week did we develop penicillin and
television and nuclear power, and now if America¹s new spacecraft succeeds in reaching
Venus, we will have literally reached the stars before midnight tonight.
This is a breathtaking pace, and such a pace cannot help but create new ills as it dispels old,
new ignorance, new problems, new dangers. Surely the opening vistas of space promise
high costs and hardships, as well as high reward.
So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to
wait. But this city of Houston, this State of Texas, this country of the United States was not
built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was
conquered by those who moved forward--and so will space.
William Bradford, speaking in 1630 of the founding of the Plymouth Bay Colony, said that
all great and honorable actions are accompanied with great difficulties, and both must be
enterprised and overcome with answerable courage.
If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man, in his quest for
knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred. The exploration of space
will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time,
and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in
the race for space.
Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the
industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear
power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of
space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look
into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see
it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have
vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with
instruments of knowledge and understanding.
Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and,
therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our
hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to
make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to
become the world's leading space-faring nation.
We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to
be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science,
like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will
become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a
position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace
or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against
the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land
or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of
war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this
globe of ours.
There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are
hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for
peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose
this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years
ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other
things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to
organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that
we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to
win, and the others, too.
It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from
low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my
incumbency in the office of the Presidency.
In the last 24 hours we have seen facilities now being created for the greatest and most
complex exploration in man's history. We have felt the ground shake and the air shattered
by the testing of a Saturn C-1 booster rocket, many times as powerful as the Atlas which
launched John Glenn, generating power equivalent to 10,000 automobiles with their
accelerators on the floor. We have seen the site where five F-1 rocket engines, each one as
powerful as all eight engines of the Saturn combined, will be clustered together to make the
advanced Saturn missile, assembled in a new building to be built at Cape Canaveral as tall
as a 48 story structure, as wide as a city block, and as long as two lengths of this field.
Within these last 19 months at least 45 satellites have circled the earth. Some 40 of them
were "made in the United States of America" and they were far more sophisticated and
supplied far more knowledge to the people of the world than those of the Soviet Union.
The Mariner spacecraft now on its way to Venus is the most intricate instrument in the
history of space science. The accuracy of that shot is comparable to firing a missile from
Cape Canaveral and dropping it in this stadium between the the 40-yard lines.
Transit satellites are helping our ships at sea to steer a safer course. Tiros satellites have
given us unprecedented warnings of hurricanes and storms, and will do the same for forest
fires and icebergs.
We have had our failures, but so have others, even if they do not admit them. And they
may be less public.
To be sure, we are behind, and will be behind for some time in manned flight. But we do
not intend to stay behind, and in this decade, we shall make up and move ahead.
The growth of our science and education will be enriched by new knowledge of our
universe and environment, by new techniques of learning and mapping and observation, by
new tools and computers for industry, medicine, the home as well as the school. Technical
institutions, such as Rice, will reap the harvest of these gains.
And finally, the space effort itself, while still in its infancy, has already created a great
number of new companies, and tens of thousands of new jobs. Space and related industries
are generating new demands in investment and skilled personnel, and this city and this
State, and this region, will share greatly in this growth. What was once the furthest outpost
on the old frontier of the West will be the furthest outpost on the new frontier of science
and space. Houston, your City of Houston, with its Manned Spacecraft Center, will become
the heart of a large scientific and engineering community. During the next 5 years the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration expects to double the number of scientists
and engineers in this area, to increase its outlays for salaries and expenses to $60 million a
year; to invest some $200 million in plant and laboratory facilities; and to direct or contract
for new space efforts over $1 billion from this Center in this City.
To be sure, all this costs us all a good deal of money. This year¹s space budget is three
times what it was in January 1961, and it is greater than the space budget of the previous
eight years combined. That budget now stands at $5,400 million a year--a staggering sum,
though somewhat less than we pay for cigarettes and cigars every year. Space expenditures
will soon rise some more, from 40 cents per person per week to more than 50 cents a week
for every man, woman and child in the United Stated, for we have given this program a
high national priority--even though I realize that this is in some measure an act of faith and
vision, for we do not now know what benefits await us. But if I were to say, my fellow
citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in
Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of
new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and
stresses several times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a
precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion,
guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an
unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at
speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the
sun--almost as hot as it is here today--and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before
this decade is out--then we must be bold.
I'm the one who is doing all the work, so we just want you to stay cool for a minute.
[laughter]
However, I think we're going to do it, and I think that we must pay what needs to be paid. I
don't think we ought to waste any money, but I think we ought to do the job. And this will
be done in the decade of the sixties. It may be done while some of you are still here at
school at this college and university. It will be done during the term of office of some of
the people who sit here on this platform. But it will be done. And it will be done before the
end of this decade.
I am delighted that this university is playing a part in putting a man on the moon as part of
a great national effort of the United States of America.
Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount
Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. He said, "Because it is there."
Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there,
and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask
God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man
has ever embarked.
Thank you.
Remarks at the America Cup Dinner

Given by the Australian Ambassador
Newport, Rhode Island
September 14, 1962
Ambassador, Lady Beale, Ambassador and Mrs. Berckmeyer, Ambassador and Lady
Ormsby Gore, the Ambassador from Portugal, our distinguished Ministers from Australia,
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I know that all of us take the greatest pleasure in being here, first of all because whether we
are Australian or American, we are all joined by a common interest, a common devotion
and love for the sea, And I am particularly glad to be here because this Cup is being
challenged by our friends from Australia, this extraordinary group of men and women
numbering some 10 million, who have demonstrated on many occasions, on many fields, in
many countries, that they are the most extraordinary athletic group in the world today, and
that this extraordinary demonstration of physical vigor and
skill has come not by the dictates of the state, because the Australians are among the freest
citizens in the world, but because of their choice.
Therefore, Ambassador, you are most welcome here.
This Cup has been challenged in the past by our friends from Great Britain. We are glad to
see Australia assuming the responsibilities of empire in coming here, and we are
particularly glad to welcome you in the year 1962. This is a trophy which the United States
has held for over a century, unlike the Davis Cup. And we do have a feeling, Ambassador,
we do have an old American motto of "One cup at a time."
There is no question that this kind of national competition produces the greatest good will
among nations. The most recent indication of that, of course, were the games held at
Indonesia which produced a wonderful feeling of spirit in all of Asia, and I am confident
that these games will produce the same kind of good will between Australia and the United
States.
I really don't know why it is that all of us are so committed to the sea, except I think it is
because in addition to the fact that the sea changes and the light changes, and ships change,
it is because we all came from the sea. And it is an interesting biological fact that all of us
have, in our veins the exact same percentage of salt in our blood that exists in the ocean,
and, therefore, we have salt in our blood, in our sweat, in our tears. We are tied to the
ocean. And when we go back to the sea, whether it is to sail or to watch it we are going
back from whence we came.
Therefore, it is quite natural that the United States and Australia, separated by an ocean, but
particularly those of us who regard the ocean as a friend, bound by an ocean, should be
meeting today in Newport to begin this great sea competition. This is an old relationship
between the United States and Australia, and particularly between Rhode Island and
Australia.
In the 1790's, Ambassador, American ships, mostly from Rhode Island, began to call
regularly at New South Wales. Their cargoes, I regret to say, consisted mainly of gin and
rum, and the effect was to set back the athletic development, until the recent great
temperance movement in Australia, for many years.
In 1801, Governor Philip Gidley King, of Australia, complained to London, "Such has been
the certainty in America of any quantity of spirits being purchased here that a ship cleared
out of Rhode Island for this port with a very large investment of spirits, which I positively
forbade being landed, in consequence of which she left this port with upward of 13,000
gallons of spirit brought to Australia for sale." And he told the American Minister Rufus
King to warn the Rhode Island merchants not to try to market their rum in Australia. I need
hardly say that the Rhode Island merchants continued to do their compassionate best to
quench this thirst which was felt so strongly in Australia.
However, Australia became committed to physical fitness and it has been disastrous for the
rest of us. We have the highest regard for Australia, Ambassador. As you said, we regard
them as very satisfactory friends in
peace, and the best of friends in war. And I know there are a good many Americans of my
generation who have the greatest possible reason to be grateful to the Australians who
wrote a most distinguished record all the way from the desert of North Africa, and most
particularly in the islands of the South Pacific, where their particular courage and gallantry
I think met the strongest response in all of us in this country.
But I really don't look to the past. I look to the present. The United States and Australia are
most intimately bound together today, and I think that -- and I speak as one who has had
some experience in friendship and some experience in those who are not our friends -- we
value very much the fact that on the other side of the Pacific the Australians inhabit a very
key and crucial area, and that the United States is most intimately associated with them. So
beyond this race, beyond the result, rests this happy relationship between two great people.
I want to toast tonight the crew, the sailors, those who made it possible for the GRETEL to
come here, those who have, for a hundred years, defended this Cup from the New York
Yacht Club, to all of them. As the Ambassador said so well, they race against each other,
but they also race with each other against the wind-and the sea.
To the crew of the GRETEL and the crew of the WEATHERLY.
[NOTE: The President spoke at The Breakers, the former Cornelius Vanderbilt estate
which was loaned for the occasion by the Newport Preservation Society. His opening
words referred to Sir Howard Beale, Ambassador from Australia, and Lady Beale;
Fernando Berckemeyer, Ambassador from Peru, and Mrs. Berckemeyer; Sir David
Ormsby-Gore, Ambassador from Great Britain, and Lady Ormsby-Gore; Pedro Theotonio
Pereira, Ambassador from Portugal; Sir Garfield Barwick, Australian Minister for External
Affairs; and Harold E. Holt, Treasurer of Australia.]
Radio and Television Report to the Nation

on the Situation at the University of
Mississippi
The White House
September 30, 1962
Good evening my fellow citizens:
The orders of the court in the case of Meredith versus Fair are beginning to be carried out.
Mr. James Meredith is now in residence on the campus of the University of Mississippi.
This has been accomplished thus far without the use of National Guard or other troops.
And it is to be hoped that the law enforcement officers of the State of Mississippi and the
Federal marshals will continue to be sufficient in the future.
All students, members of the faculty, and public officials in both Mississippi and the
Nation will be able, it is hoped, to return to their normal activities with full confidence in
the integrity of American law.
This is as it should be, for our Nation is founded on the principle that observance of the law
is the eternal safeguard of liberty and defiance of the law is the surest road to tyranny. The
law which we obey includes the final rulings of the courts, as well as the enactments of our
legislative bodies. Even among law-abiding men few laws are universally loved, but they
are uniformly respected and not resisted.
Americans are free, in short, to disagree with the law but not to disobey it. For in a
government of laws and not of men, no man, however prominent or powerful, and no mob
however unruly or boisterous, is entitled to defy a court of law. If this country should ever
reach the point where any man or group of men by force or threat of force could long defy
the commands of our court and our Constitution, then no law would stand free from doubt,
no judge would be sure of his writ, and no citizen would be safe from his neighbors.
In this case in which the United States Government was not until recently involved, Mr.
Meredith brought a private suit in Federal court against those who were excluding him
from the University. A series of Federal courts all the way to the Supreme Court repeatedly
ordered Mr. Meredith's admission to the University. When those orders were defied, and
those who sought to implement them were threatened with arrest and violence, the United
States Court of Appeals consisting of Chief Judge Tuttle of Georgia, Judge Hutcheson of
Texas, Judge Rives of Alabama, Judge Jones of Florida, Judge Brown of Texas, Judge
Wisdom of Louisiana, Judge Gewin of Alabama, and Judge Bell of Georgia, made clear the
fact that the enforcement of its order had become an obligation of the United States
Government. Even though this Government had not originally been a party to the case, my
responsibility as President was therefore inescapable. I accept it. My obligation under the
Constitution and the statutes of the United States was and is to implement the orders of the
court with whatever means are necessary, and with as little force and civil disorder as the
circumstances permit.
It was for this reason that I federalized the Mississippi National Guard as the most
appropriate instrument, should any be needed, to preserve law and order while United
States marshals carried out the orders of the court and prepared to back them up with
whatever other civil or military enforcement might have been required.
I deeply regret the fact that any action by the executive branch was necessary in this case,
but all other avenues and alternatives, including persuasion and conciliation, had been tried
and exhausted. Had the police powers of Mississippi been used to support the orders of the
court, instead of deliberately and unlawfully blocking them, had the University of
Mississippi fulfilled its standard of excellence by quietly admitting this applicant in
conformity with what so many other southern State universities have done for so many
years, a peaceable and sensible solution would have been possible without any Federal
intervention.
This Nation is proud of the many instances in which Governors, educators, and everyday
citizens from the South have shown to the world the gains that can be made by persuasion
and good will in a society ruled by law. Specifically, I would like to take this occasion to
express the thanks of this Nation to those southerners who have contributed to the progress
of our democratic development in the entrance of students regardless of race to such great
institutions as the State-supported universities of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia,
Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Kentucky.
I recognize that the present period of transition and adjustment in our Nation's Southland is
a hard one for many people. Neither Mississippi nor any other southern State deserves to be
charged with all the accumulated wrongs of the last 100 years of race relations. To the
extent that there has been failure, the responsibility for that failure must be shared by us all,
by every State, by every citizen.
Mississippi and her University, moreover, are noted for their courage, for their contribution
of talent and thought to the affairs of this Nation. This is the State of Lucius Lamar and
many others who have placed the national good ahead of sectional interest. This is the State
which had four Medal of Honor winners in the Korean War alone. In fact, the Guard unit
federalized this morning, early, is part of the 155th Infantry, one of the 10 oldest regiments
in the Union and one of the most decorated for sacrifice and bravery in 6 wars.
In 1945 a Mississippi sergeant, Jake Lindsey, was honored by an unusual joint session of
the Congress. I close therefore, with this appeal to the students of the University, the people
who are most concerned.
You have a great tradition to uphold, a tradition of honor and courage won on the field of
battle and on the gridiron as well as the University campus. You have a new opportunity to
show that you are men of patriotism and integrity. For the most effective means of
upholding the law is not the State policeman or the marshals or the National Guard. It is
you. It lies in your courage to accept those laws with which you disagree as well as those
with which you agree. The eyes of the Nation and of all the world are upon you and upon
all of us, and the honor of your University and State are in the balance. I am certain that the
great majority of the students will uphold that honor.
There is in short no reason why the books on this case cannot now be quickly and quietly
closed in the manner directed by the court. Let us preserve both the law and the peace and
then healing those wounds that are within we can turn to the greater crises that are without
and stand united as one people in our pledge to man's freedom.
Thank you and good night.

American People on the Soviet Arms
Buildup in Cuba
The White House
October 22, 1962
This Government, as promised, has maintained the closest surveillance of the Soviet
Military buildup on the island of Cuba. Within the past week, unmistakable evidence has
established the fact that a series of offensive missile sites is now in preparation on that
imprisoned island. The purpose of these bases can be none other than to provide a nuclear
strike capability against the Western Hemisphere.
Upon receiving the first preliminary hard information of this nature last Tuesday morning
at 9 a.m., I directed that our surveillance be stepped up. And having now confirmed and
completed our evaluation of the evidence and our decision on a course of action, this
Government feels obliged to report this new crisis to you in fullest detail.
The characteristics of these new missile sites indicate two distinct types of installations.
Several of them include medium range ballistic missiles capable of carrying a nuclear
warhead for a distance of more than 1,000 nautical miles. Each of these missiles, in short,
is capable of striking Washington, D.C., the Panama Canal, Cape Canaveral, Mexico City,
or any other city in the southeastern part of the United States, in Central America, or in the
Caribbean area.
Additional sites not yet completed appear to be designed for intermediate range ballistic
missiles--capable of traveling more than twice as far--and thus capable of striking most of
the major cities in the Western Hemisphere, ranging as far north as Hudson Bay, Canada,
and as far south as Lima, Peru. In addition, jet bombers, capable of carrying nuclear
weapons, are now being uncrated and assembled in Cuba, while the necessary air bases are
being prepared.
This urgent transformation of Cuba into an important strategic base--by the presence of
these large, long range, and clearly offensive weapons of sudden mass destruction--
constitutes an explicit threat to the peace and security of all the Americas, in flagrant and
deliberate defiance of the Rio Pact of 1947, the traditions of this Nation and hemisphere,
the joint resolution of the 87th Congress, the Charter of the United Nations, and my own
public warnings to the Soviets on September 4 and 13. This action also contradicts the
repeated assurances of Soviet spokesmen, both publicly and privately delivered, that the
arms buildup in Cuba would retain its original defensive character, and that the Soviet
Union had no need or desire to station strategic missiles on the territory of any other nation.
The size of this undertaking makes clear that it has been planned for some months. Yet
only last month, after I had made clear the distinction between any introduction of ground-
to-ground missiles and the existence of defensive antiaircraft missiles, the Soviet
Government publicly stated on September 11, and I quote, "the armaments and military
equipment sent to Cuba are designed exclusively for defensive purposes," that, and I quote
the Soviet Government, "there is no need for the Soviet Government to shift its
weapons . . . for a retaliatory blow to any other country, for instance Cuba," and that, and I
quote their government, "the Soviet Union has so powerful rockets to carry these nuclear
warheads that there is no need to search for sites for them beyond the boundaries of the
Soviet Union." That statement was false.
Only last Thursday, as evidence of this rapid offensive buildup was already in my hand,
Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko told me in my office that he was instructed to make it
clear once again, as he said his government had already done, that Soviet assistance to
Cuba, and I quote, "pursued solely the purpose of contributing to the the defense
capabilities of Cuba," that, and I quote him, "training by Soviet specialists of Cuban
nationals in handling defensive armaments was by no means offensive, and if it were
otherwise," Mr. Gromyko went on, "the Soviet Government would never become involved
in rendering such assistance." That statement also was false.
Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate
deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no
longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient
challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril. Nuclear weapons are so
destructive and ballistic missiles are so swift, that any substantially increased possibility of
their use or any sudden change in their deployment may well be regarded as a definite
threat to peace.
For many years both the Soviet Union and the United States, recognizing this fact, have
deployed strategic nuclear weapons with great care, never upsetting the precarious status
quo which insured that these weapons would not be used in the absence of some vital
challenge. Our own strategic missiles have never been transferred to the territory of any
other nation under a cloak of secrecy and deception; and our history--unlike that of the
Soviets since the end of World War II--demonstrates that we have no desire to dominate or
conquer any other nation or impose our system upon its people. Nevertheless, American
citizens have become adjusted to living daily on the Bull's-eye of Soviet missiles located
inside the U.S.S.R. or in submarines.
In that sense, missiles in Cuba add to an already clear and present danger--although it
should be noted the nations of Latin America have never previously been subjected to a
potential nuclear threat.
But this secret, swift, and extraordinary buildup of Communist missiles--in an area well
known to have a special and historical relationship to the United States and the nations of
the Western Hemisphere, in violation of Soviet assurances, and in defiance of American
and hemispheric policy--this sudden, clandestine decision to station strategic weapons for
the first time outside of Soviet soil--is a deliberately provocative and unjustified change in
the status quo which cannot be accepted by this country, if our courage and our
commitments are ever to be trusted again by either friend or foe.
The 1930's taught us a clear lesson: aggressive conduct, if allowed to go unchecked and
unchallenged ultimately leads to war. This nation is opposed to war. We are also true to our
word. Our unswerving objective, therefore, must be to prevent the use of these missiles
against this or any other country, and to secure their withdrawal or elimination from the
Western Hemisphere.
Our policy has been one of patience and restraint, as befits a peaceful and powerful nation,
which leads a worldwide alliance. We have been determined not to be diverted from our
central concerns by mere irritants and fanatics. But now further action is required--and it is
under way; and these actions may only be the beginning. We will not prematurely or
unnecessarily risk the costs of worldwide nuclear war in which even the fruits of victory
would be ashes in our mouth--but neither will we shrink from that risk at any time it must
be faced.
Acting, therefore, in the defense of our own security and of the entire Western Hemisphere,
and under the authority entrusted to me by the Constitution as endorsed by the resolution of
the Congress, I have directed that the following initial steps be taken immediately:
First: To halt this offensive buildup, a strict quarantine on all offensive military
equipment under shipment to Cuba is being initiated. All ships of any kind bound
for Cuba from whatever nation or port will, if found to contain cargoes of offensive
weapons, be turned back. This quarantine will be extended, if needed, to other types
of cargo and carriers. We are not at this time, however, denying the necessities of
life as the Soviets attempted to do in their Berlin blockade of 1948.
Second: I have directed the continued and increased close surveillance of Cuba and
its military buildup. The foreign ministers of the OAS, in their communique of
October 6, rejected secrecy in such matters in this hemisphere. Should these
offensive military preparations continue, thus increasing the threat to the
hemisphere, further action will be justified. I have directed the Armed Forces to
prepare for any eventualities; and I trust that in the interest of both the Cuban
people and the Soviet technicians at the sites, the hazards to all concerned in
continuing this threat will be recognized.
Third: It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched
from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet
Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet
Union.
Fourth: As a necessary military precaution, I have reinforced our base at
Guantanamo, evacuated today the dependents of our personnel there, and ordered
additional military units to be on a standby alert basis.
Fifth: We are calling tonight for an immediate meeting of the Organ of
Consultation under the Organization of American States, to consider this threat to
hemispheric security and to invoke articles 6 and 8 of the Rio Treaty in support of
all necessary action. The United Nations Charter allows for regional security
arrangements--and the nations of this hemisphere decided long ago against the
military presence of outside powers. Our other allies around the world have also
been alerted.
Sixth: Under the Charter of the United Nations, we are asking tonight that an
emergency meeting of the Security Council be convoked without delay to take
action against this latest Soviet threat to world peace. Our resolution will call for
the prompt dismantling and withdrawal of all offensive weapons in Cuba, under the
supervision of U.N. observers, before the quarantine can be lifted.
Seventh and finally: I call upon Chairman Khrushchev to halt and eliminate this
clandestine, reckless and provocative threat to world peace and to stable relations
between our two nations. I call upon him further to abandon this course of world
domination, and to join in an historic effort to end the perilous arms race and to
transform the history of man. He has an opportunity now to move the world back
from the abyss of destruction--by returning to his government's own words that it
had no need to station missiles outside its own territory, and withdrawing these
weapons from Cuba--by refraining from any action which will widen or deepen the
present crisis--and then by participating in a search for peaceful and permanent
solutions.
This Nation is prepared to present its case against the Soviet threat to peace, and our own
proposals for a peaceful world, at any time and in any forum--in the OAS, in the United
Nations, or in any other meeting that could be useful--without limiting our freedom of
action. We have in the past made strenuous efforts to limit the spread of nuclear weapons.
We have proposed the elimination of all arms and military bases in a fair and effective
disarmament treaty. We are prepared to discuss new proposals for the removal of tensions
on both sides--including the possibility of a genuinely independent Cuba, free to determine
its own destiny. We have no wish to war with the Soviet Union--for we are a peaceful
people who desire to live in peace with all other peoples.
But it is difficult to settle or even discuss these problems in an atmosphere of intimidation.
That is why this latest Soviet threat--or any other threat which is made either independently
or in response to our actions this week--must and will be met with determination. Any
hostile move anywhere in the world against the safety and freedom of peoples to whom we
are committed--including in particular the brave people of West Berlin--will be met by
whatever action is needed.
Finally, I want to say a few words to the captive people of Cuba, to whom this speech is
being directly carried by special radio facilities. I speak to you as a friend, as one who
knows of your deep attachment to your fatherland, as one who shares your aspirations for
liberty and justice for all. And I have watched and the American people have watched with
deep sorrow how your nationalist revolution was betrayed-- and how your fatherland fell
under foreign domination. Now your leaders are no longer Cuban leaders inspired by
Cuban ideals. They are puppets and agents of an international conspiracy which has turned
Cuba against your friends and neighbors in the Americas--and turned it into the first Latin
American country to become a target for nuclear war--the first Latin American country to
have these weapons on its soil.
These new weapons are not in your interest. They contribute nothing to your peace and
well-being. They can only undermine it. But this country has no wish to cause you to suffer
or to impose any system upon you. We know that your lives and land are being used as
pawns by those who deny your freedom.
Many times in the past, the Cuban people have risen to throw out tyrants who destroyed
their liberty. And I have no doubt that most Cubans today look forward to the time when
they will be truly free--free from foreign domination, free to choose their own leaders, free
to select their own system, free to own their own land, free to speak and write and worship
without fear or degradation. And then shall Cuba be welcomed back to the society of free
nations and to the associations of this hemisphere.
My fellow citizens: let no one doubt that this is a difficult and dangerous effort on which
we have set out. No one can see precisely what course it will take or what costs or
casualties will be incurred. Many months of sacrifice and self-discipline lie ahead--months
in which our patience and our will will be tested--months in which many threats and
denunciations will keep us aware of our dangers. But the greatest danger of all would be to
do nothing.
The path we have chosen for the present is full of hazards, as all paths are--but it is the one
most consistent with our character and courage as a nation and our commitments around
the world. The cost of freedom is always high--and Americans have always paid it. And
one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender or submission.
Our goal is not the victory of might, but the vindication of right- -not peace at the expense
of freedom, but both peace and freedom, here in this hemisphere, and, we hope, around the
world. God willing, that goal will be achieved.
Radio and Television Remarks on the Dismantling of Soviet

Missile Bases in Cuba, November 2, 1962
Broadcast from the Fish Room at the White House, Washington, D.C.
Credit: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, Boston, Massachusetts
My fellow citizens:
I want to take this opportunity to report on the conclusions which this Government has
reached on the basis of yesterday's aerial photographs which will be made available
tomorrow, as well as other indications, namely, that the Soviet missile bases in Cuba are
being dismantled, their missiles and related equipment are being crated, and the fixed
installations at these sites are being destroyed.
The United States intends to follow closely the completion of this work through a variety
of means, including aerial surveillance, until such time as an equally satisfactory
international means of verification is effected.
While the quarantine remains in effect, we are hopeful that adequate procedures can be
developed for international inspection of Cuba-bound cargoes. The International
Committee of the Red Cross, in our view, would be an appropriate agent in this matter.
The continuation of these measures in air and sea, until the threat to peace posed by these
offensive weapons is gone, is in keeping with our pledge to secure their withdrawal or
elimination from this hemisphere. It is in keeping with the resolution of the OAS, and it is
in keeping with the exchange of letters with Chairman Khrushchev of October 27th and
28th.
Progress is now being made towards the restoration of peace in the Caribbean, and it is our
firm hope and purpose that this progress shall go forward. We will continue to keep the
American people informed on this vital matter.
Thank you.
Remarks at a Closed Circuit Television Broadcast on Behalf

of the National Cultural Center, November 29, 1962
National Guard Armory, Washington, D.C
Mr. Stevens, Mrs. Gardner, Mr. Vice President, Mr. Chief Justice, ladies and gentlemen:
This is a notable occasion for all of us here in Washington and around the country, and I
am very happy to greet all of you who have come and who are taking part in this great
effort.
I hope that you're as proud of it as I am. We're .particularly pleased to have with us as our
guest tonight from Augusta, Ga., the man under whose administration this project was
started and who has given it wholehearted support--ladies and gentlemen, General
Eisenhower.
General, I am sorry we are not all there with you.
I want to assure the officials of my administration tonight that this demonstration of
support for the arts is modest and painless compared to what has been required of past
governments and past administrations.
In 1664, Louis the XIV, in his own efforts to encourage the arts, donned brilliant tights and
played in a drama called "Furious Roland" before a happy court. Moreover, he drafted the
highest offices of his administration for the play so that, according to an account, all clad in
brilliant tights themselves they passed before the Queen and the Court.
This was suggested tonight but for some reason or other the committee turned it down. But
we are glad to be here in any case. And we are glad to be the guests of honor of the
representatives of much of the finest in American culture and much of the finest in
American life. And we are very much indebted to all the artists who have so willingly
taken part in this work tonight. For when Thomas Jefferson wrote that the one thing which
from the heart he envied certain other nations, and that was their art, he spoke from a deep
understanding of the enduring sources of national greatness and national achievement.
But our culture and art do not speak to America alone. To the extent that artists struggle to
express beauty in form and color and sound, to the extent that they write about man's
struggle with nature or society, or himself, to that extent they strike a responsive chord in
all humanity. Today, Sophocles speaks to us from more than 2,000 years. And in our own
time, even when political communications have been strained, the Russian people have
bought more than 20,000 copies of the works of Jack London, more than 10 million books
of Mark Twain, and hundreds and thousands of copies of Hemingway, Steinbeck,
Whitman, and Poe; and our own people, through the works of Tolstoy and Dostoievsky and
Pasternak have gained an insight into the shared problems of the human heart.
Thus today, as always, art knows no national boundaries.
Genius can speak at any time, and the entire world will hear it and listen. Behind the storm
of daily conflict and crisis, the dramatic confrontations, the tumult of political struggle, the
poet, the artist, the musician, continues the quiet work of centuries, building bridges of
experience between peoples, reminding man of the universality of his feelings and desires
and despairs, and reminding him that the forces that unite are deeper than those that divide.
Thus, art and the encouragement of art is political in the most profound sense, not as a
weapon in the struggle, but as an instrument of understanding of the futility of struggle
between those who share man's faith. Aeschylus and Plato are remembered today long after
the triumphs of imperial Athens are gone. Dante outlived the ambitions of 13th century
Florence. Goethe stands serenely above the politics of Germany, and I am certain that after
the dust of centuries has passed over our cities, we, too, will be remembered not for
victories or defeats in battle or in politics, but for our contribution to the human spirit.
It was Pericles' proudest boast that politically Athens was the school of Hellas. If we can
make our country one of the great schools of civilization, then on that achievement will
surely rest our claim to the ultimate gratitude of mankind. Moreover, as a great democratic
society, we have a special responsibility to the arts, for art is the great democrat calling
forth creative genius from every sector of society, disregarding race or religion or wealth or
color. The mere accumulation of wealth and power is available to the dictator and the
democrat alike. What freedom alone can bring is the liberation of the human mind and
spirit which finds its greatest flowering in the free society.
Thus, in our fulfillment of these responsibilities toward the arts lie our unique achievement
as a free society. Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke in the National Guard Armory in Washington, D.C. Mrs.
Kennedy then spoke briefly before introducing Mrs. Dwight D. Eisenhower who served
with her as Honorary Co-Chairman of the National Cultural Center. General and Mrs.
Eisenhower participated in the broadcast from Augusta, Ga.
The 2-hour closed-circuit television program "An American Pageant of the Arts" opened a
$30 million fundraising campaign for the Center. The telecast originated in Washington,
New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Augusta, Ga., and was seen in 75 cities throughout
the country and in Canada. The program was produced by Robert Saudek, with Leonard
Bernstein acting as master of ceremonies. Among those appearing on the program were
Pablo Casals, Marjan Anderson, Van Cliburn, Robert Frost, Frederic March, Danny
Kaye, Bob Newhart, and Harry Belafonte.
The President's opening words referred to Roger L. Stevens, Chairman of the Board of
Trustees of the National Cultural Center, Mrs. Arthur Gardner, St., chairman of the dinner
committee, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, and Chief Justice Earl Warren.
Earlier, on October 16, the President had proclaimed November 26 through December 2,
1962, as National Cultural Center Week, urging State and city officials and civic,
fraternal, and patriotic organizations to join in assuring a successful fundraising
campaign for the Center.
Address at the Economic Club of New York, December 14,

