Decatur Daily Democrat, Volume 62, Number 256, Decatur, Adams County, 29 October 1964 — Page 4

PAGE FOUR

Two Speeches The following two speeches were given by Sen. Barry Goldwater, Republican candidate for president of the United States, and Hubert 11. Humphrey, Democratic candidate for vice-presi-dent of the United States, to the 400 UPI editors and publishers assembled in Washington on October 7. These speeches outline what the two major party candidates feel are the issues for the national election Nov. 7; they are presented to the voters to help them clarify what the candidates stand for and stand against. Regardless of how you intend to vote, be sure to express your opinion next Tuesday, Nov. 3!

Sen. Goldwater: Like a parachutist whose rip cord har jammed, you gentlemen are in some danger, it seems to me, of jumping to a conclusion. Two, as a matter of fact.

The first is that there is no contest in this election. The second is that there are no issues. There’s no sense in arguing the first point here. It’s interesting, however .to check in the field. A few of your reporters have done it, I know. Most are content to rely on polls, and tend to ignore a grass roots political movement that reminds some of us of 1948 when there wasn’t any contest either. One of the reporters on our recent Whistle Stop has a typical explanation of why he discounted the crowds at each Os our stops. ‘•Why,’’ he said, ’’they're nothing but supporters.’’ The second point Is the one to which I want to address myself — the issues: There are two kinds of deafness that can explain why a person would say that there are no issues in this campaign. One is mechanical. Some people just assume that some sort of Socialism — or whatever name they give It — Is inevitable, that most Americans really favor it, and that the only real jxilitical issues are choices between how far or how fast. I take violent exception to that. The great domestic issue of this entire campaign is whether we will take a path that leads to Socialism, or whether we will get back on a road of individual freedom, individual responsibility '.and individual initiative. For obvious political reasons, there are some-pepole who would like to cqpfine this entire discussion to such programs’ as Social Security. They say I’m against it and Lyndon Johnson is for it’ The facts, of course, are quite different. I support social security. My voting record proves that. But I have also supported and will continue to support private programs, union programs, company programs, and individual programs of security for older age. This Administration, on the other hand, wants to tack so many thinks onto the Social Security System that the Inevitable result would be the elimination of the private programs altogether and, eventually, the bankruptcy of even the Social Security System itself. This isn't partisan gloom and doom either. France is facing , just this situation today. There is a clear choice. The choice isn’t whether we’re going to keep Social Security. Os course, we are. The choice is whether we are going to leave room for any other programs. I say we should. The Administration says, by its actions, if not by its words, that we can afford to sacrifice the private plans and eventually wind up with nothing but a Federal plan. That is an issue. It is the sort of issue that we can see at every turn. Are we going to leave room for any sort of individualism in this country or are we going to sacrifice it all to the demands and the supposed benefits of Government control? It would be a lot simpler, of course, if the Administration would speak in terms of Socialism and control — as well as in terms of benefits — but we won’t hold our breath waiting for that? Whether they talk in those terms or not, we in the opjxisition must. And you, who record and report, should do us the courtesy, at least, of resisting the assumption that we are talking about something that has no place in current reality. The people of this couhtry have not — no matter how many columnists say they have — have not decided that Federal Government control and Federal' Government programs are the only answers to our problems. There are state governments that ape doing a far better job of providing medical care under the Kerr-Mlllls Bill than is even envisioned under the Federal Medicare program. There are local endeavors that have done more to advance educational standards, with local money, than any Federal program of which I am aware. There are neighborhood activities that have done far. far more to racial tensions . than all the Federal programs put together. Private entrepreneurs provide more jobs than even the mounting Federal payroll.