1962
Waldorf-Astoria Hote, New York City
Date: December 14, 1962
General Royall, Mr. Trippe, Mr. Rockefeller, General Clay, gentlemen:
I feel tonight somewhat like I felt when I addressed in 1960 the Houston Ministers
Conference on the separation of church and state. But I am glad to have a chance to talk to
you tonight about the advantages of the free enterprise system. [Applause]
Less than a month ago this Nation reminded the world that it possessed both the will and
the weapons to meet any threat to the security of free men. The gains we have made will
not be given up, and the course that we have pursued will not be abandoned. But in the
long run, that security will not be determined by military or diplomatic moves alone. It will
be affected by the decisions of finance ministers as well as by the decisions of Secretaries
of State and Secretaries of Defense; by the deployment of fiscal and monetary weapons as
well as by military weapons; and above all by the strength of this Nation's economy as well
as by the strength of our defenses.
You will recall that Chairman Khrushchev has said that he believed that the hinge of world
history would begin to move when the Soviet Union out-produced the United States.
Therefore, the subject to which we address ourselves tonight concerns not merely our own
well-being, but also very vitally the defense of the free world. America's rise to world
leadership in the century since the Civil War has reflected more than anything else our
unprecedented economic growth. Interrupted during the decade of the thirties, the vigorous
expansion of our economy was resumed in 1940 and continued for more than 15 years
thereafter. It demonstrated for all to see the power of freedom and the efficiency of free
institutions. The economic health of this Nation has been and is now fundamentally sound.
But a leading nation, a nation upon which all depend not only in this country but around the
world, cannot afford to be satisfied, to look back or to pause. On our strength and growth
depend the strength of others, the spread of free world trade and unity, and continued
confidence in our leadership and our currency. The underdeveloped countries are
dependent upon us for the sale of their primary commodities and for aid to their struggling
economies. In short, a prosperous and growing America is important not only to
Americans--it is, as the spokesman for 20 Western nations in the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, as he stressed this week, of vital importance to
the entire Western World.
In the last 2 years we have made significant strides. Our gross national product has risen 11
percent while inflation has been arrested. Employment has been increased by 1.3 million
jobs. Profits, personal income, living standards--all are setting new records. Most of the
economic indicators for this quarter are up and the prospects are for further expansion in
the next quarter. But we must look beyond the next quarter, or the last quarter, or even the
last 2 years. For we can and must do better, much better than we have been doing for the
last 5 1/2 years.
This economy is capable of producing without strain $30 to $40 billion more than we are
producing today. Business earnings could be $7 to $8 billion higher than they are today.
Utilization of existing plant and equipment could be much higher; and if it were,
investment would rise. We need not accept an unemployment rate Of 5 percent or more,
such as we have had for 60 out of the last 61 months. There is no need for us to be satisfied
with a rate of growth that keeps good men out of work and good capacity out of use.
The Economic Club of New York is of course familiar with these problems. For in this
State the rate of insured unemployment has been persistently higher than the national
average, and the increases in personal income and employment have been slower here than
in the Nation as a whole. You have seen the tragedy of chronically depressed areas upstate,
of unemployed young people, and I think this might be one of our most serious national
problems, unemployed young people, those under 20, one out of four is unemployed,
particularly those in the minority groups, roaming the streets of New York and our other
great cities, and others on relief at an early age, with the prospect that in this decade we
will have between 7 and 8 million school dropouts, unskilled, coming into the labor
market, at a time when the need for unskilled labor is steadily diminishing. And I know you
share my conviction that, proud as we are of its progress, this Nation's economy can and
must do even better than it has done in the last 5 years. Our choice, therefore, boils down to
one of doing nothing and thereby risking a widening gap between our actual and potential
growth in output, profits, and employment-or taking action, at the Federal level, to raise our
entire economy to a new and higher level of business activity.
If we do not take action, those who have the most reason to be dissatisfied with our present
rate of growth will be tempted to seek shortsighted and narrow solutions--to resist
automation, to reduce the work week to 35 hours or even lower, to shut out imports, or to
raise prices in a vain effort to obtain full capacity profits on under-capacity operations. But
these are all self-defeating expedients which can only restrict the economy, not expand it.
There are a number of ways by which the Federal Government can meet its responsibilities
to aid economic growth. We can and must improve American education and technical
training. We can and must expand civilian research and technology. One of the great
bottlenecks for this country's economic growth in this decade will be the shortage of
doctorates in mathematics, engineering, and physics; a serious shortage with a great
demand and an under-supply of highly trained manpower. We can and must step up the
development of our natural resources.
But the most direct and significant kind of Federal action aiding economic growth is to
make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand--to cut the
fetters which hold back private spending. In the past, this could be done in part by the
increased use of credit and monetary tools, but our balance of payments situation today
places limits on our use of those tools for expansion. It could also be done by increasing
Federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon
demoralize both the Government and our economy. If Government is to retain the
confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of
national need or spent with maximum efficiency. I shall say more on this in a moment.
The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to
reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are
imposed by our present tax system; and this administration pledged itself last summer to an
across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted
and become effective in 1963.
I am not talking about a "quickie" or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate
if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the
arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the
last 5 years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World
War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons
out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power;
that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking.
In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the Federal Government's most useful
role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to
expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.
Under these circumstances, any new tax legislation--and you can understand that under the
comity which exists in the United States Constitution whereby the Ways and Means
Committee in the House of Representatives have the responsibility of initiating this
legislation, that the details of any proposal should wait on the meeting of the Congress in
January. But you can understand that under these circumstances, in general, that any new
tax legislation enacted next year should meet the following three tests:
First, it should reduce net taxes by a sufficiently early date and a sufficiently large amount
to do the job required. Early action could give us extra leverage, added results, and
important insurance against recession. Too large a tax cut, of course, could result in
inflation and insufficient future revenues--but the greatest danger is a tax cut too little or
too late to be effective.
Second, the new tax bill must increase private consumption as well as investment.
Consumers are still spending between 92 and 94 'percent of their after-tax income, as they
have every year since 1950. But that after-tax income could and should be greater,
providing stronger markets for the products of American industry. When consumers
purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid off,
investment increases and profits are high.
Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of
investment capital. The Government has already taken major steps this year to reduce
business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our
productive plant and equipment. We have done this through the 1962 investment tax credit
and through the liberalization of depreciation allowances--two essential parts of our first
step in tax revision which amounted to a 10 percent reduction in corporate income taxes
worth $2.5 billion. Now we need to increase consumer demand to make these measures
fully effective--demand which will make more use of existing capacity and thus increase
both profits and the incentive to invest. In fact, profits after taxes would be at least 15
percent higher today if we were operating at full employment.
For all these reasons, next year's tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate
income taxes, for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional
take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be
encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital.
Third, the new tax bill should improve both the equity and the simplicity of our present tax
system. This means the enactment of long-needed tax reforms, a broadening of the tax base
and the elimination or modification of many special tax privileges. These steps are not only
needed to recover lost revenue and thus make possible a larger cut in present rates; they are
also tied directly to our goal of greater growth. For the present patchwork of special
provisions and preferences lightens the tax load of some only at the cost of placing a
heavier burden on others. It distorts economic judgments and channels an undue amount of
energy into efforts to avoid tax liabilities. It makes certain types of less productive activity
more profitable than other more valuable undertakings. All this inhibits our growth and
efficiency, as well as considerably complicating the work of both the taxpayer and the
Internal Revenue Service.
These various exclusions and concessions have been justified in part as a means of
overcoming oppressively high rates in the upper brackets--and a sharp reduction in those
rates, accompanied by base-broadening, loophole-closing measures, would properly make
the new rates not only lower but also more widely applicable. Surely this is more equitable
on both counts.
Those are the three tests which the right kind of bill must meet and I am confident that the
enactment of the right bill next year will in due course increase our gross national product
by several times the amount of taxes actually cut. Profit margins will be improved and both
the incentive to invest and the supply of internal funds for investment will be increased.
There will be new interest in taking risks, in increasing productivity, in creating new jobs
and new products for long-term economic growth.
Other national problems, moreover, will be aided by full employment. It will encourage the
location of new plants in areas of labor surplus and provide new jobs for workers that we
are retraining and facilitate the adjustment which will be necessary under our new trade
expansion bill and reduce a number of government expenditures.
It will not, I'm confident, revive an inflationary spiral or adversely affect our balance of
payments. If the economy today were operating close to capacity levels with little
unemployment, or if a sudden change in our military requirements should cause a scramble
for men and resources, then I would oppose tax reductions as irresponsible and
inflationary; and I would not hesitate to recommend a tax increase, if that were necessary.
But our resources and manpower are not being fully utilized; the general level of prices has
been remarkably stable; and increased competition, both at home and abroad, along with
increased productivity will help keep both prices and wages within appropriate limits.
The same is true of our balance of payments. While rising demand will expand imports,
new investment in more efficient productive facilities will aid exports and a new economic
climate could both draw capital from abroad and keep capital here at home. It will also put
us in a better position, if necessary, to use monetary tools to help our international
accounts. But, most importantly, confidence in the dollar in the long run rests on
confidence in America, in our ability to meet our economic commitments and reach our
economic goals. In a worldwide conviction that we are not drifting from recession to
recession with no answer, the substantial improvement in our balance of payments position
in the last 2 years makes it clear that nothing could be more foolish than to restrict our
growth merely to minimize that particular problem, because a slowdown in our economy
will feed that problem rather than diminish it. On the contrary, European governmental and
financial authorities with almost total unanimity, far from threatening to withdraw gold,
have urged us to cut taxes in order to expand our economy, attract more capital, and
increase confidence in our future.
But what concerns most Americans about a tax cut, I know, is not the deficit in our balance
of payments but the deficit in our Federal budget. When I announced in April of 1961 that
this kind of comprehensive tax reform would follow the bill enacted this year, I had hoped
to present it in an atmosphere of a balanced budget. But it has been necessary to augment
sharply our nuclear and conventional forces, to step up our efforts in space, to meet the
increased cost of servicing the national debt and meeting our obligations, established by
law, to veterans. These expenditure increases, let me stress, constitute practically all of the
increases which have occurred under this administration, the remainder having gone to
fight the recession we found in industry--mostly through the supplemental employment
bill-and in agriculture.
We shall, therefore, neither postpone our tax cut plans nor cut into essential national
security programs. This administration is determined to protect America's security and
survival and we are also determined to step up its economic growth. I think we must do
both.
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large
Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power,
so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax
rates will never produce enough revenue to balance our budget just as it will never produce
enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits
are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic
recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records.
In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too
low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The
experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This
country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is
that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to
that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to
achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.
I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is
between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of
inadequate revenues and a restricted economy; or a temporary deficit of transition,
resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and
achieve--and I believe this can be done--a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign
of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future.
Nevertheless, as Chairman Mills of the House Ways and Means Committee pointed out this
week, the size of the deficit is to be regarded with concern, and tax reduction must be
accompanied, in his words, by "increased control of the rises in expenditures." This is
precisely the course we intend to follow in 1963.
At the same time as our tax program is presented to the Congress in January, the Federal
budget for fiscal 1964 will also be presented. Defense and space expenditures will
necessarily rise in order to carry out programs which are demanded and are necessary for
our own security, and which have largely been authorized by Members in both parties of
the Congress with overwhelming majorities. Fixed interest charges on the debt also rise
slightly. But I can tell you now that the total of all other expenditures combined will be
held at approximately its current level.
This is not an easy task. During the past 9 years, domestic civilian expenditures in the
National Government have risen at an average rate of more than 71/2 percent. State and
local government expenditures have risen at an annual rate of 9 percent. Expenditures by
the New York State Government, for example, have risen in recent years at the rate of
roughly 10 percent a year. At a time when Government pay scales have necessarily risen--
and I take New York just as an example--when our population and pressures are growing
and the demand for services and State aid is thus increasing, next year's Federal budget,
which will hold domestic outlays at their present level, will represent a genuine effort in
expenditure control. This budget will reflect, among other economies, a $750 million
reduction in the postal deficit. It will reflect a savings of over $300 million in the storage
costs of surplus feed grain stocks, and as a result of the feed grain bill of 1961 we will have
two-thirds less in storage than we would otherwise have had in January 1963 and a savings
of at least $600 million from the cancellation of obsolete or unworkable weapons systems.
Secretary McNamara is undertaking a cost reduction program expected to save at least $3
billion a year in the Department of Defense, cutting down on duplication and closing down
nonessential installations. Other agencies must do the same.
In addition, I have directed all heads of Government departments and agencies to hold
Federal employment under the levels authorized by congressional appropriations; to absorb
through greater efficiency a substantial part of this year's Federal pay increase; to achieve
an increase in productivity which will enable the same amount of work to be done by fewer
people; and to refrain from spending any unnecessary funds that were appropriated by the
Congress.
It should also be noted that the Federal debt, as a proportion of our gross national product,
has been steadily reduced in this last year. Last year the total increase in the Federal debt
was 2 percent--compared to an 8 percent increase in the gross debt of State and local
governments. Taking a longer view, the Federal debt today is 13 percent higher than it was
in 1946, while State and local debt increased over 360 percent and private debt by over 300
percent. In fact, if it were not for Federal financial assistance to State and local
governments, the Federal cash budget would show a surplus. Federal civilian employment,
for example, is actually lower today than it was in 1952, while State and local government
employment over the same period has increased 67 percent.
It is this setting which makes Federal tax reduction both possible and appropriate next year.
I do not underestimate the obstacles which the Congress will face in enacting such
legislation. No one will be satisfied. Everyone will have his own approach, his own bill, his
own reduction. A high order of restraint and determination will be required if the possible
is not to wait on the perfect. But a nation capable of marshaling these qualities in any
dramatic threat to its security is surely capable, as a great free society, of meeting a slower
and more complex threat to our economic vitality. This Nation can afford to reduce taxes,
we can afford a temporary deficit, but we cannot afford to do nothing. For on the strength
of our free economy rests the hope of all free nations. We shall not fail that hope, for free
men and free nations must prosper and they must prevail.
Thank you.
Remarks in Miami at the Presentation of the Flag of the

Cuban Invasion Brigade, December 29, 1962
Orange bowl, Miami, Florida
Date: December 29, 1962
Commander, Doctor:
I want to express my great appreciation to the brigade for making the United States the
custodian of this flag. I can assure you that this flag will be returned to this brigade in a free
Havana.
I wonder if Señor Miranda, who preserved this flag through the last 20 months, would
come forward so we can meet him.
I wanted to know who I should give it back to.
I always had the impression--I hope the members of the brigade will sit down again--I
always had the impression that the brigade was made up of mostly young men, but standing
over there is a Cuban patriot 57, one 59, one 61. I wonder if those three could stand so that
the people of the United States could realize that they represent the spirit of the Cuban
revolution in its best sense.
All of you members of the brigade, and members of their families, are following an historic
road, one which has been followed by other Cubans in other days, and, indeed, by other
patriots of our hemisphere in other years--Juarez, San Martin, Bolivar, O'Higgins--all of
whom fought for liberty, many of whom were defeated, many of whom went in exile, and
all of whom came home.
Seventy years ago Jose Marti, the guiding spirit of the first Cuban struggle for
independence, lived on these shores. At that time in 1889, the first International American
Conference was held, and Cuba was not present. Then, as now, Cuba was the only state in
the hemisphere still controlled by a foreign monarch. Then, as now, Cuba was excluded
from the society of free nations. And then, as now, brave men in Florida and New York
dedicated their lives and their energies to the freedom of their homeland.
The brigade comes from behind prison walls, but you leave behind you more than six
million of your fellow countrymen who are also in a very real sense in prison, for Cuba is
today, as Marti described it many years ago, as beautiful as Greece, and stretched out in
chains--a prison, moated by water.
On behalf of my Government and my country, I welcome you to the United States. I bring
you my Nation's respect for your courage and for your cause. Our primary gratitude for
your liberation must go to the heroic efforts of the Cuban Families Committee, Mr.
Sanchez and others, and their able and skilled negotiator, Mr. James Donovan, and those
many private American citizens who gave so richly of their time and their energies in order
to save free men of Cuba from Castro's dungeons, and to reunite you with your families
and friends.
Their efforts had a significance beyond the important desire to salvage individual human
beings. For your small brigade is a tangible reaffirmation that the human desire for freedom
and independence is essentially unconquerable. Your conduct and valor are proof that
although Castro and his fellow dictators may rule nations, they do not rule people; that they
may imprison bodies, but they do not imprison spirits; that they may destroy the exercise of
liberty, but they cannot eliminate the determination to be free. And by helping to free you,
the United States has been given the opportunity to demonstrate once again that all men
who fight for freedom are our brothers, and shall be until your country and others are free.
The Cuban people were promised by the revolution political liberty, social justice,
intellectual freedom, land for the campesinos. and an end to economic exploitation. They
have received a police state, the elimination of the dignity of land ownership, the
destruction of free speech and of free press, and the complete subjugation of individual
human welfare to the service of the state and of foreign states.
Under the Alianza para el Progreso, we support for Cuba and for all the countries of this
hemisphere the right of free elections and the free exercise of basic human freedoms. We
support land reform and the right of every campesino to own the land he tills. We support
the effort of every free nation to pursue programs of economic progress. We support the
right of every free people to freely transform the economic and political institutions of
society so that they may serve the welfare of all.
These are the principles of the Alianza para el Progreso. They are the principles we support
for Cuba. These are the principles for which men have died and fought, and they are the
principles for which you fought and for which some died in your brigade. And I believe
these are the principles of the great majority of the Cuban people today. And I am
confident that all over the island of Cuba, in the Government itself, in the Army, and in the
militia, there are many who hold to this freedom faith, who have viewed with dismay the
destruction of freedom on their island, and who are determined to restore that freedom so
that the Cuban people may once more govern themselves.
I know that exile is a different life for any free man. But I am confident that you recognize
that you hold a position of responsibility to the day when Cuba is once again free. To this
end, it is important that you submerge monetary differences in a common united front; that
the brigade, those who serve in the brigade, will work together to keep alive the spirit of
the brigade so that some day the people of Cuba will have a free chance to make a free
choice. So I think it incumbent upon all of you who are here today to work together, to
submerge those differences which now may disturb you, to the united end that Cuba is free,
and then make a free choice as to what kind of a government and what kind of a country
you freely wish to build.
The brigade is the point of the spear, the arrow's head. I hope they and the members of their
families will take every opportunity to educate your children, yourselves, in the many skills
and disciplines which will be necessary when Cuba is once more free.
Finally, I can offer no better advice than that given by Jose Marti to his fellow exiles in
1895 when the hour of Cuban independence was then at hand. "Let the tenor of our words
be," Marti said, "especially in public matters, Dot the useless clamor of fear's vengeance
which does not enter our hearts, but the honest weariness of an oppressed people who hope
through their emancipation from a government convicted of uselessness and malevolence
for a government of their own, which is capable and worthy." "Let them see in us," Marti
said, "constructive Americans and not empty bitterness."
Gentlemen of the brigade, I need not tell you how happy I am to welcome you here to the
United States, and what a profound impression your conduct during some of the most
difficult days and months that any free people have experienced--what a profound
impression your conduct made upon not only the people of this country, but all the people
of this hemisphere. Even in prison you served in the strongest possible way the cause of
freedom, as you do today.
I can assure you that it is the strongest wish of the people of this country, as well as the
people of this hemisphere, that Cuba shall one day be free again, and when it is, this
brigade will deserve to march at the head of the free column.
NOTE: The President spoke from a platform erected near midfield in the Orange Bowl at
Miami, Fla., following the presentation of the flag by Erncido Oliva, second in command
of the 2506th Cuban Invasion Brigade. The President's opening words "Commander,
Doctor" referred to Jose Perez San Ramon, military commander of the invasion brigade,
and Jose Mino Cardona, president of the Cuban Revolutionary Council. Later he referred
to Secundo Miranda, who during the invasion escaped with the brigade's flag and took
refuge in an embassy in Havana; Alvaro Sanchez, Jr., chairman of the Cuban Families
Committee; and James Donovan, a New York City attorney, who had negotiated with the
Cuban Government for the release of the Bay of Pigs prisoners.
Immediately after the President's remarks Mrs. Kennedy spoke briefly in Spanish. The text
of her remarks was also released.
Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union,

January 14, 1963
U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C.
[ As delivered in person before a joint session ]
Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the 88th Congress:
I congratulate you all--not merely on your electoral victory but on your selected role in
history. For you and I are privileged to serve the great Republic in what could be the most
decisive decade in its long history. The choices we make, for good or ill, may well shape
the state of the Union for generations yet to come.
Little more than 100 weeks ago I assumed the office of President of the United States. In
seeking the help of the Congress and our countrymen, I pledged no easy answers. I
pledged--and asked--only toil and dedication. These the Congress and the people have
given in good measure. And today, having witnessed in recent months a heightened respect
for our national purpose and power--having seen the courageous calm of a united people in
a perilous hour-and having observed a steady improvement in the opportunities and well-
being of our citizens--I can report to you that the state of this old but youthful Union, in the
175th year of its life, is good.
In the world beyond our borders, steady progress has been made in building a world of
order. The people of West Berlin remain both free and secure. A settlement, though still
precarious, has been reached in Laos. The spearpoint of aggression has been blunted in
Viet-Nam. The end of agony may be in sight in the Congo. The doctrine of troika is dead.
And, while danger continues, a deadly threat has been removed in Cuba.
At home, the recession is behind us. Well over a million more men and women are working
today than were working 2 years ago. The average factory workweek is once again more
than 40 hours; our industries are turning out more goods than ever before; and more than
half of the manufacturing capacity that lay silent and wasted 100 weeks ago is humming
with activity.
In short, both at home and abroad, there may now be a temptation to relax. For the road has
been long, the burden heavy, and the pace consistently urgent.
But we cannot be satisfied to rest here. This is the side of the hill, not the top. The mere
absence of war is not peace. The mere absence of recession is not growth. We have made a
beginning--but we have only begun.
Now the time has come to make the most of our gains--to translate the renewal of our
national strength into the achievement of our national purpose.
II.
America has enjoyed 22 months of uninterrupted economic recovery. But recovery is not
enough. If we are to prevail in the long run, we must expand the long-run strength of our
economy. We must move along the path to a higher rate of growth and full employment.
For this would mean tens of billions of dollars more each year in production, profits,
wages, and public revenues. It would mean an end to the persistent slack which has kept
our unemployment at or above 5 percent for 61 out of the past 62 months--and an end to
the growing pressures for such restrictive measures as the 35-hour week, which alone could
increase hourly labor costs by as much as 14 percent, start a new wage-price spiral of
inflation, and undercut our efforts to compete with other nations.
To achieve these greater gains, one step, above all, is essential--the enactment this year of a
substantial reduction and revision in Federal income taxes.
For it is increasingly clear--to those in Government, business, and labor who are
responsible for our economy's success--that our obsolete tax system exerts too heavy a drag
on private purchasing power, profits, and employment. Designed to check inflation in
earlier years, it now checks growth instead. It discourages extra effort and risk. It distorts
the use of resources. It invites recurrent recessions, depresses our Federal revenues, and
causes chronic budget deficits.
Now, when the inflationary pressures of the war and the post-war years no longer threaten,
and the dollar commands new respect-now, when no military crisis strains our resources--
now is the time to act. We cannot afford to be timid or slow. For this is the most urgent task
confronting the Congress in 1963.
In an early message, I shall propose a permanent reduction in tax rates which will lower
liabilities by $13.5 billion. Of this, $11 billion results from reducing individual tax rates,
which now range between 20 and 91 percent, to a more sensible range of 14 to 65 percent,
with a split in the present first bracket. Two and one-half billion dollars results from
reducing corporate tax rates, from 52 percent--which gives the Government today a
majority interest in profits-to the permanent pre-Korean level of 47 percent. This is in
addition to the more than $2 billion cut in corporate tax liabilities resulting from last year's
investment credit and depreciation reform.
To achieve this reduction within the limits of a manageable budgetary deficit, I urge: first,
that these cuts be phased over 3 calendar years, beginning in 1963 with a cut of some $6
billion at annual rates; second, that these reductions be coupled with selected structural
changes, beginning in 1964, which will broaden the tax base, end unfair or unnecessary
preferences, remove or lighten certain hardships, and in the net offset some $3.5 billion of
the revenue loss; and third, that budgetary receipts at the outset be increased by $1.5 billion
a year, without any change in tax liabilities, by gradually shifting the tax payments of large
corporations to a . more current time schedule. This combined program, by increasing the
amount of our national income, will in time result in still higher Federal revenues. It is a
fiscally responsible program--the surest and the soundest way of achieving in time a
balanced budget in a balanced full employment economy.
This net reduction in tax liabilities of $10 billion will increase the purchasing power of
American families and business enterprises in every tax bracket, with greatest increase
going to our low-income consumers. It will, in addition, encourage the initiative and risk-
taking on which our free system depends--induce more investment, production, and
capacity use--help provide the 2 million new jobs we need every year--and reinforce the
American principle of additional reward for additional effort.
I do not say that a measure for tax reduction and reform is the only way to achieve these
goals.
--No doubt a massive increase in Federal spending could also create jobs and growth-but,
in today's setting, private consumers, employers, and investors should be given a full
opportunity first.
--No doubt a temporary tax cut could provide a spur to our economy--but a long run
problem compels a long-run solution.
--No doubt a reduction in either individual or corporation taxes alone would be of great
help--but corporations need customers and job seekers need jobs.
--No doubt tax reduction without reform would sound simpler and more attractive to
many--but our growth is also hampered by a host of tax inequities and special preferences
which have distorted the flow of investment.
--And, finally, there are no doubt some who would prefer to put off a tax cut in the hope
that ultimately an end to the cold war would make possible an equivalent cut in
expenditures-but that end is not in view and to wait for it would be costly and self-
defeating.
In submitting a tax program which will, of course, temporarily increase the deficit but can
ultimately end it--and in recognition of the need to control expenditures--I will shortly
submit a fiscal 1964 administrative budget which, while allowing for needed rises in
defense, space, and fixed interest charges, holds total expenditures for all other purposes
below this year's level.
This requires the reduction or postponement of many desirable programs, the absorption of
a large part of last year's Federal pay raise through personnel and other economies, the
termination of certain installations and projects, and the substitution in several programs of
private for public credit. But I am convinced that the enactment this year of tax reduction
and tax reform overshadows all other domestic problems in this Congress. For we cannot
for long lead the cause of peace and freedom, if we ever cease to set the pace here at home.
III.
Tax reduction alone, however, is not enough to strengthen our society, to provide
opportunities for the four million Americans who are born every year, to improve the lives
of 32 million Americans who live on the outskirts of poverty.
The quality of American life must keep pace with the quantity of American goods.
This country cannot afford to be materially rich and spiritually poor.
Therefore, by holding down the budgetary cost of existing programs to keep within the
limitations I have set, it is both possible and imperative to adopt other new measures that
we cannot afford to postpone.
These measures are based on a series of fundamental premises, grouped under four related
headings:
First, we need to strengthen our Nation by investing in our youth:
--The future of any country which is dependent upon the will and wisdom of its citizens is
damaged, and irreparably damaged, whenever any of its children is not educated to the full
extent of his talent, from grade school through graduate school. Today, an estimated 4 out
of every 10 students in the 5th grade will not even finish high school--and that is a waste
we cannot afford.
--In addition, there is no reason why one million young Americans, out of school and out of
work, should all remain unwanted and often untrained on our city streets when their
energies can be put to good use.
--Finally, the overseas success of our Peace Corps volunteers, most of them young men and
women carrying skills and ideas to needy people, suggests the merit of a similar corps
serving our own community needs: in mental hospitals, on Indian reservations, in centers
for the aged or for young delinquents, in schools for the illiterate or the handicapped. As
the idealism of our youth has served world peace, so can it serve the domestic tranquility.
Second, we need to strengthen our Nation by safeguarding its health:
--Our working men and women, instead of being forced to beg for help from public charity
once they are old and ill, should start contributing now to their own retirement health
program through the Social Security System.
--Moreover, all our miracles of medical research will count for little if we cannot reverse
the growing nationwide shortage of doctors, dentists, and nurses, and the widespread
shortages of nursing homes and modern urban hospital facilities. Merely to keep the
present ratio of doctors and dentists from declining any further, we must over the next 10
years increase the capacity of our medical schools by 50 percent and our dental schools by
100 percent.
--Finally, and of deep concern, I believe that the abandonment of the mentally ill and the
mentally retarded to the grim mercy of custodial institutions too often inflicts on them and
on their families a needless cruelty which this Nation should not endure. The incidence of
mental retardation in this country is three times as high as that of Sweden, for example--
and that figure can and must be reduced.
Third, we need to strengthen our Nation by protecting the basic rights of its citizens:
--The right to competent counsel must be assured to every man accused of crime in Federal
court, regardless of his means.
--And the most precious and powerful right in the world, the right to vote in a free
American election, must not be denied to any citizen on grounds of his race or color. I wish
that all qualified Americans permitted to vote were willing to vote, but surely in this
centennial year of Emancipation all those who are willing to vote should always be
permitted.
Fourth, we need to strengthen our Nation by making the best and the most economical use
of its resources and facilities:
--Our economic health depends on healthy transportation arteries; and I believe the way to
a more modern, economical choice of national transportation service is through increased
competition and decreased regulation. Local mass transit, faring even worse, is as essential
a community service as hospitals and highways. Nearly three-fourths of our citizens live in
urban areas, which occupy only 2 percent of our land-and if local transit is to survive and
relieve the congestion of these cities, it needs Federal stimulation and assistance.
--Next, this Government is in the storage and stockpile business to the melancholy tune of
more than $ 16 billion. We must continue to support farm income, but we should not pile
more farm surpluses on top of the $7.5 billion we already own. We must maintain a
stockpile of strategic materials, but the $8.5 billion we have acquired--for reasons both
good and bad--is much more than we need; and we should be empowered to dispose of the
excess in ways which will not cause market disruption.
--Finally, our already overcrowded national parks and recreation areas will have twice as
many visitors 10 years from now as they do today. If we do not plan today for the future
growth of these and other great natural assets--not only parks and forests but wildlife and
wilderness preserves, and water projects of all kinds--our children and their children will be
poorer in every sense of the word.
These are not domestic concerns alone. For upon our achievement of greater vitality and
strength here at home hang our fate and future in the world: our ability to sustain and
supply the security of free men and nations, our ability to command their respect for our
leadership, our ability to expand our trade without threat to our balance of payments, and
our ability to adjust to the changing demands of cold war competition and challenge.
We shall be judged more by what we do at home than by what we preach abroad. Nothing
we could do to help the developing countries would help them half as much as a booming
U.S. economy. And nothing our opponents could do to encourage their own ambitions
would encourage them half as much as a chronic lagging U.S. economy. These domestic
tasks do not divert energy from our security--they provide the very foundation for
freedom's survival and success,
IV.
Turning to the world outside, it was only a few years ago--in Southeast Asia, Africa,
Eastern Europe, Latin America, even outer space--that communism sought to convey the
image of a unified, confident, and expanding empire, closing in on a sluggish America and
a free world in disarray. But few people would hold to that picture today.
In these past months we have reaffirmed the scientific and military superiority of freedom.
We have doubled our efforts in space, to assure us of being first in the future. We have
undertaken the most far-reaching defense improvements in the peacetime history of this
country. And we have maintained the frontiers of freedom from Viet-Nam to West Berlin.
But complacency or self-congratulation can imperil our security as much as the weapons of
tyranny. A moment of pause is not a promise of peace. Dangerous problems remain from
Cuba to the South China Sea. The world's prognosis prescribes, in short, not a year's
vacation for us, but a year of obligation and opportunity.
Four special avenues of opportunity stand out: the Atlantic Alliance, the developing
nations, the new Sino-Soviet difficulties, and the search for worldwide peace.
V.
First, how fares the grand alliance? Free Europe is entering into a new phase of its long and
brilliant history. The era of colonial expansion has passed; the era of national rivalries is
fading; and a new era of interdependence and unity is taking shape. Defying the old
prophecies of Marx, consenting to what no conqueror could ever compel, the free nations
of Europe are moving toward a unity of purpose and power and policy in every sphere of
activity.
For 17 years this movement has had our consistent support, both political and economic.
Far from resenting the new Europe, we regard her as a welcome partner, not a rival. For the
road to world peace and freedom is still long, and there are burdens which only full
partners can share--in supporting the common defense, in expanding world trade, in
aligning our balance of payments, in aiding the emergent nations, in concerting political
and economic policies, and in welcoming to our common effort other industrialized
nations, notably Japan, whose remarkable economic and political development of the
1950's permits it now to play on the world scene a major constructive role.
No doubt differences of opinion will continue to get more attention than agreements on
action, as Europe moves from independence to more formal interdependence. But these are
honest differences among honorable associates--more real and frequent, in fact, among our
Western European allies than between them and the United States. For the unity of freedom
has never relied on uniformity of opinion. But the basic agreement of this alliance on
fundamental issues continues.
The first task of the alliance remains the common defense. Last month Prime Minister
Macmillan and I laid plans for a new stage in our long cooperative effort, one which aims
to assist in the wider task of framing a common nuclear defense for the whole alliance.
The Nassau agreement recognizes that the security of the West is indivisible, and so must
be our defense. But it also recognizes that this is an alliance of proud and sovereign
nations, and works best when we do not forget it. It recognizes further that the nuclear
defense of the West is not a matter for the present nuclear powers alone--that France will
be such a power in the future--and that ways must be found without increasing the hazards
of nuclear diffusion, to increase the role of our other partners in planning, manning, and
directing a truly multilateral nuclear force within an increasingly intimate NATO alliance.
Finally, the Nassau agreement recognizes that nuclear defense is not enough, that the
agreed NATO levels of conventional strength must be met, and that the alliance cannot
afford to be in a position of having to answer every threat with nuclear weapons or nothing.
We remain too near the Nassau decisions, and too far from their full realization, to know
their place in history. But I believe that, for the first time, the door is open for the nuclear
defense of the alliance to become a source of confidence, instead of a cause of contention.
The next most pressing concern of the alliance is our common economic goals of trade and
growth. This Nation continues to be concerned about its balance-of-payments deficit,
which, despite its decline, remains a stubborn and troublesome problem. We believe,
moreover, that closer economic ties among all free nations are essential to prosperity and
peace. And neither we nor the members of the European Common Market are so affluent
that we can long afford to shelter high cost farms or factories from the winds of foreign
competition, or to restrict the channels of trade with other nations of the free world. If the
Common Market should move toward protectionism and restrictionism, it would
undermine its, own basic principles. This Government means to use the authority conferred
on it last year by the Congress to encourage trade expansion on both sides of the Atlantic
and around the world.
VI,
Second, what of the developing and nonaligned nations? They were shocked by the Soviets'
sudden and secret attempt to transform Cuba into a nuclear striking base-and by
Communist China's arrogant invasion of India. They have been reassured by our prompt
assistance to India, by our support through the United Nations of the Congo's unification,
by our patient search for disarmament, and by the improvement in our treatment of citizens
and visitors whose skins do not happen to be white. And as the older colonialism recedes,
and the neocolonialism of the Communist powers stands out more starkly than ever, they
realize more clearly that the issue in the world struggle is not communism versus
capitalism, but coercion versus free choice.
They are beginning to realize that the longing for independence is the same the world over,
whether it is the independence of West Berlin or Viet-Nam. They are beginning to realize
that such independence runs athwart all Communist ambitions but is in keeping with our
own--and that our approach to their diverse needs is resilient and resourceful, while the
Communists are still relying on ancient doctrines and dogmas.
Nevertheless it is hard for any nation to focus on an external or subversive threat to its
independence when its energies are drained in daily combat with the forces of poverty and
despair. It makes little sense for us to assail, in speeches and resolutions, the horrors of
communism, to spend $50 billion a year to prevent its military advance-and then to
begrudge spending, largely on American products, less than one-tenth of that amount to
help other nations strengthen their independence and cure the social chaos in which
communism always has thrived.
I am proud--and I think most Americans are proud--of a mutual defense and assistance
program, evolved with bipartisan support in three administrations, which has, with all its
recognized problems, contributed to the fact that not a single one of the nearly fifty U.N.
members to gain independence since the Second World War has succumbed to Communist
control.
I am proud of a program that has helped to arm and feed and clothe millions of people who
live on the front lines of freedom.
I am especially proud that this country has put forward for the 60's a vast cooperative effort
to achieve economic growth and social progress throughout the Americas-the Alliance for
Progress.
I do not underestimate the difficulties that we face in this mutual effort among our close
neighbors, but the free states of this hemisphere, working in close collaboration, have
begun to make this alliance a living reality. Today it is feeding one out of every four school
age children in Latin America an extra food ration from our farm surplus. It has distributed
1.5 million school books and is building 17,000 classrooms. It has helped resettle tens of
thousands of farm families on land they can call their own. It is stimulating our good
neighbors to more self-help and self-reform--fiscal, social, institutional, and land reforms.
It is bringing new housing and hope, new health and dignity, to millions who were
forgotten. The men and women of this hemisphere know that the alliance cannot Succeed if
it is only another name for United States handouts--that it can succeed only as the Latin
American nations themselves devote their best effort to fulfilling its goals.
This story is the same in Africa, in the Middle East, and in Asia. Wherever nations are
willing to help themselves, we stand ready to help them build new bulwarks of freedom.
We are not purchasing votes for the cold war; we have gone to the aid of imperiled nations,
neutrals and allies alike. What we do ask--and all that we ask--is that our help be used to
best advantage, and that their own efforts not be diverted by needless quarrels with other
independent nations.
Despite all its past achievements, the continued progress of the mutual assistance program
requires a persistent discontent with present performance. We have been reorganizing this
program to make it a more effective, efficient instrument--and that process will continue
this year.
But free world development will still be an uphill struggle. Government aid can only
supplement the role of private investment, trade expansion, commodity stabilization, and,
above all, internal self-improvement. The processes of growth are gradual--bearing fruit in
a decade, not a day. Our successes will be neither quick nor dramatic. But if these
programs were ever to be ended, our failures in a dozen countries would be sudden and
certain.
Neither money nor technical assistance, however, can be our only weapon against poverty.
In the end, the crucial effort is one of purpose, requiring the fuel of finance but also a torch
of idealism. And nothing carries the spirit of this American idealism more effectively to the
far corners of the earth than the American Peace Corps.
A year ago, less than 900 Peace Corps volunteers were on the job. A year from now they
will number more than 9,000-men and women, aged 18 to 79, willing to give 2 years of
their lives to helping people in other lands.
There are, in fact, nearly a million Americans serving their country and the cause of
freedom in overseas posts, a record no other people can match. Surely those of us who stay
at home should be glad to help indirectly; by supporting our aid programs; .by opening our
doors to foreign visitors and diplomats and students; and by proving, day by day, by deed
as well as word, that we are a just and generous people.
VII.
Third, what comfort can we take from the increasing strains and tensions within the
Communist bloc? Here hope must be tempered with caution. For the Soviet-Chinese
disagreement is over means, not ends. A dispute over how best to bury the free world is no
grounds for Western rejoicing.
Nevertheless, while a strain is not a fracture, it is clear that the forces of diversity are at
work inside the Communist camp, despite all the iron disciplines of regimentation and all
the iron dogmatism's of ideology. Marx is proven wrong once again: for it is the closed
Communist societies, not the free and open societies which carry within themselves the
seeds of internal disintegration.
The disarray of the Communist empire has been heightened by two other formidable
forces. One is the historical force of nationalism-and the yearning of all men to be free. The
other is the gross inefficiency of their economies. For a closed society is not open to ideas
of progress--and a police state finds that it cannot command the grain to grow.
New nations asked to choose between two competing systems need only compare
conditions in East and West Germany, Eastern and Western Europe, North and South Viet-
Nam. They need only compare the disillusionment of Communist Cuba with the promise of
the Alliance for Progress. And all the world knows that no successful system builds a wall
to keep its people in and freedom out--and the wall of shame dividing Berlin is a symbol of
Communist failure.
VIII.
Finally, what can we do to move from the present pause toward enduring peace? Again I
would counsel caution. I foresee no spectacular reversal in Communist methods or goals.
But if all these trends and developments can persuade the Soviet Union to walk the path of
peace, then let her know that all free nations will journey with her. But until that choice is
made, and until the world can develop a reliable system of international security, the free
peoples have no choice but to keep their arms nearby.
This country, therefore, continues to require the best defense in the world--a defense which
is suited to the sixties. This means, unfortunately, a rising defense budget-for there is no
substitute for adequate defense, and no "bargain basement" way of achieving it. It means
the expenditure of more than $15 billion this year on nuclear weapons systems alone, a sum
which is about equal to the combined defense budgets of our European Allies.
But it also means improved air and missile defenses, improved civil defense, a
strengthened anti-guerrilla capacity and, of prime importance, more powerful and flexible
nonnuclear forces. For threats of massive retaliation may not deter piecemeal aggression-
and a line of destroyers in a quarantine, or a division of well-equipped men on a border,
may be more useful to our real security than the multiplication of awesome weapons
beyond all rational need.
But our commitment to national safety is not a commitment to expand our military
establishment indefinitely. We do not dismiss disarmament as merely an idle dream. For
we believe that, in the end, it is the only way to assure the security of all without impairing
the interests of any. Nor do we mistake honorable negotiation for appeasement. While we
shall never weary in the defense of freedom, neither shall we ever abandon the pursuit of
peace.
In this quest, the United Nations requires our full and continued support. Its value in
serving the cause of peace has been shown anew in its role in the West New Guinea
settlement, in its use as a forum for the Cuban crisis, and in its task of unification in the
Congo. Today the United Nations is primarily the protector of the small and the weak, and
a safety valve for the strong. Tomorrow it can form the framework for a world of law--a
world in which no nation dictates the destiny of another, and in which the vast resources
now devoted to destructive means will serve constructive ends.
In short, let our adversaries choose. If they choose peaceful competition, they shall have it.
If they come to realize that their ambitions cannot succeed--if they see their "wars of
liberation" and subversion will ultimately fail--if they recognize that there is more security
in accepting inspection than in permitting new nations to master the black arts of nuclear
war--and if they are willing to turn their energies, as we are, to the great unfinished tasks of
our own peoples--then, surely, the areas of agreement can be very wide indeed: a clear
understanding about Berlin, stability in Southeast Asia, an end to nuclear testing, new
checks on surprise or accidental attack, and, ultimately, general and complete disarmament.
IX.
For we seek not the worldwide victory of one nation or system but a worldwide victory of
man. The modern globe is too small, its weapons are too destructive, and its disorders are
too contagious to permit any other kind of victory.
To achieve this end, the United States will continue to spend a greater portion of its
national production than any other people in the free world. For 15 years no other free
nation has demanded so much of itself. Through hot wars and cold, through recession and
prosperity, through the ages of the atom and outer space, the American people have never
faltered and their faith has never flagged. If at times our actions seem to make life difficult
for others, it is only because history has made life difficult for us all.
But difficult days need not be dark. I think these are proud and memorable days in the
cause of peace and freedom. We are proud, for example, of Major Rudolf Anderson who
gave his life over the island of Cuba. We salute Specialist James Allen Johnson who died
on the border of South Korea. We pay honor to Sergeant Gerald Pendell who was killed in
Viet-Nam. They are among the many who in this century, far from home, have died for our
country. Our task now, and the task of all Americans is to live up to their commitment.
My friends: I close on a note of hope. We are not lulled by the momentary calm of the sea
or the somewhat clearer skies above. We know the turbulence that lies below, and the
storms that are beyond the horizon this year. But now the winds of change appear to be
blowing more strongly than ever, in the world of communism as well as our own. For 175
years we have sailed with those winds at our back, and with the tides of human freedom in
our favor. We steer our ship with hope, as Thomas Jefferson said, "leaving Fear astern."
Today we still welcome those winds of change--and we have every reason to believe that
our tide is running strong. With thanks to Almighty God for seeing us through a perilous
passage, we ask His help anew in guiding the "Good Ship Union."
Remarks in Nashville at the 90th

Anniversary Convocation of Vanderbilt
University
Nashville, Tennessee
May 18, 1963
Mr. Chancellor, Mr. Vanderbilt, Senator Kefauver, Senator Gore, Congressman Fulton,
Congressman Evins, Congressman Bass, Congressman Everett, Tom Murray,
distinguished guests, members of the judiciary, the Army Corps of Engineers of the
Tennessee Valley:
I first of all want to express my warm appreciation to the Governor and to the Mayor of this
State and city and to the people for a very generous welcome, and particularly to all those
young men and women who lined the street and played music for us as we drove into this
stadium. We are glad they are here with us, and we feel the musical future of this city and
State is assured.
Many things bring us together today. We are saluting the 90th anniversary of Vanderbilt
University, which has grown from a small Tennessee university and institution to one of
our Nation's greatest, with 7 different colleges, and with more than half of its 4200 students
from outside of the State of Tennessee.
And we are saluting the 30th anniversary of the Tennessee Valley Authority, which
transformed a parched, depressed, and floodravaged region into a fertile, productive center
of industry, science, and agriculture.
We are saluting--by initiating construction of a dam in his name--a great Tennessee
statesman, Cordell Hull, the father of reciprocal trade, the grandfather of the United
Nations, the Secretary of State who presided over the transformation of this Nation from a
life of isolation and almost indifference to a state of responsible world leadership.
And finally, we are saluting--by the recognition of a forthcoming dam in his name-J. Percy
Priest, a former colleague of mine in the House of Representatives, who represented this
district, this State, and this Nation in the Congress for 16 turbulent years--years which
witnessed the crumbling of empires, the splitting of the atom, the conquest of one threat to
freedom, and the emergence of still another.
If there is one unchanging theme that runs throughout these separate stories, it is that
everything changes but change itself. We live in an age of movement and change, both
evolutionary and revolutionary, both good and evil--and in such an age a university has a
special obligation to hold fast to the best of the past and move fast to the best of the future.
Nearly 100 years ago Prince Bismarck said that one-third of the students of German
universities broke down from overwork, another third broke down from dissipation, and the
other third ruled Germany. I do not know which third of the student body of Vanderbilt is
here today, but I am confident we are talking to the future rulers of Tennessee and America
in the spirit of this university.
The essence of Vanderbilt is still learning, the essence of its outlook is still liberty, and
liberty and learning will be and must be the touchstones of Vanderbilt University and of
any free university in this country or the world. I say two touchstones, yet they are almost
inseparable, inseparable if not indistinguishable, for liberty without learning is always in
peril, and learning without liberty is always in vain.
This State, this city, this campus, have stood long for both human rights and human
enlightenment--and let that forever be true. This Nation is now engaged in a continuing
debate about the rights of a portion of its citizens. That will go on, and those rights will
expand until the standard first forged by the Nation's founders has been reached, and all
Americans enjoy equal opportunity and liberty under law.
But this Nation was not founded solely on the principle of citizens' rights. Equally
important, though too often not discussed, is the citizen's responsibility. For our privileges
can be no greater than our obligations. The protection of our rights can endure no longer
than the performance of our responsibilities. Each can be neglected only at the peril of the
other. I speak to you today, therefore, not of your rights as Americans, but of your
responsibilities. They are many in number and different in nature. They do not rest with
equal weight upon the shoulders of all. Equality of opportunity does not mean equality of
responsibility. All Americans must be responsible citizens, but some must be more
responsible than others, by virtue of their public or their private position, their role in the
family or community, their prospects for the future, or their legacy from the past.
Increased responsibility goes with increased ability, for "of those to whom much is given,
much is required."
Commodore Vanderbilt recognized this responsibility and his recognition made possible
the establishment of a great institution of learning for which he will be long remembered
after his steamboats and railroads have been forgotten. I speak in particular, therefore, of
the responsibility of the educated citizen, including the students, the faculty, and the alumni
of this great institution. The creation and maintenance of Vanderbilt University, like that of
all great universities, has required considerable effort and expenditure, and I cannot believe
that all of this was undertaken merely to give this school's graduates an economic
advantage in the life struggle. "Every man sent out from a university," said Professor
Woodrow Wilson, "Every man sent out from a university should be a man of his Nation, as
well as a man of his time."
You have responsibilities, in short, to use your talents for the benefit of the society which
helped develop those talents. You must decide, as Goethe put it, whether you will be an
anvil or a hammer, whether you will give to the world in which you were reared and
educated the broadest possible benefits of that education. Of the many special obligations
incumbent upon an educated citizen, I would cite three as outstanding: your obligation to
the pursuit of learning, your obligation to serve the public, your obligation to uphold the
law.
If the pursuit of learning is not defended by the educated citizen, it will not be defended at
all. For there will always be those who scoff at intellectuals, who cry out against research,
who seek to limit our educational system. Modern cynics and skeptics see no more reason
for landing a man on the moon, which we shall do, than the cynics and skeptics of half a
millennium ago saw for the discovery of this country. They see no harm in paying those to
whom they entrust the minds of their children a smaller wage than is paid to those to whom
they entrust the care of their plumbing.
But the educated citizen knows how much more there is to know. He knows that
"knowledge is power," more so today than ever before. He knows that only an educated
and informed people will be a free people, that the ignorance of one voter in a democracy
impairs the security of all, and that if we can, as Jefferson put it, "enlighten the people
generally ... tyranny and the oppressions of mind and body will vanish, like evil spirits at
the dawn of day." And, therefore, the educated citizen has a special obligation to encourage
the pursuit of learning, to promote exploration of the unknown, to preserve the freedom of
inquiry, to support the advancement of research, and to assist at every level of government
the improvement of education for all Americans, from grade school to graduate school.
Secondly, the educated citizen has an obligation to serve the public. He may be a precinct
worker or President. He may give his talents at the courthouse, the State house, the White
House. He may be a civil servant or a Senator, a candidate or a campaign worker, a winner
or a loser. But he must be a participant and not a spectator.
"At the Olympic games," Aristotle wrote, "it is not the finest and strongest men who are
crowned, but they who enter the lists-for out of these the prize-men are elected. So, too, in
life, of the honorable and the good, it is they who act who rightly win the prizes."
I urge all of you today, especially those who are students, to act, to enter the lists of public
service and rightly win or lose the prize. For we can have only one form of aristocracy in
this country, as Jefferson wrote long ago in rejecting John Adams' suggestion of an
artificial aristocracy of wealth and birth. It is, he wrote, the natural aristocracy of character
and talent, and the best form of government, he added, was that which selected these men
for positions of responsibility.
I would hope that all educated citizens would fulfill this obligation--in politics, in
Government, here in Nashville, here in this State, in the Peace Corps, in the Foreign
Service, in the Government Service, in the Tennessee Valley, in the world. You will find
the pressures greater than the pay. You may endure more public attacks than support. But
you will have the unequaled satisfaction of knowing that your character and talent are
contributing to the direction and success of this free society.
Third, and finally, the educated citizen has an obligation to uphold the law. This is the
obligation of every citizen in a free and peaceful society--but the educated citizen has a
special responsibility by the virtue of his greater understanding. For whether he has ever
studied history or current events, ethics or civics, the rules of a profession or the tools of a
trade, he knows that only a respect for the law makes it possible for free men to dwell
together in peace and progress.
He knows that law is the adhesive force in the cement of society, creating order out of
chaos and coherence in place of anarchy. He knows that for one man to defy a law or court
order he does not like is to invite others to defy those which they do not like, leading to a
breakdown of all justice and all order. He knows, too, that every fellowman is entitled to be
regarded with decency and treated with dignity. Any educated citizen who seeks to subvert
the law, to suppress freedom, or to subject other human beings to acts that are less than
human, degrades his heritage, ignores his learning, and betrays his obligation.
Certain other societies may respect the rule of force--we respect the rule of law.
The Nation, indeed the whole world, has watched recent events in the United States with
alarm and dismay. No one can deny the complexity of the problems involved in assuring to
all of our citizens their full rights as Americans. But no one can gainsay the fact that the
determination to secure these rights is in the highest traditions of American freedom.
In these moments of tragic disorder, a special burden rests on the educated men and women
of our country to reject the temptations of prejudice and violence, and to reaffirm the
values of freedom and law on which our free society depends.
When Bishop McTyeire, 90 years ago, proposed it to Commodore Vanderbilt, he said,
"Commodore, our country has been torn to pieces by a civil war .... We want to repair this
damage." And Commodore Vanderbilt reportedly replied, "I want to unite this country, and
all sections of it, so that all our people will be one." His response, his recognition of his
obligation and opportunity gave Vanderbilt University not only an endowment but also a
mission. Now, 90 years later, in a time of tension, it is more important than ever to unite
this country and strengthen these ties so that all of our people will be one.
Ninety years from now I have no doubt that Vanderbilt University will still be fulfilling
this mission. It will still uphold learning, encourage public service, and teach respect for
the law. It will neither turn its back on proven wisdom or turn its face from newborn
challenge. It will still pass on to the youth of our land the full meaning of their rights and
their responsibilities. And it will still be teaching the truth--the truth that makes us free and
will keep us free.
Thank you.
Remarks at the Opening Session of the World Food

Congress, June 4, 1963
Department of Agriculture auditorium, Washington, D.C.
Date: June 04, 1963
Dr. Sen, President Radhakrishnan, Secretary Freeman, members of the World Food
Congress:
I welcome you on behalf of the people of the United States to this country and to its
Capital.
Twenty years ago, in May 1943, the first World Food Congress was held. Today we have
gathered to rededicate ourselves to the objectives of that Congress, the objective that all
nations, all people, all inhabitants of this planet have all the food that they need, all the
food that they deserve as human beings. We are here to renew a worldwide commitment to
banish hunger and outlaw it.
At the launching of the first World Food Congress, President Franklin Roosevelt declared
that freedom from want and freedom from fear go hand in hand, and that is true today.
During the past 20 years there have been revolutionary changes affecting these matters in
farm technology, in trade patterns, in economic development, in world trade. Today the
average farmer in the United States can produce three times as much as he did in 1945.
New trading blocs have been formed, blocs which can be used to strengthen the world or to
divide it. This Nation and others have provided economic and technical assistance to less
wealthy nations struggling to develop viable economies.
And population increases have become a matter of serious concern, not because world food
production will be insufficient to keep pace with the two percent rate of increase, but
because, as you know, the population growth rate is too often the highest where hunger is
the most prevalent.
The same central problem that troubled President Roosevelt when he called together the
first World Congress in '43 is unfortunately still with us today. Half of humanity is still
undernourished or hungry. In 70 developing nations, with over 2 billion peoples,
malnutrition is widespread and persistent.
So long as freedom from hunger is only half achieved, so long as two-thirds of the nations
have food deficits, no citizen, no nation, can afford to be satisfied. We have the ability, as
members of the human race, we have the means, we have the capacity to eliminate hunger
from the face of the earth in our lifetime. We need only the will.
In the Food and Agriculture Organization, which is sponsoring this meeting, we have the
machinery. Under the able leadership of Dr. Sen, the FAO has embarked on a vigorous and
imaginative program which is now at a halfway mark. Through thousands of projects
initiated during the 2 1/2 years that we have just passed through, the Freedom From Hunger
campaign has already helped to conquer livestock diseases, increase crop yields, and
multiply fishery catches.
The United States pledges its full support for this campaign through Food for Peace
shipments, Alliance for Progress operations, the Peace Corps, and the international efforts
directed by the United Nations and the Organization of American States.
Through our Food for Peace program, the people of the United States have contributed
more than $12 billion of food and fiber to others during the past 10 years. These donations
now bring food to 100 million people in 100 countries, including 40 million school
children. We are grateful for the opportunity that nature has made possible for us to share
our agricultural abundance to those who need it, but the distribution of food to the needy is
only part of the job. It can take care of the emergency needs from floods and famines. It
can be used to feed refugees and needy children. It is a useful supplement to perennially
short diets in many parts of the world, but it is not a permanent solution.
All of our stored abundance, even if distributed evenly throughout the globe to all of the
undernourished, would provide a balanced diet for less than a month, and many nations
lack the storage and the transportation and the distribution facilities. Many people are
inhibited by traditional eating habits from using food that provides rich nourishment. And
perhaps most importantly, modern, efficient agricultural training and education is too often
unavailable to the very nations that are most dependent upon it.
The real goal, therefore, must be to produce more food in the nations that need it. Know-
how is not the problem. For the first time in the history of the world we do know how to
produce enough food now to feed every man, woman, and child in the world, enough to
eliminate all hunger completely. Farm production has undergone a scientific revolution
which is dwarfing the industrial revolution of 150 years ago, but this means that
agricultural departments and ministries and governments and citizens must make a greater
and more systematic effort to share this knowledge. For the first time to know how to
conquer the problem and not conquer it would be a disgrace for this generation. We need to
help transmit all that we know of farm technology to the ends of the earth, to overcome the
barriers of ignorance and suspicion. The key to a permanent solution to world hunger is the
transfer of technology which we now have to food deficit nations, and that task, second to
none in importance, is the reason for this Congress.
It would be easy to say that this task is too great for any Congress. Most of man has been
undernourished since the beginning of man. Even today, as the death rate drops, it merely
means that people live longer in hunger and misery, but a balanced, adequate diet is now
possible today for the entire human race and we are gathered to devise the machinery to
mobilize the talents, the will, the interest, and the requirements to finish this job.
We realize, of course, that the problem in its great dimensions neither begins nor ends on
the farm. It involves the whole economic and social structure of a nation. It involves the
building of new institutions, of training young people. Above all, it involves and requires
the priority attention of us all in this decade.
In the course of your deliberations over the next two weeks, I would hope that we would
agree on at least five basic guidelines to be kept constantly in mind:
First: The persistence of hunger during this decade is unacceptable either morally or
socially. The late Pope John in his recent encyclical spoke of the conviction that all men
are equal by reason of their natural dignity. That same dignity in the 20th century certainly
requires the elimination of large-scale hunger and starvation.
Second: We must recognize the fact that food deficit nations, with assistance from other
countries, can solve their problem. The Freedom From Hunger campaign is based on this
solid premise.
Third: International cooperation, international organization, and international action are
indispensable. A contracting world grows more interdependent. This interdependence
requires multinational solutions to its problems. This is not a problem for a single nation. It
is a problem for the entire human race because we cannot possibly be satisfied with some
nations producing too much, as the President of India said, while others produce little, even
though they are both members of the great human race.
Fourth: No single technique of politics, finance, or education can, by itself, eliminate
hunger. It will require the coordinated efforts of us all, all of us, to level the wall that
separates the hungry from the well fed.
Fifth, and finally: World opinion must be concentrated upon the international effort to
eliminate hunger as a primary task of this generation. Over 1900 years ago the Roman
philosopher Seneca said, "A hungry people listens not to reason, nor cares for justice, nor is
bent by prayers." Human nature has not changed in 1900 years, and world peace and
progress cannot be maintained in a world half fed and half hungry.
There are many struggles, many battles, that the human race now faces. There is no battle
on earth or in space which is more important than the battle which you have undertaken,
nor is there any struggle, large as this may be, that offers such an immediate promise of
success. No Congress that Washington has seen in recent years is, I believe, more
important than this.
I know that this conference will not consist merely of oration, but will represent in two
weeks a solid determination to develop the means in this decade to make a dent in this
problem which will give us promise in our lifetime of making sure that all people in the
world have an opportunity to eat.
Another problem will come in the next generation, and that is the problem of how to deal
on a worldwide basis, as well as in this, with the problem of surpluses, but the first problem
is to produce enough for all in a way that makes all available to people around the globe.
To that task I can assure you the United States of America is committed.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10 a.m. in the Departmental Auditorium in Washington. His
opening words referred to Dr. B. R. Sen, Director General of FAO, who made the opening
address; President Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan of India, who accompanied the President
and who also spoke; and Secretary of Agriculture Orville L. Freeman.
Remarks at Colorado Springs to the Graduating Class of the

U.S. Air Force Academy, June 5, 1963
Falcon Stadium, U.S. Air force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado
Date: June 05, 1963
General, Secretary Zuckert, General LeMay, Members of the Congress, Mr. Fraser, fellow
graduates:
I want to express my appreciation for becoming an instant graduate of this academy, and
consider it a high honor.
Mr. Salinger, Press Secretary of the White House, received the following letter several days
ago:
"The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C.
Dear Sir:
"Would you desire to become an honorary member of the Air Force Cadet Wing for
granting one small favor? Your name, Mr. Salinger, shall become more hallowed and
revered than the combined memories of Generals Mitchell, Arnold, and Doolittle.
"My humble desire is that you convey a request from the Cadet Wing to the President. Sir,
there are countless numbers of our group who are oppressed by Class 3 punishments, the
bane of cadets everywhere. The President is our only hope for salvation. By granting
amnesty to our oppressed brethren, he and you could end your anguish and depression.
"Please, sir, help us return to the ranks of the living so that we may work for the New
Frontier with enthusiasm and vigor."
It is signed "Sincerely, Cadet Marvin B. Hopkins," who's obviously going to be a future
General.
As Mr. Salinger wants to be honored with Generals Mitchell, Arnold, and Doolittle, I
therefore take great pleasure in granting amnesty to all those who not only deserve it, but
need it.
It is customary for speakers on these occasions to say in graduating addresses that
commencement signifies the beginning instead of an end, yet this thought applies with
particular force to those of you who are graduating from our Nation's service academies
today, for today you receive not only your degrees, but also your commissions, and
tomorrow you join with all those in the military service, in the foreign service, the civil
service, and elsewhere, and one million of them serve outside our frontiers who have
chosen to serve the Great Republic at a turning point in our history. You will have an
opportunity to help make that history-an opportunity for a service career more varied and
demanding than any that has been opened to any officer corps in the history of any country.
There are some who might be skeptical of that assertion. They claim that the future of the
Air Force is mortgaged to an obsolete weapons system, the manned aircraft, or that Air
Force officers of the future will be nothing more than "silent silo sitters," but nothing could
be further from the truth. It is this very onrush of technology which demands an expanding
role for the Nation's Air Force and Air Force officers, and which guarantees that an Air
Force career in the next 40 years will be even more changing and more challenging than
the careers of the last 40 years.
For some of you will travel where no man has ever traveled before. Some of you will fly
the fastest planes that have ever been built, reach the highest altitudes that man has ever
gone to, and lift the heaviest payloads of any aviator in history. Some of you will hold in
your hands the most awesome destructive power which any nation or any man has
conceived. Some of you will work with the leaders of new nations which were not even
nations a few years ago. Some of you will support guerrilla and counter-guerrilla
operations that combine the newest techniques of warfare with the oldest techniques of the
jungle, and some of you will help develop new planes that spread their wings in flight,
detect other planes at an unheard of distance, deliver new weapons with unprecedented
accuracy, and survey the ground from incredible heights as a testament to our strong faith
in the future of air power and the manned airplane.
I am announcing today that the United States will commit itself to an important new
program in civilian aviation. Civilian aviation, long both the beneficiary and the benefactor
of military aviation, is of necessity equally dynamic. Neither the economics nor the politics
of international air competition permits us to stand still in this area. Today the challenging
new frontier in commercial aviation and in military aviation is a frontier already crossed by
the military-supersonic flight. Leading members of the administration under the
chairmanship of the Vice President have been considering carefully the role to be played by
the National Government in determining the economic and technical feasibility of an
American commercial supersonic aircraft, and in the development of such an aircraft if it
be feasible.
Having reviewed their recommendations, it is my judgment that this Government should
immediately commence a new program in partnership with private industry to develop at
the earliest practical date the prototype of a commercially successful supersonic transport
superior to that being built in any other country of the world. An open, preliminary design
competition will be initiated immediately among American airframe and powerplant
manufacturers with a more detailed design phase to follow. If these initial phases do not
produce an aircraft capable of transporting people and goods safely, swiftly, and at prices
the traveler can afford and the airlines find profitable, we shall not go further.
But if we can build the best operational plane of this type--and I believe we can-then the
Congress and the country should be prepared to invest the funds and effort necessary to
maintain this Nation's lead in long-range aircraft, a lead we have held since the end of the
Second World War, a lead we should make every responsible effort to maintain. Spurred
by competition from across the Atlantic and by the productivity of our own companies, the
Federal Government must pledge funds to supplement the risk capital to be contributed by
private companies. It must then rely heavily on the flexibility and ingenuity of private
enterprise to make the detailed decisions and to introduce successfully this new jet-age
transport into worldwide service, and we are talking about a plane in the end of the 60's that
will move ahead at a speed faster than Mach 2 to all corners of the globe. This
commitment, I believe, is essential to a strong and forward-looking Nation, and indicates
the future of the manned aircraft as we move into a missile age as well.
The fact that the greatest value of all of the weapons of massive retaliation lies in their
ability to deter war does not diminish their importance, nor will national security in the
years ahead be achieved simply by piling up bigger bombs or burying our missiles under
bigger loads of concrete. For in an imperfect world where human folly has been the rule
and not the exception, the surest way to bring on the war that can never happen is to sit
back and assure ourselves it will not happen. The existence of mutual nuclear deterrents
cannot be shrugged off as stalemate, for our national security in a period of rapid change
will depend on constant reappraisal of our present doctrines, on alertness to new
developments, on imagination and resourcefulness, and new ideas. Stalemate is a static
term and not one of you would be here today if you believed you were entering an
outmoded service requiring only custodial duties in a period of nuclear stalemate.
I am impressed by the extraordinary scholastic record, unmatched by any new college or
university in this country, which has been made by the students and graduates of this
Academy. Four Rhodes scholarships last year, two this year, and other selected
scholarships, and also your record in the graduate record examination makes the people of
this country proud of this Academy and the Air Force which made it possible.
This country is proud of the fact that more than one out of five of your all-military faculty
has a doctor's degree, and all the rest have master's degrees. This is what we need for
leadership in our military services, for the Air Force officer of today and tomorrow requires
the broadest kind of scholarship to understand a most complex and changing world. He
requires understanding and learning unmatched in the days before World War II. Any
graduate of this Academy who serves in our Armed Forces will need to know economics
and history, and international affairs, and languages. You will need an appreciation of other
societies, and an understanding of our own Nation's purposes and policy.
General Norstad's leadership in NATO, General Smart's outstanding tour of duty as the
senior military representative in Japan are examples of Air Force officers who use their
broad talents for the benefit of our country. Many of you will have similar opportunities to
represent this country in negotiations with our adversaries as well as our friends, working
with international organizations, working in every way in the hundred free countries
around the globe to help them maintain their freedom. Your major responsibilities, in the
final analysis, will relate to military command. Some of you may be members of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and participate as advisers to the President who holds office.
Last October's crisis in the Caribbean amply demonstrated that military policy and power
cannot and must not be separated from political and diplomatic decisions. Whatever the
military motive and implications of the reckless attempt to put missiles on the island of
Cuba, the political and psychological implications were equally important. We needed in
October--and we had them and we shall need them in the future, and we shall have them--
military commanders who are conscious of the enormous stakes in the nuclear age of every
decision that they take, who are aware of the fact that there are no purely political
.decisions or purely military decisions; that .every problem is a mixture of both, men who
know the difference between vital interests and peripheral interests, who can maneuver
military forces with judgment and precision, as well as courage and determination, and
who can foresee the effects of military action on political policy. We need men, in short,
who can cope with the challenges of a new political struggle, an armed doctrine which uses
every weapon in the struggle around the globe.
We live in a world, in short, where the principal problems that we face are not susceptible
to military solutions alone. The role of our military power, in essence, is, therefore, to free
ourselves and our allies to pursue the goals of freedom without the danger of enemy attack,
but we do not have a separate military policy, and a separate diplomatic policy, and a
separate disarmament policy, and a separate foreign aid policy, all unrelated to each other.
They are all bound up together in the policy of the United States. Our goal is a coherent,
overall, national security policy, one that truly serves the best interests of this country and
those who depend upon it. It is worth noting that all of the decisions which we now face
today will come in increased numbers in the months and years ahead.
I want to congratulate all of you who have chosen the United States Air Force as a career.
As far as any of us can now see in Washington in the days ahead, you will occupy positions
of the highest responsibility, and merely because we move into a changing period of
weapon technology, as well as political challenge, because, in fact, we move into that
period, there is greater need for you than ever before. You, here today on this field, your
colleagues at Omaha, Nebraska, or at Eglin in Florida, or who may be stationed in Western
Europe, or men who are at sea in ships hundreds of miles from land, or soldiers in camps in
Texas, or on the Island of Okinawa, they maintain the freedom by being on the ready. They
maintain the freedom, the security, and the peace not only of the United States, but of the
dozens of countries who are allied to us who are close to the Communist power and who
depend upon us and, in a sense, only upon us for their freedom and security. These distant
ships, these distant planes, these distant men keep the peace in a great half-circle stretching
all the way from Berlin to South Korea. This is the role which history and our own
determination has placed upon a country which lived most of its history in isolation and
neutrality, and yet in the last 18 years has carried the burden for free people everywhere. I
think that this is a burden which we accept willingly, recognizing that if this country does
not accept it, no people will, recognizing that in the most difficult time in the whole life of
freedom, the United States is called upon to play its greatest role. This is a role which we
are proud to accept, and I am particularly proud to see the United States accept it in the
presence of these young men who have committed themselves to the service of our country
and to the cause of its freedom. I congratulate you all, and most of all, I congratulate your
mothers and fathers who made it possible.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:45 a.m. in Falcon Stadium at the U.S. Air Force Academy
in Colorado Springs, Colo., after being awarded an honorary bachelor of science degree.
His opening words referred to Maj. Gen. Robert H. Warren, Superintendent of the
Academy; Secretary of the Air Force Eugene M. Zuckert; Gen. Curtis E. LeMay, Chief of
Staff of the Air Force; and the Rt. Hon. Hugh Fraser, British Secretary of State for Air,
who was visiting United States Air Force facilities at the invitation of Secretary Zuckert.
Commencement Address at American