The list is endless, the people of this nation can solve their problems In many ways, at many levels, without running to Washington. There is a great issue. And I claim it Is a fully legitimate issue. This Administration, no matter how you slice it, wants to pass solutions on to the people from Washington. It is Washington — centered, not state — centered. It is bureaucracy — centered, not Individual — centered. People generally are coming to recognize this. And they are coming to recognise the issue involved: Free enterprise and balanced Government verus a controlled economy and an allpowerful central Government. The very nature of the two parties, it seems to me, has made this sort of confrontation, between concentrated power and dispersed power, inevitable. The Johnson Administration is a clear amalgam of big pressure groups. It includes big city bosses, the bosses of big labor, and most recently some of the bosses of big business The Johnson Administration,, because of this, I obarge, cannot truly represent the national interest. It is dominated by special. interests. Its policies are written by-and-for pressure groups and its votes, dependably, come from them. The Republican Party, here ahd now, is free of such pressures.ft has a broader base that ever, and fewer spokesmen for special interests than ever. As some of your columnists are fond of pointing out, it isn’t even catering to traditional political pressures. The columnists gleefully or, in one or two cases, sadly regard this as a disaster. We regard it as a sort of partisan Magna Carta, freeing Republicanism from any regional or class dependency and making it a truly national party, representative of all classes, Surely there is an issue therel After all, the two parties are the warp and woof of our political fabric. When they undergo internal realignment, that should be an issue, and it should Ik' cause for enlightened commentary. Our governmental fabric is under great strain also these days. And there is an issue there! Again, no matter how you slice it. the present Administration stands for the steadily increasing power of the Executive branch of Government And it can be expected to appoint to the Judiciary branch, the Supreme Court, men with a similar predisposition or. at least, men who take the distinctly Roosevelt - Johnson view' that the Court ought to rule on the basis of what the justices want the laws to mean, rather than contenting themselves with what Congress intended them to mean. There is surely an issue here — and millions of Americans know it. The way we vote in this election will have profound meaning for the whole shape of our Government. Those who vote to conthe present Administration will lx* voting for the power to reduce the Federal Legislature to a rubber stamp, the Judiciary to an ink pad, and state legislatures to little more than carbon copies. Some people want it that way. I know that. But others don't and this is an issue. Those who vote for me will be voting, very clearly, to restore the ix>wer of the Congress so that it can fully balance the power of the Evecutive. The balance of governmental power has shifted so much already (hat I am convinced that it will take a chief executive who Is wholeheartedly devoted to the proposition, to restore the power of Congress. I’m not sure that Congress, against such a politically'.powerful and willful president as London oJhnson can do the job alone. That's just another indication of how crucial an issue this really’ is. Also, those who vote for me will be voting for appointment to the Supreme Court of man With a clear devotion to Constitutionalism. We can hear, however, the com7 r ? .

meat that Goldwater can’t really mean that this la an issue because he talks of building up our defeneet; and nyprtsfng Communism, and you can't do that without a great Federal power. I don't regard this as a contradiction or a subject for political snide talk. I regard this, too, as a real issue. One at the most clearly defined duties of the President Is foreign policy. One of the most clearly defined Federal functions, is the common defense. We have Federal methods of doing both those jobs. I do not suggest for a moment diminishing any Federal powers, purchases, or personnel needed for those jobs. There is no constitutional conflict at all between saying that the states should have a greater say in running their schools, their welfare programs, and their police forces and that the Federal Government should take even greater Interest in stopping the spread of Communism. In point of fact, it could be said that the present Administration turns the situation around 180 degrees. It wants to do more and more to firmly control the sovereign states and less and less to maintain a firm foreign policy. And right here is the other great area that is at issue in this campaign. Again, there is a conclusion that a majority of commentators draw — or jump to! That conclusion Is that Communism is mellowing, that the Johnson tactics are successfully dealing with it, and that accommodation is the one, the only, and the absolutely accepted way of dealing with Communism. You know that I reject that. You may or may not admit that millions of Americans also reject that. This is a live issue, a real issue, and a deeply significant issue. I hold, and millions of Americans hold that Communism remains the number one and, in fact, the only real threat to peace in the world today. I hold as do millions of Americans, that Communism has not changed its objectives — only its tactics, and its cosmetics. If Communism has mellowed, can you really explain the situation in the Congo, in Cuba, elsewhere in Ijitln America, in Malaysia, at the Berlin wall, in Vietnam, or anywhere else In the world where there is unrest, subviolence, or threats to the peace? No, Communism remain,s a threat. It remains dedicated to our destruction, and it remains virtually unscored oa by the policies of this Administration. The issue here, then, is simply whether we are to regard Communism as an active threat to us and to the peace, or whether we are to regard it as a settled matter now stabilizing into a form of mellow normality. I know that many who will vote for Lyndon Johnson, on the basis of his foreign policy approach, want to believe that and do believe in the new normality of a divided world. But this is not a settled matter. There is a vast difference of opinion among the people — and it is ar Issue Those who vote for me will be voting to treat Communism as an enemv — not a new friend. How should we deal with Communism? Is there no issue there? Some commentators, again, say there is no issue because there is no chance of doing anything differently than we are doing it. Their reason, usually, depends upon an assumption that any tough line taken against the Communists would threaten the world with nuclear war. Lord knows, this is an importance issue. And, Lord knows, no matter how you slice it again, this Administration peddles that line day and night — even when it ignores it in practice. Their little adventure in the Gulf of Tonkin, along with others to permit the pursuit of enemy planes even into Red China, were living refutations of the fear that any action taken against Communism will oring on a general war. Our action during the missile crisis was another refutation. — The Eisenhower - Dulles actions in Lebanon and the Formosa Straights were other refutations. But, regardless of what this Administration does in terttiti sensitive incidents, its reneral operating pattern is clearly one that pushes Communism only when Cpmmunism puts some nearly intolerable pressure on us. The choice to be made in voting this year, therefore, is between a policy of reacting to Communism, and usually after some crisis or another, or a policy of seeking initiatives In which we can apply pressures to Communism. A good example is the matter of trade. We can expect, from this Administration, repetition after repetition, of the Wheat Deal in which we gave the Soviet Union everything it wanted, on its terms ( and timetable. Under my Administration. I can promise you. every such negotiation would carry as steep a price as possible for the causp of freedom. The destruction of the Berlin Wall would be one price tag I would set an such negotiations. Others, too. should be obvious. In taking this approach, I am