University
Washington, D.C.
June 10, 1963
President Anderson, members of the faculty, board of trustees, distinguished guests, my old
colleague, Senator Bob Byrd, who has earned his degree through many years of attending
night law school, while I am earning mine in the next 30 minutes, distinguished guests,
ladies and gentlemen:
It is with great pride that I participate in this ceremony of the American University,
sponsored by the Methodist Church, founded by Bishop John Fletcher Hurst, and first
opened by President Woodrow Wilson in 1914. This is a young and growing university, but
it has already fulfilled Bishop Hurst's enlightened hope for the study of history and public
affairs in a city devoted to the making of history and the conduct of the public's business.
By sponsoring this institution of higher learning for all who wish to learn, whatever their
color or their creed, the Methodists of this area and the Nation deserve the Nation's thanks,
and I commend all those who are today graduating.
Professor Woodrow Wilson once said that every man sent out from a university should be a
man of his nation as well as a man of his time, and I am confident that the men and women
who carry the honor of graduating from this institution will continue to give from their
lives, from their talents, a high measure of public service and public support.
"There are few earthly things more beautiful than a university," wrote John Masefield in his
tribute to English universities--and his words are equally true today. He did not refer to
spires and towers, to campus greens and ivied walls. He admired the splendid beauty of the
university, he said, because it was "a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to
know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see."
I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too
often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived--yet it is the most important topic on
earth: world peace.
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana
enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the
security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on
earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a
better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and
women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.
I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when
great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to
surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear
weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces
in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced
by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far
corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.
Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the
purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But
surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles--which can only destroy and never create--is
not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.
I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the
pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the
pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.
Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament--and
that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened
attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must
reexamine our own attitude--as individuals and as a Nation--for our attitude is as essential
as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war
and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward--by examining his own attitude
toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold
war and toward freedom and peace here at home.
First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is
impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to
the conclusion that war is inevitable--that mankind is doomed--that we are gripped by
forces we cannot control.
We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade--therefore, they can be solved
by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond
human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable--and we
believe they can do it again.
I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of peace and good will of which some
fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely
invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.
Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace-- based not on a sudden
revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions--on a series of
concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There
is no single, simple key to this peace--no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or
two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It
must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For
peace is a process--a way of solving problems.
With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within
families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man
love his neighbor--it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting
their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities
between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and
dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the
relations between nations and neighbors.
So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By
defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we
can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.
Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think
that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to
read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page,
wholly baseless and incredible claims--such as the allegation that "American imperialist
circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars . . . that there is a very real threat of
a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union . . .
[and that] the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and
politically the European and other capitalist countries . . . [and] to achieve world
domination . . . by means of aggressive wars."
Truly, as it was written long ago: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth." Yet it is sad to
read these Soviet statements--to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a
warning--a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not
to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable,
accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of
threats.
No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in
virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal
freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many
achievements--in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in
acts of courage.
Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger
than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we
have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered
more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20
million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A
third of the nation's territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned
into a wasteland--a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.
Today, should total war ever break out again--no matter how--our two countries would
become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers
are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for,
would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens
and dangers to so many nations, including this Nation's closest allies--our two countries
bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons
that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both
caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion
on the other, and new weapons beget counterweapons.
In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a
mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements
to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours--and even the most
hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only
those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.
So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common
interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot
end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the
final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all
breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.
Third: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the cold war, remembering that we are not
engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame
or pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might
have been had the history of the last 18 years been different.
We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes
within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us.
We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists' interest to
agree on a genuine peace. Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear
powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a
humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would
be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy--or of a collective death-wish for the
world.
To secure these ends, America's weapons are nonprovocative, carefully controlled,
designed to deter, and capable of selective use. Our military forces are committed to peace
and disciplined in self- restraint. Our diplomats are instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants
and purely rhetorical hostility.
For we can seek a relaxation of tension without relaxing our guard. And, for our part, we
do not need to use threats to prove that we are resolute. We do not need to jam foreign
broadcasts out of fear our faith will be eroded. We are unwilling to impose our system on
any unwilling people--but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with
any people on earth.
Meanwhile, we seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financial problems,
to make it a more effective instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security
system--a system capable of resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security
of the large and the small, and of creating conditions under which arms can finally be
abolished.
At the same time we seek to keep peace inside the non-Communist world, where many
nations, all of them our friends, are divided over issues which weaken Western unity,
which invite Communist intervention or which threaten to erupt into war. Our efforts in
West New Guinea, in the Congo, in the Middle East, and in the Indian subcontinent, have
been persistent and patient despite criticism from both sides. We have also tried to set an
example for others--by seeking to adjust small but significant differences with our own
closest neighbors in Mexico and in Canada.
Speaking of other nations, I wish to make one point clear. We are bound to many nations
by alliances. Those alliances exist because our concern and theirs substantially overlap.
Our commitment to defend Western Europe and West Berlin, for example, stands
undiminished because of the identity of our vital interests. The United States will make no
deal with the Soviet Union at the expense of other nations and other peoples, not merely
because they are our partners, but also because their interests and ours converge
Our interests converge, however, not only in defending the frontiers of freedom, but in
pursuing the paths of peace. It is our hope-- and the purpose of allied policies--to convince
the Soviet Union that she, too, should let each nation choose its own future, so long as that
choice does not interfere with the choices of others. The Communist drive to impose their
political and economic system on others is the primary cause of world tension today. For
there can be no doubt that, if all nations could refrain from interfering in the self-
determination of others, the peace would be much more assured.
This will require a new effort to achieve world law--a new context for world discussions. It
will require increased understanding between the Soviets and ourselves. And increased
understanding will require increased contact and communication. One step in this direction
is the proposed arrangement for a direct line between Moscow and Washington, to avoid
on each side the dangerous delays, misunderstandings, and misreadings of the other's
actions which might occur at a time of crisis.
We have also been talking in Geneva about the other first-step measures of arms control
designed to limit the intensity of the arms race and to reduce the risks of accidental war.
Our primary long range interest in Geneva, however, is general and complete
disarmament-- designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments
to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms. The pursuit of
disarmament has been an effort of this Government since the 1920's. It has been urgently
sought by the past three administrations. And however dim the prospects may be today, we
intend to continue this effort--to continue it in order that all countries, including our own,
can better grasp what the problems and possibilities of disarmament are.
The one major area of these negotiations where the end is in sight, yet where a fresh start is
badly needed, is in a treaty to outlaw nuclear tests. The conclusion of such a treaty, so near
and yet so far, would check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. It
would place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the
greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the further spread of nuclear arms. It would
increase our security--it would decrease the prospects of war. Surely this goal is
sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to
give up the whole effort nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital and
responsible safeguards.
I am taking this opportunity, therefore, to announce two important decisions in this regard.
First: Chairman khrushchev, Prime Minister Macmillan, and I have agreed that high-level
discussions will shortly begin in Moscow looking toward early agreement on a
comprehensive test ban treaty. Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history--but
with our hopes go the hopes of all mankind.
Second: To make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on the matter, I now declare
that the United States does not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere so long
as other states do not do so. We will not be the first to resume. Such a declaration is no
substitute for a formal binding treaty, but I hope it will help us achieve one. Nor would
such a treaty be a substitute for disarmament, but I hope it will help us achieve it.
Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude toward peace and freedom here
at home. The quality and spirit of our own society must justify and support our efforts
abroad. We must show it in the dedication of our own lives--as many of you who are
graduating today will have a unique opportunity to do, by serving without pay in the Peace
Corps abroad or in the proposed National Service Corps here at home.
But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace
and freedom walk together. In too many of our cities today, the peace is not secure because
the freedom is incomplete.
It is the responsibility of the executive branch at all levels of government--local, State, and
National--to provide and protect that freedom for all of our citizens by all means within
their authority. It is the responsibility of the legislative branch at all levels, wherever that
authority is not now adequate, to make it adequate. And it is the responsibility of all
citizens in all sections of this country to respect the rights of all others and to respect the
law of the land.
All this is not unrelated to world peace. "When a man's ways please the Lord," the
Scriptures tell us, "he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him." And is not peace,
in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights--the right to live out our lives
without fear of devastation--the right to breathe air as nature provided it--the right of future
generations to a healthy existence?
While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard human interests.
And the elimination of war and arms is clearly in the interest of both. No treaty, however
much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide
absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion. But it can--if it is sufficiently
effective in its enforcement and if it is sufficiently in the interests of its signers--offer far
more security and far fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable arms race.
The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We
do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough--more than
enough--of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall
be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the
weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its
success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on--not toward a strategy of annihilation but
toward a strategy of peace.

American People on Civil Rights
The White House
June 11, 1963
This afternoon, following a series of threats and defiant statements, the presence of
Alabama National Guardsmen was required on the University of Alabama to carry out the
final and unequivocal order of the United States District Court of the Northern District of
Alabama. That order called for the admission of two clearly qualified young Alabama
residents who happened to have been born Negro.
That they were admitted peacefully on the campus is due in good measure to the conduct of
the students of the University of Alabama, who met their responsibilities in a constructive
way.
I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his
conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of
many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created
equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are
threatened.
Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all
who wish to be free. And when Americans are sent to Viet-Nam or West Berlin, we do not
ask for whites only. It ought to be possible, therefore, for American students of any color to
attend any public institution they select without having to be backed up by troops.
It ought to be possible for American consumers of any color to receive equal service in
places of public accommodation, such as hotels and restaurants and theaters and retail
stores, without being forced to resort to demonstrations in the street, and it ought to be
possible for American citizens of any color to register to vote in a free election without
interference or fear of reprisal.
It ought to be possible, in short, for every American to enjoy the privileges of being
American without regard to his race or his color. In short, every American ought to have
the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be
treated. But this is not the case.
The Negro baby born in America today, regardless of the section of the Nation in which he
is born, has about one-half as much chance of completing a high school as a white baby
born in the same place on the same day, one-third as much chance of completing college,
one-third as much chance of becoming a professional man, twice as much chance of
becoming unemployed, about one-seventh as much chance of earning $10,000 a year, a life
expectancy which is 7 years shorter, and the prospects of earning only half as much.
This is not a sectional issue. Difficulties over segregation and discrimination exist in every
city, in every State of the Union, producing in many cities a rising tide of discontent that
threatens the public safety. Nor is this a partisan issue. In a time of domestic crisis men of
good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics. This is not
even a legal or legislative issue alone. It is better to settle these matters in the courts than
on the streets, and new laws are needed at every level, but law alone cannot make men see
right.
We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and is as clear
as the American Constitution.
The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal
opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated.
If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public,
if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the
public officials who will represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life
which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin
changed and stand in his place? Who among us would then be content with the counsels of
patience and delay?
One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their
heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice.
They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this Nation, for all its
hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free.
We preach freedom around the world, and we mean it, and we cherish our freedom here at
home, but are we to say to the world, and much more importantly, to each other that this is
the land of the free except for the Negroes; that we have no second-class citizens except
Negroes; that we have no class or caste system, no ghettoes, no master race except with
respect to Negroes?
Now the time has come for this Nation to fulfill its promise. The events in Birmingham and
elsewhere have so increased the cries for equality that no city or State or legislative body
can prudently choose to ignore them.
The fires of frustration and discord are burning in every city, North and South, where legal
remedies are not at hand. Redress is sought in the streets, in demonstrations, parades, and
protests which create tensions and threaten violence and threaten lives.
We face, therefore, a moral crisis as a country and as a people. It cannot be met by
repressive police action. It cannot be left to increased demonstrations in the streets. It
cannot be quieted by token moves or talk. It is time to act in the Congress, in your State
and local legislative body and, above all, in all of our daily lives.
It is not enough to pin the blame on others, to say this is a problem of one section of the
country or another, or deplore the fact that we face. A great change is at hand, and our task,
our obligation, is to make that revolution, that change, peaceful and constructive for all.
Those who do nothing are inviting shame as well as violence. Those who act boldly are
recognizing right as well as reality.
Next week I shall ask the Congress of the United States to act, to make a commitment it
has not fully made in this century to the proposition that race has no place in American life
or law. The Federal judiciary has upheld that proposition in the conduct of its affairs,
including the employment of Federal personnel, the use of Federal facilities, and the sale of
federally financed housing.
But there are other necessary measures which only the Congress can provide, and they
must be provided at this session. The old code of equity law under which we live
commands for every wrong a remedy, but in too many communities, in too many parts of
the country, wrongs are inflicted on Negro citizens and there are no remedies at law.
Unless the Congress acts, their only remedy is in the street.
I am, therefore, asking the Congress to enact legislation giving all Americans the right to
be served in facilities which are open to the public--hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail
stores, and similar establishments.
This seems to me to be an elementary right. Its denial is an arbitrary indignity that no
American in 1963 should have to endure, but many do.
I have recently met with scores of business leaders urging them to take voluntary action to
end this discrimination and I have been encouraged by their response, and in the last 2
weeks over 75 cities have seen progress made in desegregating these kinds of facilities. But
many are unwilling to act alone, and for this reason, nationwide legislation is needed if we
are to move this problem from the streets to the courts.
I am also asking the Congress to authorize the Federal Government to participate more
fully in lawsuits designed to end segregation in public education. We have succeeded in
persuading many districts to desegregate voluntarily. Dozens have admitted Negroes
without violence. Today a Negro is attending a State-supported institution in every one of
our 50 States, but the pace is very slow.
Too many Negro children entering segregated grade schools at the time of the Supreme
Court's decision 9 years ago will enter segregated high schools this fall, having suffered a
loss which can never be restored. The lack of an adequate education denies the Negro a
chance to get a decent job.
The orderly implementation of the Supreme Court decision, therefore, cannot be left solely
to those who may not have the economic resources to carry the legal action or who may be
subject to harassment.
Other features will also be requested, including greater protection for the right to vote. But
legislation, I repeat, cannot solve this problem alone. It must be solved in the homes of
every American in every community across our country.
In this respect I want to pay tribute to those citizens North and South who have been
working in their communities to make life better for all. They are acting not out of a sense
of legal duty but out of a sense of human decency.
Like our soldiers and sailors in all parts of the world they are meeting freedom's challenge
on the firing line, and I salute them for their honor and their courage.
My fellow Americans, this is a problem which faces us all--in every city of the North as
well as the South. Today there are Negroes unemployed, two or three times as many
compared to whites, inadequate in education, moving into the large cities, unable to find
work, young people particularly out of work without hope, denied equal rights, denied the
opportunity to eat at a restaurant or lunch counter or go to a movie theater, denied the right
to a decent education, denied almost today the right to attend a State university even though
qualified. It seems to me that these are matters which concern us all, not merely Presidents
or Congressmen or Governors, but every citizen of the United States.
This is one country. It has become one country because all of us and all the people who
came here had an equal chance to develop their talents.
We cannot say to 10 percent of the population that you can't have that right; that your
children cannot have the chance to develop whatever talents they have; that the only way
that they are going to get their rights is to go into the streets and demonstrate. I think we
owe them and we owe ourselves a better country than that.
Therefore, I am asking for your help in making it easier for us to move ahead and to
provide the kind of equality of treatment which we would want ourselves; to give a chance
for every child to be educated to the limit of his talents.
As I have said before, not every child has an equal talent or an equal ability or an equal
motivation, but they should have an equal right to develop their talent and their ability and
their motivation, to make something of themselves.
We have a right to expect that the Negro community will be responsible, will uphold the
law, but they have a right to expect that the law will be fair, that the Constitution will be
color blind, as Justice Harlan said at the turn of the century.
This is what we are talking about and this is a matter which concerns this country and what
it stands for, and in meeting it I ask the support of all our citizens.
Thank you very much.
Address at the Free University of Berlin, June 26, 1963

West Berlin, Germany
Date: June 26, 1963
Sir, Mr. Mayor, Chancellor, distinguished Ministers, members of the faculty, and fellows of
this university, fellow students:
I am honored to become an instant graduate of this distinguished university. The fact of the
matter is, of course, that any university, if it is a university, is free. So one might think that
the words "Free University" are redundant. But not in West Berlin. So I am proud to be
here today and I am proud to have this association, on behalf of my fellow countrymen,
with this great center of learning.
Prince Bismarck once said that one-third of the students of German universities broke
down from overwork; another third broke down from dissipation, and the other third ruled
Germany. I do not know which third of the student body is here today, but I am confident
that I am talking to the future rulers of this country, and also of other free countries,
stretching around the world, who have sent their sons and daughters to this center of
freedom in order to understand what the world struggle is all about. I know that when you
leave this school you will not imagine that this institution was founded by citizens of the
world, including my own country, and was developed by citizens of West Berlin, that you
will not imagine that these men who teach you have dedicated their life to your knowledge
in order to give this school's graduates an economic advantage in the life struggle. This
school is not interested in turning out merely corporation lawyers or skilled accountants.
What it is interested in--and this must be true of every university--it must be interested in
turning out citizens of the world, men Who comprehend the difficult, sensitive tasks that lie
before us as free men and women, and men who are willing to commit their energies to the
advancement of a free society. That is why you are here, and that is why this school was
founded, and all of us benefit from it.
It is a fact that in my own country in the American Revolution, that revolution and the
society developed thereafter was built by some of the most distinguished scholars in the
history of the United States who were, at the same time, among our foremost politicians.
They did not believe that knowledge was merely for the study, but they thought it was for
the marketplace as well. And Madison and Jefferson and Franklin and all the others who
built the United States, who built our Constitution, who built it on a sound framework, I
believe set an example for us all. And what was true of my country has been true of your
country, and the countries of Western Europe. As an American said 100 years ago, it was
John Milton who conjugated Greek verbs in his library when the freedom of Englishmen
was imperiled. The duty of the scholar, of the educated man, of the man or woman whom
society has developed talents in, the duty of that man or woman is to help build the society
which has made their own advancement possible. You understand it and I understand it,
and I am proud to be with you.
Goethe, whose home city I visited yesterday, believed that education .and culture were the
answer to international strife. "With sufficient learning," he wrote, "a scholar forgets
national hatreds, stands above nations, and feels the well-being or troubles of a neighboring
people as if they happened to his own." That is the kind of scholar that this university is
training. In the 15 turbulent years since this institution was founded, dedicated to the motto
"Truth, Justice, and Liberty," much has changed. The university enrollment has increased
sevenfold, and related colleges have been founded. West Berlin has been blockaded,
threatened, harassed, but it continues to grow in industry and culture and size, and in the
hearts of free men. Germany has changed. Western Europe and, indeed, the entire world
have changed, but this university has maintained its fidelity to these three ideals--truth,
justice, and liberty. I choose, therefore, to discuss the future of this city briefly in the
context of these three obligations.
Speaking a short time ago in the center of the city, I reaffirmed my country's commitment
to West Berlin's freedom and restated our confidence in its people and their courage. The
shield of the military commitment with which we, in association with two other great
powers, guard the freedom of West Berlin will not be lowered or put aside so long as its
presence is needed. But behind that shield it is not enough to mark time, to adhere to a
status quo, while awaiting a change for the better. In a situation fraught with challenge--and
the last 4 years in the world have seen the most extraordinary challenges, the significance
of which we cannot even grasp today, and only when history and time have passed can we
realize the significant events that happened at the end of the fifties and the beginning of the
sixties--in a situation fraught with change and challenge, in an era of this kind, every
resident of West Berlin has a duty to consider where he is, where his city is going, and how
best it can get there. The scholar, the teacher, the intellectual, have a higher duty than any
of the others, for society has trained you to think as well as do. This community has
committed itself to that objective, and you have a special obligation to think and to help
forge the future of this city in terms of truth and justice and liberty. First, what does truth
require? It quires us to face the facts as they are, not to involve ourselves in self-deception;
to refuse to think merely in slogans. If we are to work for the future of the city, let us deal
with the realities as they actually are, not as they might have been, and not as we wish they
were. Reunification, I believe, will someday be a reality. The lessons of history support that
belief, especially the history in the world of the last 18 years. The strongest force in the
world today has been the strength of the state, of the idea of nationalism of a people; and in
Africa and Latin America and Asia, all around the globe, new countries have sprung into
existence determined to maintain their freedom. This has been one of the strongest forces
on the side of freedom. And it is a source of satisfaction to me that so many countries of
Western Europe recognized this and chose to move with this great tide and, therefore, that
tide has served us and not our adversaries. But we all know that a police state regime has
been imposed on the Eastern sector of this city and country. The peaceful reunification of
Berlin and Germany will, therefore, not be either quick or easy. We must first bring others
to see their own true interests better than they do today. What will count in the long run are
the realities of Western strength, the realities of Western commitment, the realities of
Germany as a nation and a people, without regard to artificial boundaries of barbed wire.
Those are the realities upon which we rely and on which history will move, and others, too,
would do well to recognize them.
Secondly, what does justice require? In the end, it requires liberty. And I will come to that.
But in the meantime, justice quires us to do what we can do in this transition period to
improve the lot and maintain the hopes of those on the other side. It is important that the
people on the quiet streets in the East be kept in touch with Western society. Through all
the contacts and communication that can be established, through all the trade that Western
security permits, above all whether they see much or little of the West, what they see must
be so bright as to contradict the daily drum beat of distortion from the East. You have no
higher opportunity, therefore, than to stay here in West Berlin, to contribute your talents
and skills to its life, to show your neighbors democracy at work, a growing and productive
city offering freedom and a better life for all. You are helping now by your studies and by
your devotion to freedom, and you, therefore, earn the admiration of your fellow students
from wherever they come.
Today I have had a chance to see all of this myself. I have seen housing and factories and
office buildings, and commerce and a vigorous academic and scientific life here in this
community. I have seen the people of this city, and I think that all of us who have come
here know that the morale of this city is high, that the standard of living is high, the faith in
the future is high, and that this is not merely an isolated outpost cut off from the world, cut
off from the West. Students come here from many countries, and I hope more will come,
especially from Africa and Asia. Those of you who may return from study here to other
parts of Western Europe will still be helping to forge a society which most of those across
the wall yearn to join. The Federal Republic of Germany, as all of us know from our visit
better than ever, has created a free and dynamic economy from the disasters of defeat, and
a bulwark of freedom from the ruins of tyranny.
West Berlin and West Germany have dedicated and demonstrated their commitment to the
liberty of the human mind, the welfare of the community, and to peace among nations.
They offer social and economic security and progress for their citizens, and all this has
been accomplished-and this is the important point--not only because of their economic
plant and capacity, but because of their commitment to democracy, because economic well-
being and democracy must go hand in hand.
And finally, what does liberty require? The answer is clear. A united Berlin in a United
Germany, united by self-determination and living in peace. This right of free choice is no
special privilege claimed by the Germans alone. It is an elemental requirement of human
justice. So this is our goal, and it is a goal which may be attainable most readily in the
context of the reconstitution of the larger Europe on both sides of the harsh line which now
divides it. This idea is not new in the postwar West. Secretary Marshall, soon after he
delivered his famous speech at Harvard University urging aid to the reconstruction of
Europe, was asked what area his proposal might cover, and he replied that he was "taking
the commonly accepted geography of Europe--west of Asia." His offer of help and
friendship was rejected, but it is not too early to think once again in terms of all of Europe,
for the winds of change are blowing across the curtain as well as the rest of the world.
The cause of human rights and dignity, some two centuries after its birth, in Europe and the
United States, is still moving men and nations with ever-increasing momentum. The Negro
citizens of my own country have strengthened their demand for equality and opportunity.
And the American people and the American Government are going to respond. The pace of
decolonization has quickened in Africa. The people of the developing nations have
intensified their pursuit of economic and social justice. The people of Eastern Europe, even
after 18 years of oppression, are not immune to change. The truth doesn't die. The desire
for liberty cannot be fully suppressed. The people of the Soviet Union, even after 45 years
of party dictatorship, feel the forces of historical evolution. The harsh precepts of Stalinism
are officially recognized as bankrupt. Economic and political variation and dissent are
appearing, for example, in land, Rumania, and the Soviet Union, itself. The growing
emphasis on scientific and industrial achievement has been accompanied by increased
education and by intellectual ferment. Indeed, the very nature of the modern technological
society requires human initiative and the diversity of free minds. So history, itself, runs
against the Marxist dogma, not towards it.
Nor are such systems equipped to deal with the organization of modern agriculture, and the
diverse energy of the modern consumer in a developed society. In short, these dogmatic
police states are an anachronism. Like the division of Germany and of Europe, it is against
the tide of history. The new Europe of the West--dynamic, diverse, and democratic--must
exert an ever-increasing attraction to the people of the East. And when the possibilities of
reconciliation appear, we in the West will make it clear that we are not hostile to any
people or system providing they choose their own destiny without interfering with the free
choice of others. There will be wounds to heal and suspicions to be eased on both sides.
The difference in living standards will have to be reduced by leveling up, not down. Fair
and effective agreements to end the arms race must be reached. These changes will not
come today or tomorrow. But our efforts for a real settlement must continue undiminished.
As I said this morning, I am not impressed by the opportunities open to popular fronts
throughout the world. I do not believe that any democrat can successfully ride that tiger.
But I do believe in the necessity of great powers working together to preserve the human
race, or otherwise we can be destroyed. This process can only be helped by the growing
unity of the West, and we must all work towards that unity, for in unity there is strength,
and that is why I travel to this continent--the unity of this continent--and any division or
weakness only makes our task more difficult. Nor can the West ever negotiate a peaceful
reunification of Germany from a divided and uncertain and competitive base. In short, only
if they see over a period of time that we are strong and united, that we are vigilant and
determined, are others likely to abandon their course of armed aggression or subversion.
Only then will genuine, mutually acceptable proposals to reduce hostility have a chance to
succeed.
This is not an easy course. There is no easy course to the reunification of Germany, the
reconstitution of Europe. But life is never easy. There is work to be done and obligations to
be met--obligations to truth, to justice, and to liberty.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 3:30 p.m. after being made an Honorary Citizen of the Free
University of Berlin. His opening words referred to Herbert Koelbel, Rector of the
University; Willy Brandt, Mayor of West Berlin; and Chancellor Adenauer.
Remarks at the Rudolph Wilde Platz

West Berlin
June 26, 1963
"Ich bin ein berliner" speech
I am proud to come to this city as the guest of your distinguished Mayor, who has
symbolized throughout the world the fighting spirit of West Berlin. And I am proud to visit
the Federal Republic with your distinguished Chancellor who for so many years has
committed Germany to democracy and freedom and progress, and to come here in the
company of my fellow American, General Clay, who has been in this city during its great
moments of crisis and will come again if ever needed.
Two thousand years ago the proudest boast was "civis Romanus sum." Today, in the world
of freedom, the proudest boast is "Ich bin ein Berliner."
I appreciate my interpreter translating my German!
There are many people in the world who really don't understand, or say they don't, what is
the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin.
There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to
Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the
Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that
communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass' sie nach
Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin.
Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put
a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us. I want to say, on behalf of
my countrymen, who live many miles away on the other side of the Atlantic, who are far
distant from you, that they take the greatest pride that they have been able to share with
you, even from a distance, the story of the last 18 years. I know of no town, no city, that
has been besieged for 18 years that still lives with the vitality and the force, and the hope
and the determination of the city of West Berlin. While the wall is the most obvious and
vivid demonstration of the failures of the Communist system, for all the world to see, we
take no satisfaction in it, for it is, as your Mayor has said, an offense not only against
history but an offense against humanity, separating families, dividing husbands and wives
and brothers and sisters, and dividing a people who wish to be joined together.
What is true of this city is true of Germany--real, lasting peace in Europe can never be
assured as long as one German out of four is denied the elementary right of free men, and
that is to make a free choice. In 18 years of peace and good faith, this generation of
Germans has earned the right to be free, including the right to unite their families and their
nation in lasting peace, with good will to all people. You live in a defended island of
freedom, but your life is part of the main. So let me ask you as I close, to lift your eyes
beyond the dangers of today, to the hopes of tomorrow, beyond the freedom merely of this
city of Berlin, or your country of Germany, to the advance of freedom everywhere, beyond
the wall to the day of peace with justice, beyond yourselves and ourselves to all mankind.
Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free,
then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country
and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally
comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they
were in the front lines for almost two decades.
All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I
take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner."
Address Before the Irish Parliament

Dublin, Ireland
June 28, 1963
Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister, Members of the Parliament:
I am grateful for your welcome and for that of your countrymen.
The 13th day of September, 1862, will be a day long remembered in American history. At
Fredericksburg, Maryland, thousands of men fought and died on one of the bloodiest
battlefields of the American Civil War. One of the most brilliant stories of that day was
written by a band of 1200 men who went into battle wearing a green sprig in their hats.
They bore a proud heritage and a special courage, given to those who had long fought for
the cause of freedom. I am referring, of course, to the Irish Brigade. General Robert E. Lee,
the great military leader of the Southern Confederate Forces, said of this group of men after
the battle, "The gallant stand which this bold brigade made on the heights of
Fredericksburg is well known. Never were men so brave. They ennobled their race by their
splendid gallantry on that desperate occasion. Their brilliant though hopeless assaults on
our lines excited the hearty applause of our officers and soldiers."
Of the 1200 men who took part in that assault, 280 survived the battle. The Irish Brigade
was led into battle on that occasion by Brig. Gen. Thomas F. Meagher, who had
participated in the unsuccessful Irish uprising of 1848, was captured by the British and sent
in a prison ship to Australia from whence he finally came to America. In the fall of 1862,
after serving with distinction and gallantry in some of the toughest fighting of this most
bloody struggle, the Irish Brigade was presented with a new set of flags. In the city
ceremony, the city chamberlain gave them the motto, "The Union, our Country, and Ireland
forever." Their old ones having been torn to shreds in previous battles, Capt. Richard
McGee took possession of these flags on December 2d in New York City and arrived with
them at the Battle of Fredericksburg and carried them in the battle. Today, in recognition of
what these gallant Irishmen and what millions of other Irish have done for my country, and
through the generosity of the "Fighting 69th," I would like to present one of these flags to
the people of Ireland.
As you can see gentlemen, the battle honors of the Brigade include Fredericksburg,
Chancellorsville, Yorktown, Fair Oaks, Gaines Mill, Allen's Farm, Savage's Station, White
Oak Bridge, Glendale, Malvern Hill, Antietam, Gettysburg, and Bristow Station.
I am deeply honored to be your guest in a Free Parliament in a free Ireland. If this nation
had achieved its present political and economic stature a century or so ago, my great
grandfather might never have left New Ross, and I might, if fortunate, be sitting down there
with you. Of course if your own President had never left Brooklyn, he might be standing up
here instead of me.
This elegant building, as you know, was once the property of the Fitzgerald family, but I
have not come here to claim it. Of all the new relations I have discovered on this trip, I
regret to say that no one has yet found any link between me and a great Irish patriot, Lord
Edward Fitzgerald. Lord Edward, however, did not like to stay here in his family home
because, as he wrote his mother, "Leinster House does not inspire the brightest ideas." That
was a long time ago, however. It has also been said by some that a few of the features of
this stately mansion served to inspire similar features in the White House in Washington.
Whether this is true or not, I know that the White House was designed by James Hoban, a
noted Irish-American architect and I have no doubt that he believe by incorporating several
features of the Dublin style he would make it more homelike for any President of Irish
descent. It was a long wait, but I appreciate his efforts.
There is also an unconfirmed rumor that Hoban was never fully paid for his work on the
White House. If this proves to be true, I will speak to our Secretary of the Treasury about
it, although I hear his body is not particularly interested in the subject of revenues.
I am proud to be the first American President to visit Ireland during his term of office,
proud to be addressing this distinguished assembly, and proud of the welcome you have
given me. My presence and your welcome, however, only symbolize the many and the
enduring links which have bound the Irish and the Americans since the earliest days.
Benjamin Franklin--the envoy of the American Revolution who was also born in Boston--
was received by the Irish Parliament in 1772. It was neither independent nor free from
discrimination at the time, but Franklin reported its members "disposed to be friends of
America." "By joining our interest with theirs," he said,"a more equitable treatment . . .
might be obtained for both nations."
Our interest have been joined ever since. Franklin sent leaflets to Irish freedom fighters.
O'Connell was influenced by Washington, and Emmet influenced Lincoln. Irish volunteers
played so predominant a role in the American army that Lord Mountjoy lamented in the
British Parliament that "we have lost America through the Irish."
John Barry, whose statue we honored yesterday and whose sword is in my office, was only
one who fought for liberty in America to set an example for liberty in Ireland. Yesterday
was the 117th anniversary of the birth of Charles Stewart Parnell--whose grandfather
fought under Barry and whose mother was born in America--and who, at the age of 34, was
invited to address the American Congress on the cause of Irish freedom. "I have seen since
I have been in this country," he said, "so many tokens of the good wishes of the American
people toward Ireland . . ." And today, 83 years later, I can say to you that I have seen in
this country so many tokens of good wishes of the Irish people towards America.
And so it is that our two nations, divided by distance, have been united by history. No
people ever believed more deeply in the cause of Irish freedom than the people of the
United States. And no country contributed more to building my own than your sons and
daughters. They came to our shores in a mixture of hope and agony, and I would not
underrate the difficulties of their course once they arrived in the United States. They left
behind hearts, fields, and a nation yearning to be free. It is no wonder that James Joyce
described the Atlantic as a bowl of bitter tears. And an earlier poet wrote, "They are going,
going, going, and we cannot bid them stay."
But today this is no longer the country of hunger and famine that those emigrants left
behind. It is not rich, and its progress is not yet complete, but it is, according to statistics,
one of the best fed countries in the world. Nor is it any longer a country of persecution,
political or religious. It is a free country, and that is why any American feels at home.
There are those who regard this history of past strife and exile as better forgotten. But, to
use the phrase of Yeats, let us not casually reduce "that great past to a trouble of fools." For
we need not feel the bitterness of the past to discover its meaning for the present and the
future. And it is the present and the future of Ireland that today holds so much promise to
my nation as well as to yours, and, indeed, to all mankind.
For the Ireland of 1963, one of the youngest of nations and oldest of civilizations, has
discovered that the achievement of nationhood is not an end but a beginning. In the years
since independence, you have undergone a new and peaceful revolution, transforming the
face of this land while still holding to the old spiritual and cultural values. You have
modernized your economy, harnessed your rivers, diversified your industry, liberalized
your trade, electrified your farms, accelerated your rate of growth, and improved the living
standards of your people.
The other nations of the world--in whom Ireland has long invested her people and her
children--are now investing their capital as well as their vacations here in Ireland. This
revolution is not yet over, nor will it be, I am sure, until a fully modern Irish economy
shares in world prosperity.
But prosperity is not enough. Eighty-three years ago, Henry Grattan, demanding the more
independent Irish Parliament that would always bear his name, denounced those who were
satisfied merely by new grants of economic opportunity. "A country," he said, "enlightened
as Ireland, chartered as Ireland, armed as Ireland and injured as Ireland will be satisfied
with nothing less than liberty." And today, I am certain, free Ireland--a full-fledged
member of the world community, where some are not yet free, and where some counsel an
acceptance of tyranny--free Ireland will not be satisfied with anything less than liberty.
I am glad, therefore, that Ireland is moving in the mainstream of current world events. For I
sincerely believe that your future is as promising as your past is proud, and that your
destiny lies not as a peaceful island in a sea of troubles, but as a maker and shaper of world
peace.
For self-determination can no longer mean isolation; and the achievement of national
independence today means withdrawal from the old status only to return to the world scene
with a new one. New nations can build with their former governing powers the same kind
of fruitful relationship that Ireland has established with Great Britain--a relationship
founded on equality and mutual interests. And no nation, large or small, can be indifferent
to the fate of others, near or far. Modern economics, weaponry and communications have
made us all realize more than ever that we are one human family and this one planet is our
home.
"The world is large," wrote John Boyle O'Reilly.
"The world is large when its weary
leagues two loving hearts divide,
"But the world is small when your enemy
is loose on the other side."
The world is even smaller today, though the enemy of John Boyle O'Reilly is no longer a
hostile power. Indeed, across the gulfs and barriers that now divide us, we must remember
that there are no permanent enemies. Hostility today is a fact, but it is not a ruling law. The
supreme reality of our time is our indivisibility as children of God and our common
vulnerability on this planet.
Some may say that all this means little to Ireland. In an age when "history moves with the
tramp of earthquake feet"--in an age when a handful of men and nations have the power
literally to devastate mankind--in an age when the needs of the developing nations are so
staggering that even the richest lands often groan with the burden of assistance--in such an
age, it may be asked, how can a nation as small as Ireland play much of a role on the world
stage?
I would remind those who ask that question, including those in other small countries, of the
words of one of the great orators of the English language:
"All the world owes much to the little 'five feet high' nations. The greatest art of the world
was the work of little nations. The most enduring literature of the world came from little
nations. The heroic deeds that thrill humanity through generations were the deeds of little
nations fighting for their freedom. And oh, yes, the salvation of mankind came through a
little nation."
Ireland has already set an example and a standard for other small nations to follow.
This has never been a rich or powerful country, and yet, since earliest times, its influence
on the world has been rich and powerful. No larger nation did more to keep Christianity
and Western culture alive in their darkest centuries. No larger nation did more to spark the
cause of independence in America, indeed, around the world. And no larger nation has ever
provided the world with more literary and artistic genius.
This is an extraordinary country. George Bernard Shaw, speaking as an Irishman, summed
up an approach to life: Other people, he said "see things and . . . say 'Why?' . . . But I dream
things that never were-- and I say: 'Why not?'"
It is that quality of the Irish--that remarkable combination of hope, confidence and
imagination--that is needed more than ever today. The problems of the world cannot
possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics, whose horizons are limited by the obvious
realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were, and ask why not. It
matters not how small a nation is that seeks world peace and freedom, for, to paraphrase a
citizen of my country, "the humblest nation of all the world, when clad in the armor of a
righteous cause, is stronger than all the hosts of Error."
Ireland is clad in the cause of national and human liberty with peace. To the extent that the
peace is disturbed by conflict between the former colonial powers and the new and
developing nations, Ireland's role is unique. For every new nation knows that Ireland was
the first of the small nations in the 20th century to win its struggle for independence, and
that the Irish have traditionally sent their doctors and technicians and soldiers and priests to
help other lands to keep their liberty alive.
At the same time, Ireland is part of Europe, associated with the Council of Europe,
progressing in the context of Europe, and a prospective member of an expanded European
Common Market. Thus Ireland has excellent relations with both the new and the old, the
confidence of both sides and an opportunity to act where the actions of greater powers
might be looked upon with suspicion.
The central issue of freedom, however, is between those who believe in self-determination
and those in the East who would impose on others the harsh and oppressive Communist
system; and here your nation wisely rejects the role of a go-between or a mediator. Ireland
pursues an independent course in foreign policy, but it is not neutral between liberty and
tyranny and never will be.
For knowing the meaning of foreign domination, Ireland is the example and inspiration to
those enduring endless years of oppression. It was fitting and appropriate that this nation
played a leading role in censuring the suppression of the Hungarian revolution, for how
many times was Ireland's quest for freedom suppressed only to have that quest renewed by
the succeeding generation? Those who suffer beyond that wall I saw on Wednesday in
Berlin must not despair of their future. Let them remember the constancy, the faith, the
endurance, and the final success of the Irish. And let them remember, as I heard sung by
your sons and daughters yesterday in Wexford, the words, "the boys of Wexford, who
fought with heart and hand, to burst in twain the galling chain and free our native land."
The major forum for your nation's greater role in world affairs is that of protector of the
weak and voice of the small, the United Nations. From Cork to the Congo, from Galway to
the Gaza Strip, from this legislative assembly to the United Nations, Ireland is sending its
most talented men to do the world's most important work--the work of peace.
In a sense, this export of talent is in keeping with an historic Irish role--but you no longer
go as exiles and emigrants but for the service of your country and, indeed, of all men. Like
the Irish missionaries of medieval days, like the "wild geese" after the Battle of the Boyne,
you are not content to sit by your fireside while others are in need of your help. Nor are you
content with the recollections of the past when you face the responsibilities of the present.
Twenty-six sons of Ireland have died in the Congo; many others have been wounded. I pay
tribute to them and to all of you for your commitment and dedication to world order. And
their sacrifice reminds us all that we must not falter now.
The United Nations must be fully and fairly financed. Its peace- keeping machinery must
be strengthened. Its institutions must be developed until some day, and perhaps some
distant day, a world of law is achieved.
Ireland's influence in the United Nations is far greater than your relative size. You have not
hesitated to take the lead on such sensitive issues as the Kashmir dispute. And you
sponsored that most vital resolution, adopted by the General Assembly, which opposed the
spread of nuclear arms to any nation not now possessing them, urging an international
agreement with inspection and controls. And I pledge to you that the United States of
America will do all in its power to achieve such an agreement and fulfill your resolution.
I speak of these matters today--not because Ireland is unaware of its role--but I think it
important that you know that we know what you have done. And I speak to remind the
other small nations that they, too, can and must help build a world peace. They, too, as we
all are, are dependent on the United Nations for security, for an equal chance to be heard,
for progress towards a world made safe for diversity.
The peace-keeping machinery of the United Nations cannot work without the help of the
smaller nations, nations whose forces threaten no one and whose forces can thus help
create a world in which no nation is threatened. Great powers have their responsibilities
and their burdens, but the smaller nations of the world must fulfill their obligations as well.
A great Irish poet once wrote: "I believe profoundly . . . in the future of Ireland . . . that this
is an isle of destiny, that that destiny will be glorious . . . and that when our hour is come,
we will have something to give to the world."
My friends: Ireland's hour has come. You have something to give to the world--and that is
a future of peace with freedom.
Thank you.
Remarks at Eyre Square in Galway, June 29, 1963
Eyre Square, Galway, Ireland
Date: June 29, 1963
Mr. Mayor, members of the County Council, Prime Minister, Ambassadors:
If the day was clear enough, and if you went down to the bay, and you looked west, and
your sight was good enough, you would see Boston, Mass. And if you did, you would see
down working on the docks there some Doughertys and Flahertys and Ryans and cousins
of yours who have gone to Boston and made good.
I wonder if you could perhaps let me know how many of you here have a relative in
America, who you would admit to--if you would hold up your hand? I don't know what it is
about you that causes me to think that nearly everybody in Boston comes from Galway.
They are not shy about it, at all.
I want to express--as we are about to leave here--to you of this country how much this visit
has meant. It is strange that so many years could pass and so many generations pass and
still some of us who came on this trip could come home and--here to Ireland--and feel
ourselves at home and not feel ourselves in a strange country, but feel ourselves among
neighbors, even though we are separated by generations, by time, and by thousands of
miles.
You send us home covered with gifts which we can barely carry, but most of all you send
us home with the warmest memories of you and of your country.
So I must say that though other days may not be so bright as we look toward the future, the
brightest days will continue to be those in which we visited you here in Ireland.
If you ever come to America, come to Washington and tell them, if they wonder who you
are at the gate, that you come from Galway. The word will be out and when you do, it will
be "Cead Mile Failte," which means "one hundred thousand welcomes!"
Thank you and goodbye.
NOTE: The President spoke at noon after receiving the freedom of the city. In his opening
words he referred to Patrick Ryan, Mayor of Galway; Prime Minister Sean Lemass;
Thomas J. Kiernan, Irish Ambassador to the United States; and Matthew H. McCloskey,
U.S. Ambassador to Ireland.
Remarks at a Reception in Limerick, June 29, 1963
Green Park Race Course, Limerick, Ireland
Date: June 29, 1963
Madam Mayor, Clergy, members of the City Council, fellow citizens of Limerick:
I want to express my thanks and also my admiration for the best speech that I have heard
since I came to Europe, from your fine Mayor.
I asked your distinguished Ambassador to the United States, Ambassador Kiernan-he has
sort of an elfish look about him, but he is very, very good--I said, "What is this county
noted for?" and he said, "It is noted for its beautiful women and its fast horses." And I said,
"Well, you say that about every county." And he said, "No, this is true about this county."
I want to express my pleasure at seeing the Fitzgeralds. I wonder if they could stand up?
One of them looks just like Grandpa, and that is a compliment.
This is the last place I go, and then I am going to another country, and then I am going to
Italy, and then I am going back home to the United States. I wonder, before I go, if I could
find out how many citizens here have relations in the United States? Do you think you
could hold up your hand, if you do? No wonder there are so many of them over there.
Well, I will tell you, they have been among the best citizens and they behave themselves
very well, and you would be proud of them. And they are proud of you. Even though a
good many years have passed since most of them left, they still remain and retain the
strongest sentiments of affection for this country. And I hope that this visit that we have
been able to make on this occasion has reminded them not only of their past, but also that
here in Ireland the word "freedom," the word "independence," the whole sentiment of a
nation is perhaps stronger than it is almost any place in the world.
I don't think that I have passed through a more impressive ceremony than the one I
experienced yesterday in Dublin when I went with the Prime Minister to put a wreath on
the graves of the men who died in 1916. What to some countries and some people words of
"freedom," words of "independence"--to see your President, who has played such a
distinguished part, whose life is so tied up with the life of this island in this century--all this
has made the past very real, and has made the present very hopeful.
So I carry with me as I go the warmest sentiments of appreciation to all of you. This is a
great country, with a great people, and I know that when I am back in Washington, while I
will not see you, I will see you in my mind and feel all of your good wishes, as we all will,
in our hearts.
Last night somebody sang a song, the words of which I am sure you know, of "Come back
to Erin, Mavourneen, Mavourneen, come back around to the land of thy birth. Come with
the Shamrock in the springtime, Mavourneen." This is not the land of my birth, but it is the
land for which I hold the greatest affection and I certainly will come back in the
springtime.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 1:30 p.m. at the Green Park Race Course after receiving
the freedom of the city. His opening words "Madam Mayor" referred to Frances Condell,
Mayor of Limerick. He later referred to his maternal grandfather, John F. Fitzgerald,
onetime Mayor of Boston.
On the previous day in Dublin, as he recalled, the President had laid a wreath at Arbour
Hill on the graves of leaders of the 1916 Easter Rising.
Remarks at Shannon Airport Upon Leaving for England,

June 29, 1963
Shannon Airport, Ireland
Date: June 29, 1963
I want to express my thanks to the County Council and this is where we all say goodbye.
I want to express our greatest thanks to the President of your country, your great President,
to your Prime Minister, and to all the members of the government, and especially to all the
people of Ireland who have taken us in.
Ireland is an unusual place. What happened 500 or 1000 years ago is yesterday, where we
on the other side of the Atlantic 3000 miles away, we are next door. While there may be
those removed by two or three generations from Ireland, they may have left 100 years ago
their people, and yet when I ask how many people may have relatives in America nearly
everybody holds up their hands.
So Ireland is a very special place. It has fulfilled in the past a very special role. It is in a
very real sense the mother of a great many people, a great many millions of people, and in
a sense a great many nations. And what gives me the greatest satisfaction and pride, being
of Irish descent, is the realization that even today this very small island still sends
thousands, literally thousands, of its sons and daughters to the ends of the globe to carry on
an historic task which Ireland assumed 1400 or 1500 years ago.
So this has been really the high point of our trip. Last night I sat next to one of the most
extraordinary women, the wife of your President, who knows more about Ireland and Irish
history. So I told her I was coming to Shannon, and she immediately quoted this poem, and
I wrote down the words because I thought they were beautiful:
'Tis it is the Shannon's brightly glancing stream,
Brightly gleaming, silent in the morning beam,
Oh, the sight entrancing,
Thus returns from travels long,
Years of exile, years of pain,
To see old Shannon's face again,
O'er the waters dancing.
Well, I am going to come back and see old Shannon's face again, and I am taking, as I go
back to America, all of you with me.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 1:15 p.m. In his opening remarks he referred to the Clare
County Council, whose members presented him with a gift of old Irish silver.
Radio and Television Address to the

American People on the Nuclear Test Ban
Treaty
The White House
July 26, 1963
Good evening, my fellow citizens:
I speak to you tonight in a spirit of hope. Eighteen years ago the advent of nuclear weapons
changed the course of the world as well as the war. Since that time, all mankind has been
struggling to escape from the darkening prospect of mass destruction on earth. In an age
when both sides have come to possess enough nuclear power to destroy the human race
several times over, the world of communism and the world of free choice have been caught
up in a vicious circle of conflicting ideology and interest. Each increase of tension has
produced an increase of arms; each increase of arms has produced an increase of tension.
In these years, the United States and the Soviet Union have frequently communicated
suspicion and warnings to each other, but very rarely hope. Our representatives have met at
the summit and at the brink; they have met in Washington and in Moscow; in Geneva and
at the United Nations. But too often these meetings have produced only darkness, discord,
or disillusion.
Yesterday a shaft of light cut into the darkness. Negotiations were concluded in Moscow
on a treaty to ban all nuclear tests in the atmosphere, in outer space, and under water. For
the first time, an agreement has been reached on bringing the forces of nuclear destruction
under international control-a goal first sought in 1946 when Bernard Baruch presented a
comprehensive control plan to the United Nations.
That plan, and many subsequent disarmament plans, large and small, have all been blocked
by those opposed to international inspection. A ban on nuclear tests, however, requires on-
the-spot inspection only for underground tests. This Nation now possesses a variety of
techniques to detect the nuclear tests of other nations which are conducted in the air or
under water, for such tests produce unmistakable signs which our modern instruments can
pick up.
The treaty initialed yesterday, therefore, is a limited treaty which permits continued
underground testing and prohibits only those tests that we ourselves can police. It requires
no control posts, no onsite inspection, no international body.
We should also understand that it has other limits as well. Any nation which signs the
treaty will have an opportunity to withdraw if it finds that extraordinary events related to
the subject matter of the treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests; and no nation's right
of self-defense will in any way be impaired. Nor does this treaty mean an end to the threat
of nuclear war. It will not reduce nuclear stockpiles; it will not halt the production of
nuclear weapons; it will not restrict their use in time of war.
Nevertheless, this limited treaty will radically reduce the nuclear testing which would
otherwise be conducted on both sides; it will prohibit the United States, the United
Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and all others who sign it, from engaging in the atmospheric
tests which have so alarmed mankind; and it offers to all the world a welcome sign of hope.
For this is not a unilateral moratorium, but a specific and solemn legal obligation. While it
will not prevent this Nation from testing underground, or from being ready to conduct
atmospheric tests if the acts of others so require, it gives us a concrete opportunity to
extend its coverage to other nations and later to other forms of nuclear tests.
This treaty is in part the product of Western patience and vigilance. We have made clear--
most recently in Berlin and Cuba--our deep resolve to protect our security and our freedom
against any form of aggression. We have also made clear our steadfast determination to
limit the arms race. In three administrations, our soldiers and diplomats have worked
together to this end, always supported by Great Britain. Prime Minister Macmillan joined
with President Eisenhower in proposing a limited test ban in 1959, and again with me in
1961 and 1962.
But the achievement of this goal is not a victory for one side--it is a victory for mankind. It
reflects no concessions either to or by the Soviet Union. It reflects simply our common
recognition of the dangers in further testing.
This treaty is not the millennium. It will not resolve all conflicts, or cause the Communists
to forego their ambitions, or eliminate the dangers of war. It will not reduce our need for
arms or allies or programs of assistance to others. But it is an important first step--a step
towards peace--a step towards reason--a step away from war.
Here is what this step can mean to you and to your children and your neighbors:
First, this treaty can be a step towards reduced world tension and broader areas of
agreement. The Moscow talks have reached no agreement on any other subject, nor is this
treaty conditioned on any other matter. Under Secretary Harriman made it clear that any
nonaggression arrangements across the division in Europe would require full consultation
with our allies and full attention to their interests. He also made clear our strong preference
for a more comprehensive treaty banning all tests everywhere, and our ultimate hope for
general and complete disarmament. The Soviet Government, however, is still unwilling to
accept the inspection such goals require.
No one can predict with certainty, therefore, what further agreements, if any, can be built
on the foundations of this one. They could include controls on preparations for surprise
attack, or on numbers and type of armaments. There could be further limitations on the
spread of nuclear weapons. The important point is that efforts to seek new agreements will
go forward.
But the difficulty of predicting the next step is no reason to be reluctant about this step.
Nuclear test ban negotiations have long been a symbol of East-West disagreement. If this
treaty can also be a symbol--if it can symbolize the end of one era and the beginning of
another--if both sides can by this treaty gain confidence and experience in peaceful
collaboration--then this short and simple treaty may well become an historic mark in man's
age-old pursuit of peace.
Western policies have long been designed to persuade the Soviet Union to renounce
aggression, direct or indirect, so that their people and all people may live and let live in
peace. The unlimited testing of new weapons of war cannot lead towards that end--but this
treaty, if it can be followed by further progress, can clearly move in that direction.
I do not say that a world without aggression or threats of war would be an easy world. It
will bring new problems, new challenges from the Communists, new dangers of relaxing
our vigilance or of mistaking their intent.
But those dangers pale in comparison to those of the spiraling arms race and a collision
course towards war. Since the beginning of history, war has been mankind's constant
companion. It has been the rule, not the exception. Even a nation as young and as peace-
loving as our own has fought through eight wars. And three times in the last two years and
a half I have been required to report to you as President that this Nation and the Soviet
Union stood on the verge of direct military confrontation--in Laos, in Berlin, and in Cuba.
A war today or tomorrow, if it led to nuclear war, would not be like any war in history. A
full-scale nuclear exchange, lasting less than 60 minutes, with the weapons now in
existence, could wipe out more than 300 million Americans, Europeans, and Russians, as
well as untold numbers elsewhere. And the survivors, as Chairman Khrushchev warned the
Communist Chinese, "the survivors would envy the dead." For they would inherit a world
so devastated by explosions and poison and fire that today we cannot even conceive of its
horrors. So let us try to turn the world away from war. Let us make the most of this
opportunity, and every opportunity, to reduce tension, to slow down the perilous nuclear
arms race, and to check the world's slide toward final annihilation.
Second, this treaty can be a step towards freeing the world from the fears and dangers of
radioactive fallout. Our own atmospheric tests last year were conducted under conditions
which restricted such fallout to an absolute minimum. But over the years the number and
the yield of weapons tested have rapidly increased and so have the radioactive hazards
from such testing. Continued unrestricted testing by the nuclear powers, joined in time by
other nations which may be less adept in limiting pollution, will increasingly contaminate
the air that all of us must breathe.
Even then, the number of children and grandchildren with cancer in their bones, with
leukemia in their blood, or with poison in their lungs might seem statistically small to
some, in comparison with natural health hazards. But this is not a natural health hazard--
and it is not a statistical issue. The loss of even one human life, or the malformation of even
one baby--who may be born long after we are gone--should be of concern to us all. Our
children and grandchildren are not merely statistics toward which we can be indifferent.
Nor does this affect the nuclear powers alone. These tests befoul the air of all men and all
nations, the committed and the uncommitted alike, without their knowledge and without
their consent. That is why the continuation of atmospheric testing causes so many countries
to regard all nuclear powers as equally evil; and we can hope that its prevention will enable
those countries to see the world more clearly, while enabling all the world to breathe more
easily.
Third, this treaty can be a step toward preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to nations
not now possessing them. During the next several years, in addition to the four current
nuclear powers, a small but significant number of nations will have the intellectual,
physical, and financial resources to produce both nuclear weapons and the means of
delivering them. In time, it is estimated, many other nations will have either this capacity or
other ways of obtaining nuclear warheads, even as missiles can be commercially purchased
today.
I ask you to stop and think for a moment what it would mean to have nuclear weapons in so
many hands, in the hands of countries large and small, stable and unstable, responsible and
irresponsible, scattered throughout the world. There would be no rest for anyone then, no
stability, no real security, and no chance of effective disarmament. There would only be the
increased chance of accidental war, and an increased necessity for the great powers to
involve themselves in what otherwise would be local conflicts.
If only one thermonuclear bomb were to be dropped on any American, Russian, or any
other city, whether it was launched by accident or design, by a madman or by an enemy, by
a large nation or by a small, from any corner of the world, that one bomb could release
more destructive power on the inhabitants of that one helpless city than all the bombs
dropped in the Second World War.
Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union nor the United Kingdom nor France can
look forward to that day with equanimity. We have a great obligation, all four nuclear
powers have a great obligation, to use whatever time remains to prevent the spread of
nuclear weapons, to persuade other countries not to test, transfer, acquire, possess, or
produce such weapons.
This treaty can be the opening wedge in that campaign. It provides that none of the parties
will assist other nations to test in the forbidden environments. It opens the door for further
agreements on the control of nuclear weapons, and it is open for all nations to sign, for it is
in the interest of all nations, and already we have heard from a number of countries who
wish to join with us promptly.
Fourth and finally, this treaty can limit the nuclear arms race in ways which, on balance,
will strengthen our Nation's security far more than the continuation of unrestricted testing.
For in today's world, a nation's security does not always increase as its arms increase, when
its adversary is doing the same, and unlimited competition in the testing and development
of new types of destructive nuclear weapons will not make the world safer for either side.
Under this limited treaty, on the other hand, the testing of other nations could never be
sufficient to offset the ability of our strategic forces to deter or survive a nuclear attack and
to penetrate and destroy an aggressor's homeland.
We have, and under this treaty we will continue to have, the nuclear strength that we need.
It is true that the Soviets have tested nuclear weapons of a yield higher than that which we
thought to be necessary, but the hundred megaton bomb of which they spoke a years ago
does not and will not change the balance of strategic power. The United States has chosen,
deliberately, to concentrate on more mobile and more efficient weapons, with lower but
entirely sufficient yield, and our security is, therefore, not impaired by the treaty I am
discussing.
It is also true, as Mr. Khrushchev would agree, that nations cannot afford in these matters
to rely simply on the good faith of their adversaries. We have not, therefore, overlooked the
risk of secret violations. There is at present a possibility that deep in outer space, that
hundreds and thousands and millions of miles away from the earth illegal tests might go
undetected. But we already have the capability to construct a system of observation that
would make such tests almost impossible to conceal, and we can decide at any time
whether such a system is needed in the light of the limited risk to us and the limited reward
to others of violations attempted at that range. For any tests which might be conducted so
far out in space, which cannot be conducted more easily and efficiently and legally
underground, would necessarily be of such a magnitude that they would be extremely
difficult to conceal. We can also employ new devices to check on the testing of smaller
weapons in the lower atmosphere. Any violations, moreover, involves, along with the risk
of detection, the end of the treaty and the worldwide consequences for the violator.
Secret violations are possible and secret preparations for a sudden withdrawal are possible,
and thus our own vigilance and strength must be maintained, as we remain ready to
withdraw and to resume all forms of testing, if we must. But it would be a mistake to
assume that this treaty will be quickly broken. The gains of illegal testing are obviously
slight compared to their cost, and the hazard of discovery, and the nations which have
initialed and will sign this treaty prefer it, in my judgment, to unrestricted testing as a
matter of their own self-interests for these nations, too, and all nations, have a stake in
limiting the arms race, in holding the spread of nuclear weapons, and in breathing air that is
not radioactive. While it may be theoretically possible to demonstrate the risks inherent in
any treaty, and such risks in this treaty are small, the far greater risks to our security are the
risks of unrestricted testing, the risk of a nuclear arms race, the risk of new nuclear powers,
nuclear pollution, and nuclear war.
This limited test ban, in our most careful judgment, is safer by far for the United States
than an unlimited nuclear arms race. For all these reasons, I am hopeful that this Nation
will promptly approve the limited test ban treaty. There will, of course, be debate in the
country and in the Senate. The Constitution wisely requires the advice and consent of the
Senate to all treaties, and that consultation has already begun. All this is as it should be. A
document which may mark an historic and constructive opportunity for the world deserves
an historic and constructive debate.
It is my hope that all of you will take part in that debate, for this treaty is for all of us. It is
particularly for our children and our grandchildren, and they have no lobby here in
Washington. This debate will involve military, scientific, and political experts, but it must
be not left to them alone. The right and the responsibility are yours.
If we are to open new doorways to peace, if we are to seize this rare opportunity for
progress, if we are to be as bold and farsighted in our control of weapons as we have been
in their invention, then let us now show all the world on this side of the wall and the other
that a strong America also stands for peace. There is no cause for complacency.
We have learned in times past that the spirit of one moment or place can be gone in the
next. We have been disappointed more than once, and we have no illusions now that there
are shortcuts on the road to peace. At many points around the globe the Communists are
continuing their efforts to exploit weakness and poverty. Their concentration of nuclear and
conventional arms must still be deterred.
The familiar contest between choice and coercion, the familiar places of danger and
conflict, are all still there, in Cuba, in Southeast Asia, in Berlin, and all around the globe,
still requiring all the strength and the vigilance that we can muster. Nothing could more
greatly damage our cause than if we and our allies were to believe that peace has already
been achieved, and that our strength and unity were no longer required.
But now, for the first time in many years, the path of peace may be open. No one can be
certain what the future will bring. No one can say whether the time has come for an easing
of the struggle. But history and our own conscience will judge us harsher if we do not now
make every effort to test our hopes by action, and this is the place to begin.
According to the ancient Chinese proverb, "A journey of a thousand miles must begin with
a single step."
My fellow Americans, let us take that first step. Let us, if we can, step back from the
shadows of war and seek out the way of peace. And if that journey is a thousand miles, or
even more, let history record that we, in this land, at this time, took the first step.
Remarks at the U.S. Naval Academy

Annapolis, Maryland
August 1, 1963
NOTE: The President spoke in the early evening at Bancroft Hall at a ceremony honoring
the new class of midshipmen. His opening word "Admiral" referred to Adm. Charles E.
Kirkpatrick, Superintendent of the Naval Academy. The President made minor departures
in delivering these remarks. This text is from The Public Papers of the Presidents: John F.
Kennedy, 1963.
Admiral, officers, members of the Brigade: I hope you will stand at ease. Perhaps the
plebes will. Did you explain that to them? That comes later in the course.
I want to express our very strong appreciation to all those of you in the plebe class who
have come into the Navy. I hope that you realize how great is the dependence of our
country upon the men who serve in our Armed Forces. I sometimes think that the people of
this country do not appreciate how secure we are because of the devotion of the men and
their wives and children who serve this country in far off places, in the sea, in the air, and
on the ground, thousands and thousands of miles away from this country, who make it
possible for us all to live in peace each day.
This country owes the greatest debt to our servicemen. In time of war, of course, there is a
tremendous enthusiasm and outburst of popular feeling about those who fight and lead our
wars, but it is sometimes different in peace. But I can assure the people of this country,
from my own personal experience in the last 2 1/2 years, that more than anything, more
than anything, the fact that this country is secure and at peace, the fact that dozens of
countries allied with us are free and at peace, has been due to the military strength of the
United States. And that strength has been directly due to the men who serve in our Armed
Forces. So even though it may be at peace, in fact most especially because it is at peace, I
take this opportunity to express our appreciation to all of them whether they are here at
Annapolis, or whether they are out of sight of land, or underneath the sea.
I want to express our strong hope that all of you who have come to the Academy as plebes
will stay with the Navy. I can think of no more rewarding a career. You will have a chance
in the next 10, 20, and 30 years to serve the cause of freedom and your country all over the
globe, to hold positions of the highest responsibility, to recognize that upon your good
judgment in many cases may well rest not only the well-being of the men with whom you
serve, but also in a very real sense the security of your country.
I can imagine a no more rewarding career. And any man who may be asked in this century
what he did to make his life worth while, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and
satisfaction: "I served in the United States Navy." So I congratulate you all. This is a hard
job, particularly now as you make the change, but I think it develops in you those qualities
which we like to see in our country, which we take pride in. I am sure you are going to stay
with it. I am sure you are going to be able, by what you are now going through, to find the
means to command others.
So I express our very best wishes to you and tell you that though you will be serving in the
Navy in the days when most of those who hold public office have long gone from it, I can
assure you in 1963 that your services are needed, that your opportunities are unlimited, and
that if I were a young man in 1963 I can imagine no place to be better than right here at this
Academy, or at West Point, or in the Air Force, or in some other place beginning a career
of service to the United States.
There is an old story-which I will close with which will give you very valuable advice as
you follow a naval career-about a young yeoman who watched a lieutenant begin a
meteoric career in the Navy, and he always used to go into his office every morning and go
to his drawer and take out a piece of paper and look at it. He became the youngest captain,
the youngest admiral, the youngest commander-in-chief. Finally one day he had a heart
attack. The yeoman said, "I want to see what is in that paper. It might help me." So he went
over and opened up the safe and pulled out the paper. And it said, "Left-port; right-
starboard."
If you can remember that, your careers are assured!
Thank you
Address Before the 18th General Assembly

of the United Nations
New York
September 20, 1963
Mr. President--as one who has taken some interest in the election of Presidents, I want to congratulate you on your
election to this high office -- Mr. Secretary General, delegates to the United Nations, ladies and gentlemen:
We meet again in the quest for peace.
Twenty-four months ago, when I last had the honor of addressing this body, the shadow of fear lay darkly across the
world. The freedom of West Berlin was in immediate peril. Agreement on a neutral Laos seemed remote. The mandate
of the United Nations in the Congo was under fire. The financial outlook for this organization was in doubt. Dag
Hammarskjold was dead. The doctrine of troika was being pressed in his place, and atmospheric tests had been resumed
by the Soviet Union.
Those were anxious days for mankind--and some men wondered aloud whether this organization could survive. But the
16th and 17th General Assemblies achieved not only survival but progress. Rising to its responsibility, the United
Nations helped reduce the tensions and helped to hold back the darkness.
Today the clouds have lifted a little so that new rays of hope can break through. The pressures on West Berlin appear to
be temporarily eased. Political unity in the Congo has been largely restored. A neutral coalition in Laos, while still in
difficulty, is at least in being. The integrity of the United Nations Secretariat has been reaffirmed. A United Nations
Decade of Development is under way. And, for the first time in 17 years of effort, a specific step has been taken to limit
the nuclear arms race.
I refer, of course, to the treaty to ban nuclear tests in the atmosphere, outer space, and under water--concluded by the
Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States--and already signed by nearly 100 countries. It has been
hailed by people the world over who are thankful to be free from the fears of nuclear fallout, and I am confident that on
next Tuesday at 10:30 o'clock in the morning it will receive the overwhelming endorsement of the Senate of the United
States.
The world has not escaped from the darkness. The long shadows of conflict and crisis envelop us still. But we meet
today in an atmosphere of rising hope, and at a moment of comparative calm. My presence here today is not a sign of
crisis, but of confidence. I am not here to report on a new threat to the peace or new signs of war. I have come to salute
the United Nations and to show the support of the American people for your daily deliberations.
For the value of this body's work is not dependent on the existence of emergencies--nor can the winning of peace consist
only of dramatic victories. Peace is a daily, a weekly, a monthly process, gradually changing opinions, slowly eroding
old barriers, quietly building new structures. And however undramatic the pursuit of peace, that pursuit must go on.
Today we may have reached a pause in the cold war--but that is not a lasting peace. A test ban treaty is a milestone--but
it is not the millennium. We have not been released from our obligations--we have been given an opportunity. And if we
fail to make the most of this moment and this momentum--if we convert our new-found hopes and understandings into
new walls and weapons of hostility--if this pause in the cold war merely leads to its renewal and not to its end--then the
indictment of posterity will rightly point its finger at us all. But if we can stretch this pause into a period of cooperation--
if both sides can now gain new confidence and experience in concrete collaborations for peace--if we can now be as
bold and farsighted in the control of deadly weapons as we have been in their creation--then surely this first small step
can be the start of a long and fruitful journey.
The task of building the peace lies with the leaders of every nation, large and small. For the great powers have no
monopoly on conflict or ambition. The cold war is not the only expression of tension in this world--and the nuclear race
is not the only arms race. Even little wars are dangerous in a nuclear world. The long labor of peace is an undertaking
for every nation--and in this effort none of us can remain unaligned. To this goal none can be uncommitted.
The reduction of global tension must not be an excuse for the narrow pursuit of self-interest. If the Soviet Union and the
United States, with all of their global interests and clashing commitments of ideology, and with nuclear weapons still
aimed at each other today, can find areas of common interest and agreement, then surely other nations can do the same--
nations caught in regional conflicts, in racial issues, or in the death throes of old colonialism. Chronic disputes which
divert precious resources from the needs of the people or drain the energies of both sides serve the interests of no one--
and the badge of responsibility in the modern world is a willingness to seek peaceful solutions.
It is never too early to try; and it's never too late to talk; and it's high time that many disputes on the agenda of this
Assembly were taken off the debating schedule and placed on the negotiating table.
The fact remains that the United States, as a major nuclear power, does have a special responsibility in the world. It is, in
fact, a threefold responsibility--a responsibility to our own citizens; a responsibility to the people of the whole world
who are affected by our decisions; and to the next generation of humanity. We believe the Soviet Union also has these
special responsibilities--and that those responsibilities require our two nations to concentrate less on our differences and
more on the means of resolving them peacefully. For too long both of us have increased our military budgets, our
nuclear stockpiles, and our capacity to destroy all life on this hemisphere--human, animal, vegetable--without any
corresponding increase in our security.
Our conflicts, to be sure, are real. Our concepts of the world are different. No service is performed by failing to make
clear our disagreements. A central difference is the belief of the American people in the self-determination of all people.
We believe that the people of Germany and Berlin must be free to reunite their capital and their country.
We believe that the people of Cuba must be free to secure the fruits of the revolution that have been betrayed from
within and exploited from without.
In short, we believe that all the world--in Eastern Europe as well as Western, in Southern Africa as well as Northern, in
old nations as well as new--that people must be free to choose their own future, without discrimination or dictation,
without coercion or subversion.
These are the basic differences between the Soviet Union and the United States, and they cannot be concealed. So long
as they exist, they set limits to agreement, and they forbid the relaxation of our vigilance. Our defense around the world
will be maintained for the protection of freedom--and our determination to safeguard that freedom will measure up to
any threat or challenge.
But I would say to the leaders of the Soviet Union, and to their people, that if either of our countries is to be fully secure,
we need a much better weapon than the H-bomb--a weapon better than ballistic missiles or nuclear submarines--and that
better weapon is peaceful cooperation.
We have, in recent years, agreed on a limited test ban treaty, on an emergency communications link between our
capitals, on a statement of principles for disarmament, on an increase in cultural exchange, on cooperation in outer
space, on the peaceful exploration of the Antarctic, and on temporing last year's crisis over Cuba.
I believe, therefore, that the Soviet Union and the United States, together with their allies, can achieve further
agreements--agreements which spring from our mutual interest in avoiding mutual destruction.
There can be no doubt about the agenda of further steps. We must continue to seek agreements on measures which
prevent war by accident or miscalculation. We must continue to seek agreements on safeguards against surprise attack,
including observation posts at key points. We must continue to seek agreement on further measures to curb the nuclear
arms race, by controlling the transfer of nuclear weapons, converting fissionable materials to peaceful purposes, and
banning underground testing, with adequate inspection and enforcement. We must continue to seek agreement on a freer
flow of information and people from East to West and West to East.
We must continue to seek agreement, encouraged by yesterday's affirmative response to this proposal by the Soviet
Foreign Minister, on an arrangement to keep weapons of mass destruction out of outer space. Let us get our negotiators
back to the negotiating table to work out a practicable arrangement to this end.
In these and other ways, let us move up the steep and difficult path toward comprehensive disarmament, securing mutual
confidence through mutual verification, and building the institutions of peace as we dismantle the engines of war. We
must not let failure to agree on all points delay agreements where agreement is possible. And we must not put forward
proposals for propaganda purposes.
Finally, in a field where the United States and the Soviet Union have a special capacity--in the field of space--there is
room for new cooperation, for further joint efforts in the regulation and exploration of space. I include among these
possibilities a joint expedition to the moon. Space offers no problems of sovereignty; by resolution of this Assembly, the
members of the United Nations have foresworn any claim to territorial rights in outer space or on celestial bodies, and
declared that international law and the United Nations Charter will apply. Why, therefore, should man's first flight to the
moon be a matter of national competition? Why should the United States and the Soviet Union, in preparing for such
expeditions, become involved in immense duplications of research, construction, and expenditure? Surely we should
explore whether the scientists and astronauts of our two countries--indeed of all the world--cannot work together in the
conquest of space, sending someday in this decade to the moon not the representatives of a single nation, but the
representatives of all of our countries.
All these and other new steps toward peaceful cooperation may be possible. Most of them will require on our part full
consultation with our allies--for their interests are as much involved as our own, and we will not make an agreement at
their expense. Most of them will require long and careful negotiation. And most of them will require a new approach to
the cold war--a desire not to "bury" one's adversary, but to compete in a host of peaceful arenas, in ideas, in production,
and ultimately in service to all mankind.
The contest will continue--the contest between those who see a monolithic world and those who believe in diversity--but
it should be a contest in leadership and responsibility instead of destruction, a contest in achievement instead of
intimidation. Speaking for the United States of America, I welcome such a contest. For we believe that truth is stronger
than error--and that freedom is more enduring than coercion. And in the contest for a better life, all the world can be a
winner.
The effort to improve the conditions of man, however, is not a task for the few. It is the task of all nations--acting alone,
acting in groups, acting in the United Nations, for plague and pestilence, and plunder and pollution, the hazards of
nature, and the hunger of children are the foes of every nation. The earth, the sea, and the air are the concern of every
nation. And science, technology, and education can be the ally of every nation.
Never before has man had such capacity to control his own environment, to end thirst and hunger, to conquer poverty
and disease, to banish illiteracy and massive human misery. We have the power to make this the best generation of
mankind in the history of the world--or to make it the last.
The United States since the close of the war has sent over $100 billion worth of assistance to nations seeking economic
viability. And 2 years ago this week we formed a Peace Corps to help interested nations meet the demand for trained
manpower. Other industrialized nations whose economies were rebuilt not so long ago with some help from us are now
in turn recognizing their responsibility to the less developed nations.
The provision of development assistance by individual nations must go on. But the United Nations also must play a
larger role in helping bring to all men the fruits of modern science and industry. A United Nations conference on this
subject held earlier this year in Geneva opened new vistas for the developing countries. Next year a United Nations
Conference on Trade will consider the needs of these nations for new markets. And more than four-fifths of the entire
United Nations system can be found today mobilizing the weapons of science and technology for the United Nations'
Decade of Development.
But more can be done.
--A world center for health communications under the World Health Organization could warn of epidemics and the
adverse effects of certain drugs as well as transmit the results of new experiments and new discoveries.
--Regional research centers could advance our common medical knowledge and train new scientists and doctors for new
nations.
--A global system of satellites could provide communication and weather information for all corners of the earth.
--A worldwide program of conservation could protect the forest and wild game preserves now in danger of extinction for
all time, improve the marine harvest of food from our oceans, and prevent the contamination of air and water by
industrial as well as nuclear pollution.
--And, finally, a worldwide program of farm productivity and food distribution, similar to our country's "Food for
Peace" program, could now give every child the food he needs.
But man does not live by bread alone--and the members of this organization are committed by the Charter to promote
and respect human rights. Those rights are not respected when a Buddhist priest is driven from his pagoda, when a
synagogue is shut down, when a Protestant church cannot open a mission, when a Cardinal is forced into hiding, or
when a crowded church service is bombed. The United States of America is opposed to discrimination and persecution
on grounds of race and religion anywhere in the world, including our own Nation. We are working to right the wrongs
of our own country.
Through legislation and administrative action, through moral and legal commitment this Government has launched a
determined effort to rid our Nation of discrimination which has existed far too long--in education, in housing, in
transportation, in employment, in the civil service, in recreation, and in places of public accommodation. And therefore,
in this or any other forum, we do not hesitate to condemn racial or religious injustice, whether committed or permitted
by friend or foe.
I know that some of you have experienced discrimination in this country. But I ask you to believe me when I tell you
that this is not the wish of most Americans--that we share your regret and resentment-- and that we intend to end such
practices for all time to come, not only for our visitors, but for our own citizens as well.
I hope that not only our Nation but all other multiracial societies will meet these standards of fairness and justice. We
are opposed to apartheid and all forms of human oppression. We do not advocate the rights of black Africans in order to
drive out white Africans. Our concern is the right of all men to equal protection under the law--and since human rights
are indivisible, this body cannot stand aside when those rights are abused and neglected by any member state.
New efforts are needed if this Assembly's Declaration of Human Rights, now 15 years old, is to have full meaning. And
new means should be found for promoting the free expression and trade of ideas--through travel and communication,
and through increased exchanges of people, and books, and broadcasts. For as the world renounces the competition of
weapons, competition in ideas must flourish--and that competition must be as full and as fair as possible.
The United States delegation will be prepared to suggest to the United Nations initiatives in the pursuit of all the goals.
For this is an organization for peace--and peace cannot come without work and without progress.
The peacekeeping record of the United Nations has been a proud one, though its tasks are always formidable. We are
fortunate to have the skills of our distinguished Secretary General and the brave efforts of those who have been serving
the cause of peace in the Congo, in the Middle East, in Korea and Kashmir, in West New Guinea and Malaysia. But
what the United Nations has done in the past is less important than the tasks for the future. We cannot take its
peacekeeping machinery for granted. That machinery must be soundly financed--which it cannot be if some members
are allowed to prevent it from meeting its obligations by failing to meet their own. The United Nations must be
supported by all those who exercise their franchise here. And its operations must be backed to the end.
Too often a project is undertaken in the excitement of a crisis and then it begins to lose its appeal as the problems drag
on and the bills pile up. But we must have the steadfastness to see every enterprise through.
It is, for example, most important not to jeopardize the extraordinary United Nations gains in the Congo. The nation
which sought this organization's help only 3 years ago has now asked the United Nations' presence to remain a little
longer. I believe this Assembly should do what is necessary to preserve the gains already made and to protect the new
nation in its struggle for progress. Let us complete what we have started. For "No man who puts his hand to the plow
and looks back," as the Scriptures tell us, "No man who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the Kingdom
of God."
I also hope that the recent initiative of several members in preparing standby peace forces for United Nations call will
encourage similar commitments by others. This Nation remains ready to provide logistic and other material support.
Policing, moreover, is not enough without provision for pacific settlement. We should increase the resort to special
missions of factfinding and conciliation, make greater use of the International Court of Justice, and accelerate the work
of the International Law Commission.
The United Nations cannot survive as a static organization. Its obligations are increasing as well as its size. Its Charter
must be changed as well as its customs. The authors of that Charter did not intend that it be frozen in perpetuity. The
science of weapons and war has made us all, far more than 18 years ago in San Francisco, one world and one human
race, with one common destiny. In such a world, absolute sovereignty no longer assures us of absolute security. The
conventions of peace must pull abreast and then ahead of the inventions of war. The United Nations, building on its
successes and learning from its failures, must be developed into a genuine world security system.
But peace does not rest in charters and covenants alone. It lies in the hearts and minds of all people. And if it is cast out
there, then no act, no pact, no treaty, no organization can hope to preserve it without the support and the wholehearted
commitment of all people. So let us not rest all our hopes on parchment and on paper; let us strive to build peace, a
desire for peace, a willingness to work for peace, in the hearts and minds of all our people. I believe that we can. I
believe the problems of human destiny are not beyond the reach of human beings.
Two years ago I told this body that the United States had proposed, and was willing to sign, a limited test ban treaty.
Today that treaty has been signed. It will not put an end to war. It will not remove basic conflicts. It will not secure
freedom for all. But it can be a lever, and Archimedes, in explaining the principles of the lever, was said to have
declared to his friends: "Give me a place where I can stand--and I shall move the world."
My fellow inhabitants of this planet: Let us take our stand here in this Assembly of nations. And let us see if we, in our
own time, can move the world to a just and lasting peace.
Address in Salt Lake City at the Mormon Tabernacle,

September 26, 1963
Salt Lake City, Utah
Date: September 26, 1963
Senator Moss, my old colleague in the United States Senate, your distinguished Senator
Moss, President McKay, Mr. Brown, Secretary Udall, Governor, Mr. Rawlings, ladies and
gentlemen:
I appreciate your welcome, and I am very proud to be back in this historic building and
have an opportunity to say a few words on some matters which concern me as President,
and I hope concern you as citizens. The fact is, I take strength and hope in seeing this
monument, hearing its story retold by Ted Moss, and recalling how this State was built, and
what it started with, and what it has now.
Of all the stories of American pioneers and settlers, none is more inspiring than the
Mormon trail. The qualities of the founders of this community are the qualities that we seek
in America, the qualities which we like to feel this country has, courage, patience, faith,
self-reliance, perseverance, and, above all, an unflagging determination to see the right
prevail.
I came on this trip to see the United States, and I can assure you that there is nothing more
encouraging for any of us who work in Washington than to have a chance to fly across this
United States, and drive through it, and see what a great country it is, and come to
understand somewhat better how this country has been able for so many years to carry so
many burdens in so many parts of the world.
The primary reason for my trip was conservation, and I include in conservation first our
human resources and then our natural resources, and I think this State can take perhaps its
greatest pride and its greatest satisfaction for what it has done, not in the field of the
conservation and the development of natural resources, but what you have done to educate
your children. This State has a higher percentage per capita of population of its boys and
girls who finish high school and then go to college.
Of all the waste in the United States in the 1960's, none is worse than to have 8 or 9 million
boys and girls who will drop out, statistics tell us, drop out of school before they have
finished, come into the labor market unprepared at the very time when machines are taking
the place of men and women--9 million of them. We have a large minority of our
population who have not even finished the sixth grade, and here in this richest of all
countries, the country which spreads the doctrine of freedom and hope around the globe,
we permit our most valuable resource, our young people, their talents to be wasted by
leaving their schools.
So I think we have to save them. I think we have to insist that our children be educated to
the limit of their talents, not just in your State, or in Massachusetts, but all over the United
States. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who developed the Northwest Ordinance,
which put so much emphasis on education--Thomas Jefferson once said that any nation
which expected to be ignorant and free, hopes for what never was and never will be. So I
hope we can conserve this resource.
The other is the natural resource of our country, particularly the land west of the 100th
parallel, where the rain comes 15 or 20 inches a year. This State knows that the control of
water is the secret of the development of the West, and whether we use it for power, or for
irrigation, or for whatever purpose, no drop of water west of the 100th parallel should flow
to the ocean without being used. And to do that requires the dedicated commitment of the
people of the States of the West, working with the people of all the United States who have
such an important equity in the richness of this part of the country. So that we must do also.
As Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot did it in years past, we must do it
in the 1960's and 1970's. We will triple the population of this country in the short space of
60 or 70 years, and we want those who come after us to have the same rich inheritance that
we find now in the United States. This is the reason for the trip, but it is not what I wanted
to speak about tonight.
I want to speak about the responsibility that I feel the United States has not in this country,
but abroad, and I see the closest interrelationship between the strength of the United States
here at home and the strength of the United States around the world. There is one great
natural development here in the United States which has had in its own way a greater effect
upon the position and influence and prestige of the United States, almost, than any other act
we have done. Do you know what it is? It is the Tennessee Valley. Nearly every leader of
every new emerging country that comes to the United States wants to go to New York, to
Washington, and the Tennessee Valley, because they want to see what we were able to do
with the most poverty-ridden section of the United States in the short space of 30 years, by
the wise management of our resources.
What happens here in this country affects the security of the United States and the cause of
freedom around the globe. If this is a strong, vital, and vigorous society, the cause of
freedom will be strong and vital and vigorous.
I know that many of you in this State and other States sometimes wonder where we are
going and why the United States should be so involved in so many affairs, in so many
countries all around the globe. If our task on occasion seems hopeless, if we despair of ever
working our will on the other 94 percent of the world population, then let us remember that
the Mormons of a century ago were a persecuted and prosecuted minority, harried from
place to place, the victims of violence and occasionally murder, while today, in the short
space of 100 years, their faith and works are known and respected the world around, and
their voices heard in the highest councils of this country.
As the Mormons succeeded, so America can succeed, if we will not give up or turn back. I
realize that the burdens are heavy and I realize that there is a great temptation to urge that
we relinquish them, that we have enough to do here in the United States, and we should not
be so busy around the globe. The fact of the matter is that we, this generation of
Americans, are the first generation of our country ever to be involved in affairs around the
globe. From the ginning of this country, from the days of Washington, until the Second
World War, this country lived an isolated existence. Through most of our history we were
an unaligned country, an uncommitted nation, a neutralist nation. We were by statute as
well as by desire. We had believed that we could live behind our two oceans in safety and
prosperity in a comfortable distance from the rest of the world.
The end of isolation consequently meant a wrench with the very lifeblood, the very spine,
of the Nation. Yet, as time passed, we came to see that the end of isolation was not such a
terrible error or evil after all. We came to see that it was the inevitable result of growth, the
economic growth, the military growth, and the cultural growth of the United States. No
nation so powerful and so dynamic and as rich as our own could hope to live in isolation
from other nations, especially at a time when science and technology was making the world
so small.
It took Brigham Young and his followers 108 days to go from Winter Quarters, Nebraska,
to the valley of the Great Salt Lake. It takes 30 minutes for a missile to go from one
continent to another. We did not seek to become a world power. This position was thrust
upon us by events. But we became one just the same, and I am proud that we did.
I can well understand the attraction of those earlier days. Each one of us has moments of
longing for the past, but two world wars have clearly shown us, try as we may, that we
cannot turn our back on the world outside. If we do, we jeopardize our economic well-
being, we jeopardize our political stability, we jeopardize our physical safety.
To turn away now is to abandon the world to those whose ambition is to destroy a free
society. To yield these burdens up after having carried them for more than 20 years is to
surrender the freedom of our country inevitably, for without the United States, the chances
of freedom surviving, let alone prevailing around the globe, are nonexistent.
Americans have come a long way in accepting in a short time the necessity of world
involvement, but the strain of this involvement remains and we find it all over the country.
I see it in the letters that come to my desk every day. We find ourselves entangled with
apparently unanswerable problems in unpronounceable places. We discover that our enemy
in one decade is our ally the next. We find ourselves committed to governments whose
actions we cannot often approve, assisting societies with principles very different from our
own.
The burdens of maintaining an immense military establishment with one million
Americans serving outside our frontiers, of financing a far-flung program of development
assistance, of conducting a complex and baffling diplomacy, all weigh heavily upon us and
cause some to counsel retreat.
The world is full of contradiction and confusion, and our policy seems to have lost the
black and white clarity of simpler times when we remembered the Maine and went to War.
It is little wonder, then, in this confusion, we look back to the old days with nostalgia. It is
little wonder that there is a desire in the country to go back to the time when our Nation
lived alone. It is little wonder that we increasingly want an end to entangling alliances, an
end to all help to foreign countries, a cessation of diplomatic relations with countries or
states whose principles we dislike, that we get the United Nations out of the United States,
and the United States out of the United Nations, and that we retreat to our own hemisphere,
or even within our own boundaries, to take refuge behind a wall of force.
This is an understandable effort to recover an old feeling of simplicity, yet in world affairs,
as in all other aspects of our lives, the days of the quiet past are gone forever. Science and
technology are irreversible. We cannot return to the day of the sailing schooner or the
covered wagon, even if we wished. And if this Nation is to survive and succeed in the real
world of today, we must acknowledge the realities of the world; and it is those realities that
I mention now.
We must first of all recognize that we cannot remake the world simply by our own
command. When we cannot even bring all of our own people into full citizenship without
acts of violence, we can understand how much harder it is to control events beyond our
borders.
Every nation has its own traditions, its own values, its own aspirations. Our assistance from
time to time can help other nations preserve their independence and advance their growth,
but we cannot remake them in our own image. We cannot enact their laws, nor can we
operate their governments or dictate our policies.
Second, we must recognize that every tion determines its policies in terms of its own
interests. "No nation," George Washington wrote, "is to be trusted farther than it is bound
by its interest; and no prudent statesman or politician will depart from it." National interest
is more powerful than ideology, and the recent developments within the Communist empire
show this very clearly. Friendship, as Palmerston said, may rise or wane, but interests
endure.
The United States has rightly determined, in the years since 1945 under three different
administrations, that our interest, our national security, the interest of the United States of
America, is best served by preserving and protecting a world of diversity in which no one
power or no one combination of powers can threaten the security of the United States. The
reason that we moved so far into the world was our fear that at the end of the war, and
particularly when China became Communist, that Japan and Germany would collapse, and
these two countries which had so long served as a barrier to the Soviet advance, and the
Russian advance before that, would open up a wave of conquest of all of Europe and all of
Asia, and then the balance of power turning against us we would finally be isolated and
ultimately destroyed. That is what we have been engaged in for 18 years, to prevent that
happening, to prevent any one monolithic power having sufficient force to destroy the
United States.
For that reason we support the alliances in Latin America; for that reason we support
NATO to protect the security of Western Europe; for that reason we joined SEATO to
protect the security of Asia-so that neither Russia nor China could control Europe and Asia,
and if they could not control Europe and Asia, then our security was assured. This is what
we have been involved in doing. And however dangerous and hazardous it may be, and
however close it may take us to the brink on occasion, which it has, and however tired we
may get of our involvements with these governments so far away, we have one simple
central theme of American foreign policy which all of us must recognize, because it is a
policy which we must continue to follow, and that is to support the independence of nations
so that one bloc cannot gain sufficient power to finally overcome us. There is no mistaking
the vital interest of the United States in what goes on around the world. Therefore,
accepting what George Washington said here, I realize that what George Washington said
about no intangling alliances has been ended by science and technology and danger.
And third, we must recognize that foreign policy in the modern world does not lend itself
to easy, simple black and white solution. If we were to have diplomatic relations only with
those countries whose principles we approved of, we would have relations with very few
countries in a very short time. If we were to withdraw our assistance from all governments
who are run differently from our own, we would relinquish half the world immediately to
our adversaries. If we were to treat foreign policy as merely a medium for delivering self-
righteous sermons to supposedly inferior people, we would give up all thought of world
influence or world leadership.
For the purpose of foreign policy is not to provide an outlet for our own sentiments of hope
or indignation; it is to shape real events in a real world. We cannot adopt a policy which
says that if something does not happen, or others do not do exactly what we wish, we will
return to "Fortress America." That is the policy in this changing world of retreat, not of
strength.
More important, to adopt a black or white, all or nothing policy subordinates our interest to
our irritations. Its actual consequences would be fatal to our security. If we were to resign
from the United Nations, break off with all countries of whom we disapprove, end foreign
aid and assistance to those countries in an attempt to keep them free, call for the
resumption of atmospheric nuclear testing, and turn our back on the rest of mankind, we
would not only be abandoning America's influence in the world, we would be inviting a
Communist expansion which every Communist power would so greatly welcome. And all
of the effort of so many Americans for 18 years would be gone with the wind. Our policy
under those conditions, in this dangerous world, would not have much deterrent effect in a
world where nations determined to be free could no longer count on the United States.
Such a policy of retreat would be folly if we had our backs to the wall. It is surely even
greater folly at a time when more realistic, more responsible, more affirmative policies
have wrought such spectacular resuits. For the most striking thing about our world in 1963
is the extent to which the tide of history has begun to flow in the direction of freedom. To
renounce the world of freedom now, to abandon those who share our commitment, and
retire into lonely and not so splendid isolation, would be to give communism the one hope
which, in this twilight of disappointment for them, might repair their divisions and rekindle
their hope.
For after some gains in the fifties the Communist offensive, which claimed to be riding the
tide of historic inevitability, has been thwarted and turned back in recent months. Indeed,
the whole theory of historical inevitability, the belief that all roads must lead to
communism, sooner or later, has been shattered by the determination of those who believe
that men and nations will pursue a variety of roads, that each nation will evolve according
to its own traditions and its own aspirations, and that the world of the future will have room
for a diversity of economic systems, political creeds, religious faiths, united by the respect
for others, and loyalty to a world order.
Those forces of diversity which served Mr. Washington's national interest--those forces of
diversity are in the ascendancy today, even within the Communist empire itself. And our
policy at this point should be to give the forces of diversity, as opposed to the forces of
uniformity, which our adversaries espouse, every chance, every possible support. That is
why our assistance program, so much maligned, of assisting countries to maintain their
freedom, I believe, is important.
This country has seen all of the hardship and the grief that has come to us by the loss of one
country in this hemisphere, Cuba. How many other countries must be lost if the United
States decides to end the programs that are helping these people, who are getting poorer
every year, who have none of the resources of this great country, who look to us for help,
but on the other hand in cases look to the Communists for example?
That is why I think this program is important. It is a means of assisting those who want to
be free, and in the final analysis it serves the United States in a very real sense. That is why
the United Nations is important, not because it can solve all these problems in this
imperfect world, but it does give us a means, in those great moments of crisis, and in the
last 21/2 years we have had at least three, when the Soviet Union and the United States
were almost face to face on a collision course--it does give us a means of providing, as it
has in the Congo, as it now is on the border of the Yemen, as it most recently was in a
report of the United Nations at Malaysia--it does give a means to mobilize the opinion of
the world to prevent an atomic disaster which would destroy us all wherever we might live.
That is why the test ban treaty is important as a first step, .perhaps to be disappointed,
perhaps to find ourselves ultimately set back, but at least in 1963 the United States
committed itself, and the Senate of the United States, by an overwhelming vote, to one
chance to end the radiation and the possibilities of burning.
It may be, as I said, that we may fail, but anyone who bothers to look at the true destructive
power of the atom today and what we and the Soviet Union could do to each other and the
world in an hour and in a day, and to Western Europe--I passed over yesterday the Little
Big Horn where General Custer was slain, a massacre which has lived in history, 400 or
500 men. We are talking about 300 million men and women m 24 hours.
I think it is wise to take a first step to lessen the possibility of that happening. And that is
why our diplomacy is important. For the forces making for diversity are to be found
everywhere where people are, even within the Communist empire, and it is our obligation
to encourage those forces wherever they may be found. Hard and discouraging questions
remain in Viet-Nam, in Cuba, in Laos, the Congo, all around the globe. The ordeal of the
emerging nations has just begun. The control of nuclear weapons is still incomplete. The
areas of potential friction, the chances of collision, still exist.
But in every one of these areas the position of the United States, I believe, is happier and
safer when history is going for us rather than when it is going against us. And we have
history going for us today, but history is what men make it. The future is what men make it.
We cannot fulfill our vision and our commitment and our interest in a free and diverse
future without unceasing vigilance, devotion, and, most of all, perseverance, a willingness
to stay with it, a willingness to do with fatigue, a willingness not to accept easy answers,
but instead, to maintain the burden, as the 'people of this State have done for 100 years, and
as the United States must do the rest of this century until finally we live in a peaceful
world.
Therefore, I think this country will continue its commitments to support the world of
freedom, for as we discharge that commitment we are heeding the command which
Brigham Young heard from the Lord more than a century ago, the command he conveyed
to his followers, "Go as pioneers . . . to a land of peace."
Thank you.
NOTE: In his opening words the President referred to Frank E. Moss, U.S. Senator from
Utah; David O. McKay, President of the Mormon Church, and Hugh B. Brown, his First
Counselor; Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior; George Dewey Clyde, Governor of
Utah; and Calvin W. Rawlings of Salt Lake City, Democratic National Committeeman for
Utah.
Remarks at the Signing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,

October 7, 1963
Treaty Room, The White House, Washington, D.C.
Date: October 07, 1963
Ladies and gentlemen:
In its first two decades the age of nuclear energy has been full of fear, yet never empty of
hope. Today the fear is a little less and the hope a little greater. For the first time we have
been able to reach an agreement which can limit the dangers of this age.
The agreement itself is limited, but its message of hope has been heard and understood not
only by the peoples of the three originating nations, but by the peoples and governments of
the hundred other countries that have signed. This treaty is the first fruit of labor in which
multitudes have shared--citizens, legislators, statesmen, diplomats, and soldiers, too.
Soberly and unremittingly this Nation-but never this Nation alone-- has sought the doorway
to effective disarmament into a world where peace is secure. Today we have a beginning
and it is right for us to acknowledge all whose work across the years has helped make this
beginning possible.
What the future will bring, no one of us can know. This first fruit of hope may or may not
be followed by larger harvests. Even this limited treaty, great as it is with promise, can
survive only if it has from others the determined support in letter and in spirit which I
hereby pledge in behalf of the United States.
If this treaty fails, it will not be our doing, and even if it fails, we shall not regret that we
have made this clear and honorable national commitment to the cause of man's survival.
For under this treaty we can and must still keep our vigil in defense of freedom.
But this treaty need not fail. This small step toward safety can be followed by others longer
and less limited, if also harder in the taking. With our courage and understanding enlarged
by this achievement, let us press onward in quest of man's essential desire for peace.
As President of the United States and with the advice and consent of the Senate, I now sign
the instruments of ratification of this treaty.
NOTE: The President spoke in the Treaty Room at the White House.
The treaty entered into force on October 10, 1963, and was proclaimed by the President on
the same day. The text of the treaty is printed in Item 314.
Remarks at Amherst College

Amherst, Massachusetts
October 26, 1963
Mr. McCloy, President Plimpton, Mr. MacLeish, distinguished guests, ladies and
gentlemen:
I am very honored to be here with you on this occasion which means so much to this
college and also means so much to art and the progress of the United States. This college is
part of the United States. It belongs to it. So did Mr. Frost, in a large sense. And, therefore,
I was privileged to accept the invitation somewhat rendered to me in the same way that
Franklin Roosevelt rendered his invitation to Mr. MacLeish, the invitation which I received
from Mr. McCloy. The powers of the Presidency are often described. Its limitations should
occasionally be remembered. And therefore when the Chairman of our Disarmament
Advisory Committee, who has labored so long and hard, Governor Stevenson's assistant
during the very difficult days at the United Nations during the Cuban crisis, a public
servant for so many years, asks or invites the President of the United States, there is only
one response. So I am glad to be here.
Amherst has had many soldiers of the king since its first one, and some of them are here
today: Mr. McCloy, who has long been a public servant; Jim Reed who is the Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury; President Cole, who is now our Ambassador to Chile; Mr.
Ramey, who is a Commissioner of the Atomic Energy Commission; Dick Reuter, who is
head of the Food for Peace. These and scores of others down through the years have
recognized the obligations of the advantages which the graduation from a college such as
this places upon them to serve not only their private interest but the public interest as well.
Many years ago, Woodrow Wilson said, what good is a political party unless it is serving a
great national purpose? And what good is a private college or university unless it is serving
a great national purpose? The Library being constructed today, this college, itself--all of
this, of course, was not done merely to give this school's graduates an advantage, an
economic advantage, in the life struggle. It does do that. But in return for that, in return for
the great opportunity which society gives the graduates of this and related schools, it seems
to me incumbent upon this and other schools' graduates to recognize their responsibility to
the public interest.
Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. And I think, as your president said,
that it must be a source of satisfaction to you that this school's graduates have recognized it.
I hope that the students who are here now will also recognize it in the future. Although
Amherst has been in the forefront of extending aid to needy and talented students, private
colleges, taken as a whole, draw 50 percent of their students from the wealthiest 10 percent
of our Nation. And even State universities and other public institutions derive 25 percent of
their students from this group. In March 1962, persons of 18 years or older who had not
completed high school made up 46 percent of the total labor force, and such persons
comprised 64 percent of those who were unemployed. And in 1958, the lowest fifth of the
families in the United States had 4 1/2 percent of the total personal income, the highest
fifth, 44 1/2 percent. There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty.
And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running
start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad
sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities
back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which
our democracy are based are bound to be fallible.
The problems which this country now faces are staggering, both at home and abroad. We
need the service, in the great sense, of every educated man or woman to find 10 million
jobs in the next 2 1/2 years, to govern our relations--a country which lived in isolation for
150 years, and is now suddenly the leader of the free world--to govern our relations with
over 100 countries, to govern those relations with success so that the balance of power
remains strong on the side of freedom, to make it possible for Americans of all different
races and creeds to live together in harmony, to make it possible for a world to exist in
diversity and freedom. All this requires the best of all of us.
Therefore, I am proud to come to this college, whose graduates have recognized this
obligation and to say to those who are now here that the need is endless, and I am confident
that you will respond.
Robert Frost said:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
I hope that road will not be the less traveled by, and I hope your commitment to the Great
Republic's interest in the years to come will be worthy of your long inheritance since your
beginning.
This day devoted to the memory of Robert Frost offers an opportunity for reflection which
is prized by politicians as well as by others, and even by poets, for Robert Frost was one of
the granite figures of our time in America. He was supremely two things: an artist and an
American. A nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces but also by the men it
honors, the men it remembers.
In America, our heroes have customarily run to men of large accomplishments. But today
this college and country honors a man whose contribution was not to our size but to our
spirit, not to our political beliefs but to our insight, not to our self-esteem, but to our self-
comprehension. In honoring Robert Frost, we therefore can pay honor to the deepest
sources of our national strength. That strength takes many forms, and the most obvious
forms are not always the most significant. The men who create power make an
indispensable contribution to the Nation's greatness, but the men who question power make
a contribution just as indispensable, especially when that questioning is disinterested, for
they determine whether we use power or power uses us.
Our national strength matters, but the spirit which informs and controls our strength matters
just as much. This was the special significance of Robert Frost. He brought an unsparing
instinct for reality to bear on the platitudes and pieties of society. His sense of the human
tragedy fortified him against self-deception and easy consolation. "I have been" he wrote,
"one acquainted with the night." And because he knew the midnight as well as the high
noon, because he understood the ordeal as well as the triumph of the human spirit, he gave
his age strength with which to overcome despair. At bottom, he held a deep faith in the
spirit of man, and it is hardly an accident that Robert Frost coupled poetry and power, for
he saw poetry as the means of saving power from itself. When power leads men towards
arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the areas of man's
concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of his existence. When power
corrupts, poetry cleanses. For art establishes the basic human truth which must serve as the
touchstone of our judgment.
The artist, however faithful to his personal vision of reality, becomes the last champion of
the individual mind and sensibility against an intrusive society and an officious state. The
great artist is thus a solitary figure. He has, as Frost said, a lover's quarrel with the world. In
pursuing his perceptions of reality, he must often sail against the currents of his time. This
is not a popular role. If Robert Frost was much honored in his lifetime, it was because a
good many preferred to ignore his darker truths. Yet in retrospect, we see how the artist's
fidelity has strengthened the fibre of our national life.
If sometimes our great artist have been the most critical of our society, it is because their
sensitivity and their concern for justice, which must motivate any true artist, makes him
aware that our Nation falls short of its highest potential. I see little of more importance to
the future of our country and our civilization than full recognition of the place of the artist.
If art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his
vision wherever it takes him. We must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it
is a form of truth. And as Mr. MacLeish once remarked of poets, there is nothing worse for
our trade than to be in style. In free society art is not a weapon and it does not belong to the
spheres of polemic and ideology. Artists are not engineers of the soul. It may be different
elsewhere. But democratic society--in it, the highest duty of the writer, the composer, the
artist is to remain true to himself and to let the chips fall where they may. In serving his
vision of the truth, the artist best serves his nation. And the nation which disdains the
mission of art invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having "nothing to
look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."
I look forward to a great future for America, a future in which our country will match its
military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our
purpose. I look forward to an America which will not be afraid of grace and beauty, which
will protect the beauty of our natural environment, which will preserve the great old
American houses and squares and parks of our national past, and which will build
handsome and balanced cities for our future.
I look forward to an America which will reward achievement in the arts as we reward
achievement in business or statecraft. I look forward to an America which will steadily
raise the standards of artistic accomplishment and which will steadily enlarge cultural
opportunities for all of our citizens. And I look forward to an America which commands
respect throughout the world not only for its strength but for its civilization as well. And I
look forward to a world which will be safe not only for democracy and diversity but also
for personal distinction.
Robert Frost was often skeptical about projects for human improvement, yet I do not think
he would disdain this hope. As he wrote during the uncertain days of the Second War:
Take human nature altogether since time
began . . .
And it must be a little more in favor of
man,
Say a fraction of one percent at the very
least . . .
Our hold on this planet wouldn't have so
increased.
Because of Mr. Frost's life and work, because of the life and work of this college, our hold
on this planet has increased.
Remarks at the Ground Breaking for the Robert Frost

Library at Amherst College, October 26, 1963
Amherst, Massachusetts
Date: October 26, 1963
Mr. McCloy, President Plimpton, members of the trustees, ladies and gentlemen:
I am privileged to join you as a classmate of Archibald MacLeish's, and to participate here
at Amherst, and to participate in this ceremony.
I knew Mr. Frost quite late in his life, in really the last 4 or 5 years, and I was impressed, as
I know all you were who knew him, by a good many qualities, but also by his toughness.
He gives the lie, as a good many other poets have, to the fact that poets are rather sensitive
creatures who live in the dark of the garret. He was very hardboiled in his approach to life,
and his desires for our country. He once said that America is the country you leave only
when you want to go out and lick another country. He was not particularly belligerent in
his relations, his human relations, but he felt very strongly that the United States should be
a country of power, of force, to use that power and force wisely. But he once said to me not
to let the Harvard in me get to be too important. So we have followed that advice.
Home, he once wrote, is the place where when you have to go there they have to take you
in. And Amherst took him in. This was his home off and on for 22 years. The fact that he
chose this college, this campus, when he could have gone anywhere and would have been
warmly welcomed, is a tribute to you as much as it is to Mr. Frost.
When he was among you, he once said, "I put my students on the operating table" and
proceeded to take ideas they didn't know they had out of them. The great test of a college
student's chances, he also wrote, is when we know the sort of work for which he will
neglect his studies.
In 1937 he said of Amherst, "I have reason to think they like to have me here." And now
you are going to have him here for many, many years. Professor Kittredge, at Harvard,
once said that they could take down all the buildings of Harvard, and if they kept Widener
Library, Harvard would still exist.
Libraries are memories and in this library you will have the memory of an extraordinary
American; much more than that, really--an extraordinary human being. And also you will
have the future, and all the young men who come into this library will touch something of
distinction in our national life, and, I hope, give something to it.
I am proud to be associated with this great enterprise.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 1:20 p.m. In his opening remarks he referred to John J.
McCloy, chairman of the board of trustees of Amherst College, Calvin H. Plimpton,
president of the college, and Archibald MacLeish, who with the President was awarded an
honorary degree of doctor of laws.
Remarks before the Protestant Council of New York

New York City
November 8, 1963
Dr. Kinsolving, Dr. Sockman, Rev. Potter, Father Morgan, Rabbi Rosenblum, Mr. Mayor, Governor Stevenson, Mr.
Champion, Mr. Leidesdorf, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:
I had wondered what I would do when I retired from the Presidency, whenever that time might come, but Dr. Sockman
was the first man to suggest work as challenging as the Presidency in becoming chairman of the Protestant Council's
annual dinner, and I am very grateful to him.
I also regret very much that another honored guest of this dinner on a previous occasion is not with us tonight. I follow
his career with more interest than he might imagine. In his quest for the Presidency, Governor Rockefeller follows the
example of other distinguished New Yorkers-Wendell Willkie, Thomas Dewey, Richard Nixon, and I wish him some
margin of success.
I am gratified to receive this award from the Council, and I am impressed by what you are doing here in the city, and I
think that the words of Reverend Potter bear very careful reflection by us all. The United States is not in the position
which England was when Benjamin Disraeli described it as: two nations divided, the rich and the poor. This is generally
a prosperous country, but there is a stream of poverty that runs across the United States which is not exposed to the lives
of a good many of us and, therefore, we are relatively unaware of it except statistically. It is concentrated to a large
measure in the large cities from which, as he said, so many people are moving out. It is concentrated in some of our rural
areas.
The New York Times two weeks ago, I think, had an article by Mr. Bigart on desperate poverty in several rural counties
of eastern Kentucky-schools which were without windows, sometimes with occasional teachers, counties without
resources to distribute the surplus food that we make available. And what is true in some of the older coal mining areas
of the United States is very true in our cities. We see it in some of our statistics, where we have a mental retardation rate
for our children of three times that of Sweden, where we have an infant mortality rate behind half the countries of
Europe, plus we have about 8 million boys and girls in this decade who will drop out of school, and a good many of
them out of work. And this Council, and the religious leaders of the Catholic faith and Jewish faith have a great
responsibility not only for the moral life of the community, but also for the well-being of those who have been left
behind.
We are attempting, in cooperation with the State and the city, as Reverend Potter described, to carry out a pilot program
here in the city of New York, but it is only a beginning, and there are hundreds of thousands without resources, and we
have a responsibility to all of them. We have it in Washington. Schools were integrated a few years ago. About half the
population of Washington is Negro. Today about 85 percent of the children in the schools of Washington are Negro.
Other whites who are more prosperous generally have moved away and left the problem behind. So I commend this
council for its concern for the Family of Man here in the city of New York, and I hope its efforts will be matched by
others in other cities across the country, and that we will remember in this very rich, constantly increasing prosperity
that there are some for whom we have a responsibility.
I want to speak tonight very briefly, however, about the Family of Man beyond the United States. Just as the Family of
Man is not limited to a single race or religion, neither can it be limited to a single city or country. The Family of Man is
more than 3 billion strong. It lives in more than 100 nations. Most of its members are not white. Most of them are not
Christians. Most of them know nothing about free enterprise or due process of law or the Australian ballot.
If our society is to promote the Family of Man, let us realize the magnitude of our task. This is a sobering assignment.
For the Family of Man in the world of today is not faring very well.
The members of a family should be at peace with one another, but they are not. And the hostilities are not confined to
the great powers of the East and the West. On the contrary, the United States and the Soviet Union, each fully aware of
their mutually destructive powers and their worldwide responsibilities and obligations, have on occasion sought to
introduce a greater note of caution in their approach to areas of conflict.
Yet lasting peace between East and West would not bring peace to the Family of Man. Within the last month, the last
four weeks, the world has witnessed active or threatened hostilities in a dozen or more disputes independent of the
struggle between communism and the free world-disputes between Africans and Europeans in Angola, between North
African neighbors in the Maghreb, between two Arab states over Yemen, between India and Pakistan, between
Indonesia and Malaysia, Cambodia and Viet-Nam, Ethiopia and Somalia, and a long list of others.
In each of these cases of conflict, neither party can afford to divert to these needless hostilities the precious resources
that their people require. In almost every case, the parties to these disputes have more in common ethnically and
ideologically than do the Soviet Union and the United States-yet they often seem less able and less willing to get
together and negotiate. In almost every case, their continuing conflict invites outside intervention and threatens
worldwide escalation-yet the major powers are hard put to limit events in these areas.
As I said recently at the United Nations, even little wars are dangerous in this nuclear world. The long labor of peace is
an under taking for every nation, large and small, for every member of the Family of Man. "In this effort none of us can
remain unaligned. To this goal none can be uncommitted." If the Family of Man cannot achieve greater unity and
harmony, the very planet which serves as its home may find its future in peril.
But there are other troubles besetting the human family. Many of its members live in poverty and misery and despair.
More than one out of three, according to the FAO, suffers from malnutrition or under-nutrition or both-while more than
one in ten live "below the breadline." Two out of every five adults on this planet are, according to UNESCO, illiterate.
One out of eight suffers from trachoma or lives in an area where malaria is still a clear and present danger. Ten million-
nearly as many men, women, and children as inhabit this city and Los Angeles combined-still suffer from leprosy; and
countless others suffer from yaws or tuberculosis or intestinal parasites.
For the blessings of life have not been distributed evenly to the Family of Man. Life expectancy in this most fortunate of
nations has reached the Biblical 3 score years and 10; but in the less developed nations of Africa, Asia, and Latin
America, the overwhelming majority of infants cannot expect to live even 2 score years and 5. In those vast continents,
more than half of the children of primary school age are not in school. More than half the families live in substandard
dwellings. More than half the people live on less than $100 a year. Two out of every three adults are illiterate.
The Family of Man can survive differences of race and religion. Contrary to the assertions of Mr. Khrushchev, it can
accept differences of ideology, politics, and economics. But it cannot survive, in the form in which we know it, a nuclear
war-and neither can it long endure the growing gulf between the rich and the poor.
The rich must help the poor. The industrialized nations must help the developing nations. And the United States, along
with its allies, must do better-not worse-by its foreign aid program, which is now being subjected to such intense debate
in the Senate of the United States.
Too often we advance the need of foreign aid only in terms of our economic self-interest. To be sure, foreign aid is in
our economic self-interest. It provides more than a half a million jobs for workers in every State. It finances a rising
share of our exports and builds new and growing export markets. It generates the purchase of military and civilian
equipment by other governments in this country. It makes possible the stationing of 3 1/2 million troops along the
Communist periphery at a price one-tenth the cost of maintaining a comparable number of American soldiers. And it
helps to stave off the kind of chaos or Communist takeover or Communist attack that would surely demand our critical
and costly attention. The Korean conflict alone, forgetting for a moment the thousands of Americans who lost their
lives, cost four times as much as our total world-wide aid budget for the current year.
But foreign aid is not advanced only out of American economic self-interest. The gulf between rich and poor which
divides the Family of Man is an invitation to agitators, subversives, and aggressors. It encourages the ambitions of those
who desire to dominate the world, which threatens the peace and freedom of us all.
"Never has there been any question in my mind," President Eisenhower said recently, "as to the necessity of a program
of economic and military aid to keep the free nations of the world from being overrun by the Communists. It is that
simple."
This is not a partisan matter. For 17 years, through three administrations, this program has been supported by Presidents
and leaders of both parties. It is being supported today in the Congress by those in leadership on both sides of the aisle
who recognize the urgency of this program in the achievement of peace and freedom. Yet there are still those who are
unable or unwilling to accept these simple facts-who find it politically convenient to denounce foreign aid on the one
hand, and in the same sentence to denounce the Communist menace. I do not say that there have been no mistakes in aid
administration. I do not say it has purchased for us lasting popularity or servile satellites. I do say it is one essential
instrument in the creation of a better, more peaceful world. I do say that it has substituted strength for weakness all over
the globe, encouraging nations struggling to be free to stand on their own two feet. And I do not say that merely because
others may not bear their share of the burden that it is any excuse for the United States not to meet its responsibility.
To those who say it has been a failure, how can we measure success-by the economic viability of 14 nations in Western
Europe, Japan, Spain, Lebanon, where our economic aid, after having completed its task, has ended; by the refusal of a
single one of the more than 50 new members of the United Nations to go the Communist route; by the reduction of
malaria in India, for example, from 75 million cases to 2,000; by the 18,000 classrooms and 4 million textbooks
bringing learning to Latin America under the infant Alliance for Progress?
Nearly two years ago my wife and I visited Bogotá, Colombia, where a vast new Alliance for Progress housing project
was just getting under way. Earlier this year I received a letter from the first resident of this 1200 new home
development. "Now," he wrote, "we have dignity and liberty."
Dignity and liberty-these words are the foundation, as they have been since '47, of the mutual security program. For the
dignity and liberty of all free men, of a world of diversity where the balance of power is clearly on the side of free
nations, is essential to the security of the United States. And to weaken and water down the pending program, to confuse
and confine its flexibility with rigid restrictions and rejections, will not only harm our economy, it will hamper our
security. It will waste our present investment and it will, above all, forfeit our obligation to our fellow man, obligations
that stem from our wealth and strength, from our devotion to freedom and from our membership in the Family of Man.
I think we can meet those obligations. I think we can afford to fulfill these commitments around the world when 90
percent of them are used to purchase goods and services here in the United States, including, for example, one-third of
this Nation's total fertilizer exports, one-fourth of our iron and steel exports around the world, one-third of our
locomotive exports. A cut of $1 billion in our total foreign aid program may save $100 million in our balance of
payments-but it costs us $900 million in exports.
I think the American people are willing to shoulder this burden. Contrary to repeated warnings, prophecies, and
expressions of hope, in the 17 years since the Marshall plan began, I know of no single officeholder who was ever
defeated because he supported this program, and the burden is less today than ever before. Despite the fact that this
year's AID request is about $1 billion less than the average request of the last 15 years, many Members of Congress
today complain that 4 percent of our Federal budget is too much to devote to foreign aid-yet in 1951 that program
amounted to nearly 20 percent of our budget-20 percent in 1951, and 4 percent today. They refuse today to vote more
than $4 billion to this effort-yet in 1951 when this country was not nearly as well off, the Congress voted $8 billion to
the same cause. They are fearful today of the effects of sending to other people seven-tenths of 1 percent of our gross
national product-but in 1951 we devoted nearly four times that proportion to this purpose, and concentrated in a very
limited area, unlike today when our obligations stretch around the globe.
This Congress has already reduced this year's aid budget $600 million below the amount recommended by the Clay
committee. Is this Nation stating it cannot afford to spend an additional $600 million to help the developing nations of
the world become strong and free and independent-an amount less than this country's annual outlay for lipstick, face
cream, and chewing gum? Are we saying that we cannot help 19 needy neighbors in Latin America and do as much for
the 19 as the Communist bloc is doing for the Island of Cuba alone?
Some say that they are tiring of this task, or tired of world problems and their complexities, or tired of hearing those
who receive our aid disagree with us. But are we tired of living in a free world? Do we expect that world overnight to be
like the United States? Are we going to stop now merely because we have not produced complete success?
I do not believe our adversaries are tired and I cannot believe that the United States of America in 1963 is fatigued.
Surely the Americans of the 1960s can do half as well as the Americans of the 1950s. Surely we are not going to throw
away our hopes and means for peaceful progress in an outburst of irritation and frustration. I do not want it said of us
what T. S. Eliot said of others some years ago: "These were a decent people. Their only monument: the asphalt road and
a thousand lost golf balls." I think we can do better than that.
My fellow Americans, I hope we will be guided by our interests. I hope we will recognize that the struggle is by no
means over; that it is essential that we not only maintain our effort, but that we persevere; that we not only endure, in
Mr. Faulkner's words, but also prevail. It is essential, in short, that the word go forth from the United States to all who
are concerned about the future of the Family of Man; that we are not weary in well-doing. And we shall, I am confident,
if we maintain the pace, we shall in due season reap the kind of world we deserve and deserve the kind of world we will
have.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke in the Grand Ballroom of the Hilton Hotel in New York City following the presentation to
him of the Council's Family of Man Award. His opening words referred to Rev. Dr. Arthur L. Kinsolving, rector of St.
James Episcopal Church in New York City and president of the Protestant Council, who presented the award; Rev. Dr.
Ralph W. Sockman, minister emeritus of Christ Church, Methodist, of New York City, who introduced the special
guests; Rev. Dr. Dan Potter, executive director of the Council; Father Kenneth Morgan of the diocese of Brooklyn, co-
chairman of the Committee of Religious Leaders in the City of New York, who offered the invocation; Rabbi William F.
Rosenblum of Temple Israel in New York City, co-chairman of the Committee of Religious Leaders in the City of New
York, who gave the benediction; Robert F. Wagner, mayor of New York City; Adlai E. Stevenson, U.S. Representative
to the United Nations and former Governor of Illinois; George Champion, chairman of the board of the Chase
Manhattan Bank, who served as chairman of the dinner committee; and Samuel D. Leidesdorf, an executive of the
United Jewish Appeal, the treasurer of the dinner committee.
Remarks at the Dedication of the

Aerospace Medical Health Center
San Antonio, Texas
November 21, 1963
Mr. Secretary, Governor, Mr. Vice President, Senator, Members of the Congress, members
Of the military, ladies and gentlemen:
For more than 3 years I have spoken about the New Frontier. This is not a partisan term,
and it is not the exclusive property of Republicans or Democrats. It refers, instead, to this
Nation's place in history, to the fact that we do stand on the edge of a great new era, filled
with both crisis and opportunity, an era to be characterized by achievement and by
challenge. It is an era which calls for action and for the best efforts of all those who would
test the unknown and the uncertain in every phase of human endeavor. It is a time for
pathfinders and pioneers.
I have come to Texas today to salute an outstanding group of pioneers, the men who man
the Brooks Air Force Base School of Aerospace Medicine and the Aerospace Medical
Center. It is fitting that San Antonio should be the site of this center and this school as we
gather to dedicate this complex of buildings. For this city has long been the home of the
pioneers in the air. It was here that Sidney Brooks, whose memory we honor today, was
born and raised. It was here that Charles Lindbergh and Claire Chennault, and a host of
others, who, in World War I and World War II and Korea, and even today have helped
demonstrate American mastery of the skies, trained at Kelly Field and Randolph Field,
which form a major part of aviation history. And in the new frontier of outer space, while
headlines may be made by others in other places, history is being made every day by the
men and women of the Aerospace Medical Center, without whom there could be no
history.
Many Americans make the mistake of assuming that space research has no values here on
earth. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just as the wartime development of radar
gave us the transistor, and all that it made possible, so research in space medicine holds the
promise of substantial benefit for those of us who are earthbound. For our effort in space is
not as some have suggested, a competitor for the natural resources that we need to develop
the earth. It is a working partner and a coproducer of these resources. And nothing makes
this clearer than the fact that medicine in space is going to make our lives healthier and
happier here on earth.
I give you three examples: first, medical space research may open up new understanding of
man's relation to his environment. Examinations of the astronaut's physical, and mental,
and emotional reactions can teach us more about the differences between normal and
abnormal, about the causes and effects of disorientation, about changes in metabolism
which could result in extending the life span. When you study the effects on our astronauts
of exhaust gases which can contaminate their environment, and you seek ways to alter
these gases so as to reduce their toxicity, you are working on problems similar to those in
our great urban centers which themselves are being corrupted by gases and which must be
clear.
And second, medical space research may revolutionize the technology and the techniques
of modern medicine. Whatever new devices are created, for example, to monitor our
astronauts, to measure their heart activity, their breathing, their brain waves, their eye
motion, at great distances and under difficult conditions, will also represent a major
advance in general medical instrumentation. Heart patients may even be able to wear a light
monitor which will sound a warning if their activity exceeds certain limits. An instrument
recently developed to record automatically the impact of acceleration upon an astronaut's
eyes will also be of help to small children who are suffering miserably from eye defects,
but are unable to describe their impairment. And also by the use of instruments similar to
those used in Project Mercury, this Nation's private as well as public nursing services are
being improved, enabling one nurse now to give more critically ill patients greater attention
than they ever could in the past.
And third, medical space research may lead to new safeguards against hazards common to
many environments. Specifically, our astronauts will need fundamentally new devices to
protect them from the ill effects of radiation which can have a profound influence upon
medicine and man's relations to our present environment.
Here at this center we have the laboratories, the talent, the resources to give new impetus to
vital research in the life centers. I am not suggesting that the entire space program is
justified alone by what is done in medicine. The space program stands on its own as a
contribution to national strength. And last Saturday at Cape Canaveral I saw our new
Saturn C-1 rocket booster, which, with its payload, when it rises in December of this year,
will be, for the first time, the largest booster in the world, carrying into space the largest
payload that any country in the world has ever sent into space.
I think the United States should be a leader. A country as rich and powerful as this which
bears so many burdens and responsibilities, which has so many opportunities, should be
second to none. And in December, while I do not regard our mastery of space as anywhere
near complete, while I recognize that there are still areas where we are behind--at least in
one area, the size of the booster--this year I hope the United States will be ahead. And I am
for it. We have a long way to go. Many weeks and months and years of long, tedious work
lie ahead. There will be setbacks and frustrations and disappointments. There will be, as
there always are, pressures in this country to do less in this area as in so many others, and
temptations to do something else that is perhaps easier. But this research here must go on.
This space effort must go on. The conquest of space must and will go ahead. That much we
know. That much we can say with confidence and conviction.
Frank O'Connor, the Irish writer, tells in one of his books how, as a boy, he and his friends
would make their way across the countryside, and when they came to an orchard wall that
seemed too high and too doubtful to try and too difficult to permit their voyage to continue,
they took off their hats and tossed them over the wall--and then they had no choice but to
follow them.
This Nation has tossed its cap over the wall of space, and we have no choice but to follow
it. Whatever the difficulties, they will be overcome. Whatever the hazards, they must be
guarded against. With the vital help of this Aerospace Medical Center, with the help of all
those who labor in the space endeavor, with the help and support of all Americans, we will
climb this wall with safety and with speed-and we shall then explore the wonders on the
other side.
Thank you.
Remarks at the Breakfast of the Fort Worth Chamber of
Commerce, November 22, 1963
The Coliseum, Houston, Texas
Mr. Buck, Mr. Vice President, Governor Connally, Senator Yarborough, Jim Wright,
members of the congressional delegation, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Attorney General, ladies and
gentlemen:
Two years ago, I introduced myself in Paris by saying that I was the man who had
accompanied Mrs. Kennedy to Paris. I am getting somewhat that same sensation as I travel
around Texas. Nobody wonders what Lyndon and I wear.
I am glad to be here in Jim Wright's city. About 35 years ago, a Congressman from
California who had just been elected received a letter from an irate constituent which said:
"During the campaign you promised to have the Sierra Madre Mountains reforested. You
have been in office one month and you haven't done so." Well, no one in Fort Worth has
been that unreasonable, but in some ways he has had the Sierra Madre Mountains
reforested, and here in Fort Worth he has contributed to its growth.
He speaks for Fort Worth and he speaks for the country, and I don't know any city that is
better represented in the Congress of the United States than Fort Worth. And if there are
any Democrats here this morning, I am sure you wouldn't hold that against him.
Three years ago last September I came here, with the Vice President, and spoke at Burke
Burnett Park, and I called, in that speech, for a national security policy and a national
security system which was second to none--a position which said not first, but, if, when and
how, but tint. That city responded to that call as it has through its history. And we have
been putting that pledge into practice ever since.
And I want to say a word about that pledge here in Fort Worth, which understands national
defense and its importance to the security of the United States. During the days of the
Indian War, this city was a fort. During the days of World War I, even before the United
States got into the war, Royal Canadian Air Force pilots were training here. During the
days of World War II, the great Liberator bombers, in which my brother flew with his co-
pilot from this city, were produced here.
The first nonstop flight around the world took off and returned here, in a plane built in
factories here. The first truly intercontinental bomber, the B-36, was produced here. The
B-58, which is the finest weapons system in the world today, which has demonstrated most
recently in flying from Tokyo to London, with an average speed of nearly 1,000 miles per
hour, is a Fort Worth product.
The Iroquois helicopter from Fort Worth is a mainstay in our fight against the guerrillas in
South Viet-Nam. The transportation of crews between our missile sites is done in planes
produced here in Fort Worth. So wherever the confrontation may occur, and in the last 3
years it has occurred on at least three occasions, in Laos, Berlin, and Cuba, and it will
again--wherever it occurs, the products of Fort Worth and the men of Fort Worth provide
us with a sense of security.
And in the not too distant future a new Fort Worth product--and I am glad that there was a
table separating Mr. Hicks and myself--a new Fort Worth product, the TFX Tactical
Fighter Experimental--nobody knows what those words mean, but that is what they mean,
Tactical Fighter Experimental--will serve the forces of freedom and will be the number one
airplane in the world today.
There has been a good deal of discussion of the long and hard fought competition to win
the TFX contract, but very little discussion about what this plane will do. It will be the first
operational aircraft ever produced that can literally spread its wings through the air. It will
thus give us a single plane capable of carrying out missions of speed as well as distance,
able to fly very far in one form or very fast in another. It can take off from rugged, short
airstrips, enormously increasing the Air Force's ability to participate in limited wars. The
same basic plane will serve the Navy's carriers, saving the taxpayers at least $1 billion in
costs if they built separate planes for the Navy and the Air Force.
The Government of Australia, by purchasing $125 million of TFX planes before they are
even off the drawing boards, has already testified to the merit of this plane, and at the same
time it is confident in the ability of Fort Worth to meet its schedule. In all these ways, the
success of our national defense depends upon this city in the western United States, 10,000
miles from Viet-Nam, 5,000 or 6,000 miles from Berlin, thousands of miles from trouble
spots in Latin America and Africa or the Middle East. And yet Fort Worth and what it does
and what it produces participates in all these great historic events. Texas, as a whole, and
Fort Worth bear particular responsibility for this national defense effort, for military
procurement in this State totals nearly $1 1/4 billion, fifth highest among all the States of
the Union. There are more military personnel on active duty in this State than any in the
Nation, save one--and it is not Massachusetts-any in the Nation save one, with a combined
military-civilian defense payroll of well over a billion dollars. I don't recite these for any
partisan purpose. They are the result of American determination to be second to none, and
as a result of the effort which this country has made in the last 3 years we are second to
none.
In the past 3 years we have increased the defense budget of the United States by over 20
percent; increased the program of acquisition for Polaris submarines from 24 to 41;
increased our Minuteman missile purchase program by more than 75 percent; doubled the
number of strategic bombers and missiles on alert; doubled the number of nuclear weapons
available in the strategic alert forces; increased the tactical nuclear forces deployed in
Western Europe by over 60 percent; added five combat ready divisions to the Army of the
United States, and five tactical fighter wings to the Air Force of the United States;
increased our strategic airlift capability by 75 percent; and increased our special counter-
insurgency forces which are engaged now in South Viet-Nam by 600 percent. I hope those
who want a stronger America and place it on some signs will also place those figures next
to it.
This is not an easy effort. This requires sacrifice by the people of the United States. But
this is a very dangerous and uncertain world. As I said earlier, on three occasions in the last
3 years the United States has had a direct confrontation. No one can say when it will come
again. No one expects that our life will be easy, certainly not in this decade, and perhaps
not in this century. But we should realize what a burden and responsibility the people of the
United States have borne for so many years. Here, a country which lived in isolation,
divided and protected by the Atlantic and the Pacific, uninterested in the struggles of the
world around it, here in the short space of 18 years after the Second World War, we put
ourselves, by our own will and by necessity, into defense of alliances with countries all
around the globe. Without the United States, South Viet-Nam would collapse overnight.
Without the United States, the SEATO alliance would collapse overnight. Without the
United States the CENTO alliance would collapse overnight. Without the United States
there would be no NATO. And gradually Europe would drift into neutralism and
indifference. Without the efforts of the United States in the Alliance for Progress, the
Communist advance onto the mainland of South America would long ago have taken place.
So this country, which desires only to be free, which desires to be secure, which desired to
live at peace for 18 years under three different administrations, has borne more than its
share of the burden, has stood watch for more than its number of years. I don't think we are
fatigued or tired. We would like to live as we once lived. But history will not permit it. The
Communist balance of power is still strong. The balance of power is still on the side of
freedom. We are still the keystone in the arch of freedom, and I think we will continue to
do as we have done in our past, our duty, and the people of Texas will be in the lead.
So I am glad to come to this State which has played such a significant role in so many
efforts in this century, and to say that here in Fort Worth you people will be playing a
major role in the maintenance of the security of the United States for the next 10 years. I
am confident, as I look to the future, that our chances for security, our chances for peace,
are better than they have been in the past. And the reason is because we are stronger. And
with that strength is a determination to not only maintain the peace, but also the vital
interests of the United States. To that great cause, Texas and the United States are
committed.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9 a.m. (c.s.t.) in the Texas Hotel in Fort Worth. In his
opening words he referred to Raymond Buck, president of the Fort Worth Chamber of
Commerce, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, and to Governor John B. Cormally,
Senator Ralph W. Yarborough, Representative Jim Wright, Byron Tunnell, Speaker of the
State House of Representatives, and Waggorier Cart, State Attorney General, all of Texas.
He later referred to Marion Hicks, a vice president of Fort Worth General Dynamics and
vice president of the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce.
Editor's Note
After the breakfast at the Texas Hotel in Fort Worth the President flew to Love Field in
Dallas. There he acknowledged greetings for a brief period and then entered an open car.
The motorcade traveled along a 10-mile route through downtown Dallas on its way to the
Trade Mart, where the President planned to speak at a luncheon. At approximately 12:30
p.m. (c.s.t.) he was struck by two bullets fired by an assassin.
The President was pronounced dead at 1 p.m. at the Parkland Hospital in Dallas.
Items 477 and 478 consist of the advance text of remarks which the President was
scheduled to make that day in Dallas and in Austin.
Remarks Prepared for Delivery at the Trade Mart in

Dallas
November 22, 1963
I am honored to have this invitation to address the annual meeting of the Dallas Citizens Council, joined by the members
of the Dallas Assembly--and pleased to have this opportunity to salute the Graduate Research Center of the Southwest.
It is fitting that these two symbols of Dallas progress are united in the sponsorship of this meeting. For they represent
the best qualities, I am told, of leadership and learning in this city--and leadership and learning are indispensable to each
other. The advancement of learning depends on community leadership for financial and political support and the
products of that learning, in turn, are essential to the leadership's hopes for continued progress and prosperity. It is not a
coincidence that those communities possessing the best in research and graduate facilities--from MIT to Cal Tech--tend
to attract the new and growing industries. I congratulate those of you here in Dallas who have recognized these basic
facts through the creation of the unique and forward-looking Graduate Research Center.
This link between leadership and learning is not only essential at the community level. It is even more indispensable in
world affairs. Ignorance and misinformation can handicap the progress of a city or a company, but they can, if allowed
to prevail in foreign policy, handicap this country's security. In a world of complex and continuing problems, in a world
full of frustrations and irritations, America's leadership must be guided by the lights of learning and reason or else those
who confuse rhetoric with reality and the plausible with the possible will gain the popular ascendancy with their
seemingly swift and simple solutions to every world problem.
There will always be dissident voices heard in the land, expressing opposition without alternatives, finding fault but
never favor, perceiving gloom on every side and seeking influence without responsibility. Those voices are inevitable.
But today other voices are heard in the land--voices preaching doctrines wholly unrelated to reality, wholly unsuited to
the sixties, doctrines which apparently assume that words will suffice without weapons, that vituperation is as good as
victory and that peace is a sign of weakness. At a time when the national debt is steadily being reduced in terms of its
burden on our economy, they see that debt as the greatest single threat to our security. At a time when we are steadily
reducing the number of Federal employees serving every thousand citizens, they fear those supposed hordes of civil
servants far more than the actual hordes of opposing armies.
We cannot expect that everyone, to use the phrase of a decade ago, will "talk sense to the American people." But we can
hope that fewer people will listen to nonsense. And the notion that this Nation is headed for defeat through deficit, or
that strength is but a matter of slogans, is nothing but just plain nonsense.
I want to discuss with you today the status of our strength and our security because this question clearly calls for the
most responsible qualities of leadership and the most enlightened products of scholarship. For this Nation's strength and
security are not easily or cheaply obtained, nor are they quickly and simply explained. There are many kinds of strength
and no one kind will suffice. Overwhelming nuclear strength cannot stop a guerrilla war. Formal pacts of alliance cannot
stop internal subversion. Displays of material wealth cannot stop the disillusionment of diplomats subjected to
discrimination.
Above all, words alone are not enough. The United States is a peaceful nation. And where our strength and
determination are clear, our words need merely to convey conviction, not belligerence. If we are strong, our strength will
speak for itself. If we are weak, words will be of no help.
I realize that this Nation often tends to identify turning-points in world affairs with the major addresses which preceded
them. But it was not the Monroe Doctrine that kept all Europe away from this hemisphere--it was the strength of the
British fleet and the width of the Atlantic Ocean. It was not General Marshall's speech at Harvard which kept
communism out of Western Europe--it was the strength and stability made possible by our military and economic
assistance.
In this administration also it has been necessary at times to issue specific warnings--warnings that we could not stand by
and watch the Communists conquer Laos by force, or intervene in the Congo, or swallow West Berlin, or maintain
offensive missiles on Cuba. But while our goals were at least temporarily obtained in these and other instances, our
successful defense of freedom was due not to the words we used, but to the strength we stood ready to use on behalf of
the principles we stand ready to defend.
This strength is composed of many different elements, ranging from the most massive deterrents to the most subtle
influences. And all types of strength are needed--no one kind could do the job alone. Let us take a moment, therefore, to
review this Nation's progress in each major area of strength.
I.
First, as Secretary McNamara made clear in his address last Monday, the strategic nuclear power of the United States
has been so greatly modernized and expanded in the last 1,000 days, by the rapid production and deployment of the most
modern missile systems, that any and all potential aggressors are clearly confronted now with the impossibility of
strategic victory--and the certainty of total destruction--if by reckless attack they should ever force upon us the necessity
of a strategic reply.
In less than 3 years, we have increased by 50 percent the number of Polaris submarines scheduled to be in force by the
next fiscal year, increased by more than 70 percent our total Polaris purchase program, increased by more than 75
percent our Minuteman purchase program, increased by 50 percent the portion of our strategic bombers on 15-minute
alert, and increased by too percent the total number of nuclear weapons available in our strategic alert forces. Our
security is further enhanced by the steps we have taken regarding these weapons to improve the speed and certainty of
their response, their readiness at all times to respond, their ability to survive an attack, and their ability to be carefully
controlled and directed through secure command operations.
II.
But the lessons of the last decade have taught us that freedom cannot be defended by strategic nuclear power alone. We
have, therefore, in the last 3 years accelerated the development and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons, and
increased by 60 percent the tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe.
Nor can Europe or any other continent rely on nuclear forces alone, whether they are strategic or tactical. We have
radically improved the readiness of our conventional forces--increased by 45 percent the number of combat ready Army
divisions, increased by 100 percent the procurement of modern Army weapons and equipment, increased by 100 percent
our ship construction, conversion, and modernization program, increased by too percent our procurement of tactical
aircraft, increased by 30 percent the number of tactical air squadrons, and increased the strength of the Marines. As last
month's "Operation Big Lift"--which originated here in Texas--showed so clearly, this Nation is prepared as never
before to move substantial numbers of men in surprisingly little time to advanced positions anywhere in the world. We
have increased by 175 percent the procurement of airlift aircraft, and we have already achieved a 75 percent increase in
our existing strategic airlift capability. Finally, moving beyond the traditional roles of our military forces, we have
achieved an increase of nearly 600 percent in our special forces--those forces that are prepared to work with our allies
and friends against the guerrillas, saboteurs, insurgents and assassins who threaten freedom in a less direct but equally
dangerous manner.
III.
But American military might should not and need not stand alone against the ambitions of international communism.
Our security and strength, in the last analysis, directly depend on the security and strength of others, and that is why our
military and economic assistance plays such a key role in enabling those who live on the periphery of the Communist
world to maintain their independence of choice. Our assistance to these nations can be painful, risky and costly, as is
true in Southeast Asia today. But we dare not weary of the task. For our assistance makes possible the stationing of 3-5
million allied troops along the Communist frontier at one-tenth the cost of maintaining a comparable number of
American soldiers. A successful Communist breakthrough in these areas, necessitating direct United States intervention,
would cost us several times as much as our entire foreign aid program, and might cost us heavily in American lives as
well.
About 70 percent of our military assistance goes to nine key countries located on or near the borders of the Communist
bloc--nine countries confronted directly or indirectly with the threat of Communist aggression--Viet-Nam, Free China,
Korea, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Greece, Turkey, and Iran. No one of these countries possesses on its own the resources
to maintain the forces which our own Chiefs of Staff think needed in the common interest. Reducing our efforts to train,
equip, and assist their armies can only encourage Communist penetration and require in time the increased overseas
deployment of American combat forces. And reducing the economic help needed to bolster these nations that undertake
to help defend freedom can have the same disastrous result. In short, the $50 billion we spend each year on our own
defense could well be ineffective without the $4 billion required for military and economic assistance.
Our foreign aid program is not growing in size, it is, on the contrary, smaller now than in previous years. It has had its
weaknesses, but we have undertaken to correct them. And the proper way of treating weaknesses is to replace them with
strength, not to increase those weaknesses by emasculating essential programs. Dollar for dollar, in or out of
government, there is no better form of investment in our national security than our much-abused foreign aid program.
We cannot afford to lose it. We can afford to maintain it. We can surely afford, for example, to do as much for our 19
needy neighbors of Latin America as the Communist bloc is sending to the island of Cuba alone.
IV.
I have spoken of strength largely in terms of the deterrence and resistance of aggression and attack. But, in today's
world, freedom can be lost without a shot being fired, by ballots as well as bullets. The success of our leadership is
dependent upon respect for our mission in the world as well as our missiles--on a clearer recognition of the virtues of
freedom as well as the evils of tyranny.
That is why our Information Agency has doubled the shortwave broadcasting power of the Voice of America and
increased the number of broadcasting hours by 30 percent, increased Spanish language broadcasting to Cuba and Latin
America from I to 9 hours a day, increased seven-fold to more than 3-5 million copies the number of American books
being translated and published for Latin American readers, and taken a host of other steps to carry our message of truth
and freedom to all the far corners of the earth.
And that is also why we have regained the initiative in the exploration of outer space, making an annual effort greater
than the combined total of all space activities undertaken during the fifties, launching more than 130 vehicles into earth
orbit, putting into actual operation valuable weather and communications satellites, and making it clear to all that the
United States of America has no intention of finishing second in space.
This effort is expensive--but it pays its own way, for freedom and for America. For there is no longer any fear in the free
world that a Communist lead in space will become a permanent assertion of supremacy and the basis of military
superiority. There is no longer any doubt about the strength and skill of American science, American industry, American
education, and the American free enterprise system. In short, our national space effort represents a great gain in, and a
great resource of, our national strength--and both Texas and Texans are contributing greatly to this strength.
Finally, it should be clear by now that a nation can be no stronger abroad than she is at home. Only an America which
practices what it preaches about equal rights and social justice will be respected by those whose choice affects our
future. Only an America which has fully educated its citizens is fully capable of tackling the complex problems and
perceiving the hidden dangers of the world in which we live. And only an America which is growing and prospering
economically can sustain the worldwide defenses of freedom, while demonstrating to all concerned the opportunities of
our system and society.
It is clear, therefore, that we are strengthening our security as well as our economy by our recent record increases in
national income and output--by surging ahead of most of Western Europe in the rate of business expansion and the
margin of corporate profits, by maintaining a more stable level of prices than almost any of our overseas competitors,
and by cutting personal and corporate income taxes by some $ I I billion, as I have proposed, to assure this Nation of the
longest and strongest expansion in our peacetime economic history.
This Nation's total output--which 3 years ago was at the $500 billion mark--will soon pass $600 billion, for a record rise
of over $too billion in 3 years. For the first time in history we have 70 million men and women at work. For the first
time in history average factory earnings have exceeded $100 a week. For the first time in history corporation profits
after taxes--which have risen 43 percent in less than 3 years--have an annual level f $27.4 billion.
My friends and fellow citizens: I cite these facts and figures to make it clear that America today is stronger than ever
before. Our adversaries have not abandoned their ambitions, our dangers have not diminished, our vigilance cannot be
relaxed. But now we have the military, the scientific, and the economic strength to do whatever must be done for the
preservation and promotion of freedom.
That strength will never be used in pursuit of aggressive ambitions--it will always be used in pursuit of peace. It will
never be used to promote provocations--it will always be used to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes.
We in this country, in this generation, are--by destiny rather than choice--the watchmen on the walls of world freedom.
We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with
wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of "peace on earth, good
will toward men." That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength.
For as was written long ago: "except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain."
Remarks Intended for Delivery to the Texas Democratic

State Committee in the Municipal Auditorium in Austin
November 22, 1963
One hundred and eighteen years ago last March, President John Tyler signed the Joint Resolution of Congress providing
statehood for Texas. And 118 years ago this month, President James Polk declared that Texas was a part of the Union.
Both Tyler and Polk were Democratic Presidents. And from that day to this, Texas and the Democratic Party have been
linked in an indestructible alliance--an alliance for the promotion of prosperity, growth, and greatness for Texas and for
America.
Next year that alliance will sweep this State and Nation.
The historic bonds which link Texas and the Democratic Party are no temporary union of convenience. They are deeply
embedded in the history and purpose of this State and party. For the Democratic Party is not a collection of diverse
interests brought together only to win elections. We are united instead by a common history and heritage--by a respect
for the deeds of the past and a recognition of the needs of the future. Never satisfied with today, we have always staked
our fortunes on tomorrow. That is the kind of State which Texas has always been--that is the kind of vision and vitality
which Texans have always possessed--and that is the reason why Texas will always be basically Democratic.
For 118 years, Texas and the Democratic Party have contributed to each other's success. This State's rise to prosperity
and wealth came primarily from the policies and programs of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman.
Those policies were shaped and enacted with the help of such men as the late Sam Rayburn and a host of other key
Congressmen--by the former Texas Congressman and Senator who serves now as my strong right arm, Vice President
Lyndon B. Johnson--by your present United States Senator, Ralph Yarborough--and by an overwhelming proportion of
Democratic leadership at the State and county level, led by your distinguished Governor, John Connally.
It was the policies and programs of the Democratic Party which helped bring income to your farmers, industries to your
cities, employment to your workers, and the promotion and preservation of your natural resources. No one who
remembers the days of 5-cent cotton and 30-cent oil will forget the ties between the success of this State and the success
of our party.
Three years ago this fall I toured this State with Lyndon Johnson, Sam Rayburn, and Ralph Yarborough as your party's
candidate for President. We pledged to increase America's strength against its enemies, its prestige among its friends,
and the opportunities it offered to its citizens. Those pledges have been fulfilled. The words spoken in Texas have been
transformed into action in Washington, and we have America moving again.
Here in Austin, I pledged in 1960 to restore world confidence in the vitality and energy of American society. That
pledge has been fulfilled. We have won the respect of allies and adversaries alike through our determined stand on
behalf of freedom around the world, from West Berlin to Southeast Asia--through our resistance to Communist
intervention in the Congo and Communist missiles in Cuba--and through our initiative in obtaining the nuclear test ban
treaty which can stop the pollution of our atmosphere and start us on the path to peace. In San José and Mexico City, in
Bonn and West Berlin, in Rome and County Cork, I saw and heard and felt a new appreciation for an America on the
move--an America which has shown that it cares about the needy of its own and other lands, an America which has
shown that freedom is the way to the future, an America which is known to be first in the effort for peace as well as
preparedness.
In Amarillo, I pledged in 1960 that the businessmen of this State and Nation--particularly the small businessman who is
the backbone of our economy--would move ahead as our economy moved ahead. That pledge has been fulfilled.
Business profits--having risen 43 percent in 2 years--now stand at a record high; and businessmen all over America are
grateful for liberalized depreciation for the investment tax credit, and for our programs to increase their markets at home
as well as abroad. We have proposed a massive tax reduction, with particular benefits for small business. We have
stepped up the activities of the Small Business Administration, making available in the last 3 years almost $50 million to
more than 1,000 Texas firms, and doubling their opportunity to share in Federal procurement contracts. Our party
believes that what's good for the American people is good for American business, and the last 3 years have proven the
validity of that proposition.
In Grand Prairie, I pledged in 1960 that this country would no longer tolerate the lowest rate of economic growth of any
major industrialized nation in the world. That pledge has been and is being fulfilled. In less than 3 years our national
output will shortly have risen by a record $100 billion--industrial production is Up 22 percent, personal income is up 16
percent. And the Wall Street Journal pointed out a short time ago that the United States now leads most of Western
Europe in the rate of business expansion and the margin of corporate profits. Here in Texas--where 3 years ago at the
very time I was speaking, real per capita personal income was actually declining as the industrial recession spread to this
State--more than 200,000 new jobs have been created, unemployment has declined, and personal income rose last year
to an all time high. This growth must go on. Those not sharing in this prosperity must be helped. And that is why we
have an accelerated public works program, an area redevelopment program, and a manpower training program, to keep
this and other States moving ahead. And that is why we need a tax cut of $11 billion, as an assurance of future growth
and insurance against an early recession. No period of economic recovery in the peacetime history of this Nation has
been characterized by both the length and strength of our present expansion--and we intend to keep it going.
In Dallas, I pledged in 1960 to step up the development of both our natural and our human resources. That pledge has
been fulfilled. The policy of "no new starts" has been reversed. The Canadian River project will provide water for 11
Texas cities. The San Angelo project will irrigate some 10,000 acres. We have launched 10 new watershed projects in
Texas, completed 7 others, and laid plans for 6 more. A new national park, a new wildlife preserve, and other
navigation, reclamation, and natural resource projects are all under way in this State. At the same time we have sought
to develop the human resources of Texas and all the Nation, granting loans to 17,500 Texas college students, making
more than $17 million available to 249 school districts, and expanding or providing rural library service to 600,000
Texas readers. And if this Congress passes, as now seems likely, pending bills to build college classrooms, increase
student loans, build medical schools, provide more community libraries, and assist in the creation of graduate centers,
then this Congress will have done more for the cause of education than has been done by any Congress in modern
history. Civilization, it was once said, is a race between education and catastrophe--and we intend to win that race for
education.
In Wichita Falls, I pledged in 1960 to increase farm income and reduce the burden of farm surpluses. That pledge has
been fulfilled. Net farm income today is almost a billion dollars higher than in 1960. In Texas, net income per farm
consistently averaged below the $4,000 mark under the Benson regime; it is now well above it. And we have raised this
income while reducing grain surpluses by one billion bushels. We have, at the same time, tackled the problem of the
entire rural economy, extending more than twice as much credit to Texas farmers under the Farmers Home
Administration, and making more than 100 million dollars in REA loans. We have not solved all the problems of
American agriculture, but we have offered hope and a helping hand in place of Mr. Benson's indifference.
In San Antonio, I pledged in 1960 that a new administration would strive to secure for every American his full
constitutional rights. That pledge has been and is being fulfilled. We have not yet secured the objectives desired or the
legislation required. But we have, in the last 3 years, by working through voluntary leadership as well as legal action,
opened more new doors to members of minority groups--doors to transportation, voting, education, employment, and
places of public accommodation--than had been opened in any 3-year or 30-year period in this century. There is no
noncontroversial way to fulfill our constitutional pledge to establish justice and promote domestic tranquillity, but we
intend to fulfill those obligations because they are right.
In Houston, I pledged in 1960 that we would set before the American people the unfinished business of our society. That
pledge has been fulfilled. We have undertaken the first full-scale revision of our tax laws in 10 years. We have launched
a bold new attack on mental illness, emphasizing treatment in the patient's own home community instead of some vast
custodial institution. We have initiated a full-scale attack on mental retardation, emphasizing prevention instead of
abandonment. We have revised our public welfare programs, emphasizing family rehabilitation instead of humiliation.
And we have proposed a comprehensive realignment of our national transportation policy, emphasizing equal
competition instead of regulation. Our agenda is still long, but this country is moving again.
In El Paso, I pledged in 1960 that we would give the highest and earliest priority to the reestablishment of good relations
with the people of Latin America. We are working to fulfill that pledge. An area long neglected has not solved all its
problems. The Communist foothold which had already been established has not yet been eliminated. But the trend of
Communist expansion has been reversed. The name of Fidel Castro is no longer feared or cheered by substantial
numbers in every country. And contrary to the prevailing predictions of 3 years ago, not another inch of Latin American
territory has fallen prey to Communist control. Meanwhile, the work of reform and reconciliation goes on. I can testify
from my trips to Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, and Costa Rica that American officials are no longer booed and spat
upon south of the border. Historic fences and friendships are being maintained. Latin America, once the forgotten
stepchild of our aid programs, now receives more economic assistance per capita than any other area of the world. In
short, the United States is once more identified with the needs and aspirations of the people to the south, and we intend
to meet those needs and aspirations.
In Texarkana, I pledged in 1960 that our country would no longer engage in a lagging space effort. That pledge has been
fulfilled. We are not yet first in every field of space endeavor, but we have regained worldwide respect for our scientists,
our industry, our education, and our free initiative.
In the last 3 years, we have increased our annual space effort to a greater level than the combined total of all space
activities undertaken in the 1950's. We have launched into earth orbit more than 4 times as many space vehicles as had
been launched in the previous 3 years. We have focused our wide-ranging efforts around a landing on the moon in this
decade. We have put valuable weather and communications satellites into actual operation. We will fire this December
the most powerful rocket ever developed anywhere in the world. And we have made it clear to all that the United States
of America has no intention of finishing second in outer space. Texas will play a major role in this effort. The Manned
Spacecraft Center in Houston will be the cornerstone of our lunar landing project, with a billion dollars already allocated
to that center this year. Even though space is an infant industry, more than 3,000 people are already employed in space
activities here in Texas, more than $100 million of space contracts are now being worked on in this State, and more than
50 space-related firms have announced the opening of Texas offices. This is still a daring and dangerous frontier; and
there are those who would prefer to turn back or to take a more timid stance. But Texans have stood their ground on
embattled frontiers before, and I know you will help us see this battle through.
In Fort Worth, I pledged in 1960 to build a national defense which was second to none--a position I said, which is not
"first, but," not "first, if," not "first, when," but first--period. That pledge has been fulfilled. In the past 3 years we have
increased our defense budget by over 20 percent; increased the program for acquisition of Polaris submarines from 24 to
41; increased our Minuteman missile purchase program by more than 75 percent; doubled the number of strategic
bombers and missiles on alert; doubled the number of nuclear weapons available in the strategic alert forces; increased
the tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe by 60 percent; added 5 combat ready divisions and 5 tactical
fighter wings to our Armed Forces; increased our strategic airlift capabilities by 75 percent; and increased our special
counter-insurgency forces by 600 percent. We can truly say today, with pride in our voices and peace in our hearts, that
the defensive forces of the United States are, without a doubt, the most powerful and resourceful forces anywhere in the
world.
Finally, I said in Lubbock in 1960, as I said in every other speech in this State, that if Lyndon Johnson and I were
elected, we would get this country moving again. That pledge has been fulfilled. In nearly every field of national
activity, this country is moving again--and Texas is moving with it. From public works to public health, wherever
Government programs operate, the past 3 years have seen a new burst of action and progress--in Texas and all over
America. We have stepped up the fight against crime and slums and poverty in our cities, against the pollution of our
streams, against unemployment in our industry, and against waste in the Federal Government. We have built hospitals
and clinics and nursing homes. We have launched a broad new attack on mental illness and mental retardation. We have
initiated the training of more physicians and dentists. We have provided 4 times as much housing for our elderly
citizens, and we have increased benefits for those on social security.
Almost everywhere we look, the story is the same. In Latin America, in Africa, in Asia, in the councils of the world and
in the jungles of far-off nations, there is now renewed confidence in our country and our convictions.
For this country is moving and it must not stop. It cannot stop. For this is a time for courage and a time for challenge.
Neither conformity nor complacency will do. Neither the fanatics nor the faint-hearted are needed. And our duty as a
party is not to our party alone, but to the Nation, and, indeed., to all mankind. Our duty is not merely the preservation of
political power but the preservation of peace and freedom.
So let us not be petty when our cause is so great. Let us not quarrel amongst ourselves when our Nation's future is at
stake. Let us stand together with renewed confidence in our cause--united in our heritage of the past and our hopes for
the future--and determined that this land we love shall lead all mankind into new frontiers of peace and abundance.

John F. Kennedy&#39;s Speeches 1947-1963

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

John F. Kennedy&#39;s Speeches 1947-1963

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOHN

Independence Day Speech 1946

Mr. Mayor; Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Boston College,

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the New

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy before the Young

Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy at New York

Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy at Bridgeport

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Jefferson-

Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy at the Executive

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy before the Boston

Address at the Sixth Annual Conference of the Council

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy for the

Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy at the

Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy, Chattanooga,

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy on the Saint

Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy at the Cathedral

Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy at meeting of The

Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy at the

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy to the American

Speech by Senator John F. Kennedy on H.R. 5173 before

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Senate Finance Committee:

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy during his

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy on Indochina

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy for the Cook

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy on the Boston

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Princeton

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy before the

Partial remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy before The

Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy on "The

Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy on Defense

Statement on Revisions in the Social Security Law

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy on Federal Flood

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy before the Annual

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the 6th Annual

Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy at the Annual

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Women's

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy upon Presentation

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Jefferson-

Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy at Yankee

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Conference

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy introducing

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Harvard

Commencement Address by Senator John F. Kennedy at

Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy at the Democratic

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at United

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Los Angeles

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Annual

Remarks given at the Springfield Rotary Club,

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy on New England

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the American

Remarks by Senator John F. Kennedy at Irish Institute,

Suggested Opening for Speech:

Sagest in the council was he, kindest in the Hall:

Remarks of John F. Kennedy at a Dinner Honoring The

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the National

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Universal

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy (Dem. - Mass.)

Statement of Senator John F. Kennedy, Chairman,

This copy was released to the press.

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Symposium of

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Annual

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Democratic

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Luncheon of

John F. Kennedy's Speeches 1947-1963

John F. Kennedy's Speeches 1947-1963