THE DECATUR DIM IWW, BteAWB. WPUMA

not, as any raMcoabte and fair person should know, looking for. a tight with Communism. The notion that any American now involved in our campaign would deliberately sot out to start a war Is om which fltoa fully in the face of reason. Was Churchill advocating war with Germany when ho urged British preparedness in the thirties? Os course not. He was suggesting away and, as it turned out, the only possible way to avoid war. My position here, and the issue here, is quite dear to most Americans — or it was until so much static developed. I advocate and. if elected, promise that this nation will continue to develop new weapons and maintain a flexible, practicable military force — so that the Soviet Union always will know that it cannot safely risk pushing us to the brink of war. If Hitler had known this, I am convinced that we never would have had the Second World War. My charge, against this Administration — and it is one which you gentlemen have only scratched — is that it deliberately is permitting our development of new weapons to lag, that it is phasing out 80% of our nuclear delivery capability, and that it is strait-jacketing our deterrent forces and our NATO allies. I have read very few papers that have expressed fun satisfaction with Secretary McNamara’s replies to these charges. This remains an issue. And you gentlemen remain virtually the only vehicle of running it down fully and finally. The question of nuclear controls is another Issue in which you have a deep responsibility. This Administration has attempted to create a fear complex out of it. This Administration has attempted to make an ugly and violent issue out of it, charging me with virtual madness in suggesting that there badly needs to be a clearly understood delegation of authority in this field. Such a delegation, among other things, is needed to assure that NATO is not stranded, without nuclear authority, because of putting the control solely and absolutely in the very mortal hands of one man, the President. This fraululent attack has now become publicly exposed. We now know publicly, that there are arrangements under which the power to use nuclear- weapons is delegated. We now know publicly that this has been the case for years. We now know publicly, exactly what I was trying to force this Administration to Admit and to face .that there must continue to be a delegation of nuclear authority to our Supreme Commander in NATO. I was warned, and am still warned, that making this an issue was virtual political suicide. Not making it an issue, not getting it out in the open where friend and foe alike can understand it, however, might be part of an act of national suicide — and that concerns me far more deeply. And the voters of the nation should be concerned by the spectacle of a president who, as Lyndon Johnson did, would deliberately mis-state the facts, regarding the awesome question of nuclear responsibility, just to score a political opponent. Although it may seem an unlikely jump, 1 would like to mention the matter of civil rights at this point also. When I voted against the current Bill, because of the Employement and Public Accommodations sections,I also was advised that I committing political suicide. I suggest that the issue here is whether the people of this nation, white and Negro alike, want a man as president who will approach Civil Rights on the basis of his own conscience or whether we will continue to see Civil Rights treated as a brutal wea-" pon of political power. The final issue, which also is a real issue, on which this campaign should be decided and evaluated is the broad question of law and order. I have stressed, in this issue, the persona! example of the President. This is not, to my mind, a matter of mere personality, however. I do not. and many other Americans cannot, see how an effective force for law and order can sumption the length and breadbe forthcoming from the White House when it is a common asth of the land that the White House itself is involved with questionable activities. This is an issue of infinite detail. as you know. I’d like to mention only one here and now because it is an instance in which you gentlemen could apply extraordinarily effective pressure. This Administration has been derelict for a year in not demanding, through the President’s Attorney General. 'a grand jury investigation of the prima fade eviddence of illegal acts by Bobby Baker. Only a Grand Jury can compel the testimony needed to arrive at the truth. There is no excuaa of which I I am Swart tor sutfi a Grand Jury action. So long as It is delayed, the widespread uneasiness about regard for law and order in the White House itself will remain a very aetiye gito. to my mind, vary unfortunate

Sen. Humphrey:

time has come tomtw endum andto consider seriously potter pi dtaW ei November 3rd For nearly twenty years now. the Presidential candidates of both political parties have agreed on our ftuuiamental nsttanal foals in our relations with other nations. They have agreed on the necessity for a strong national defense to deter agression responsible management of our awesome nuclear arsenal, unswerving support for the United Nations, Atlantic partnership, aid to developing countries, effective arms control agreements, ud sensible steps to reduce tensions with the Communist world. Republicans played a leading part in building this bipartisan ocnsensue —> Henry L. Stimson, Wendell Wilkie, Senator Arthur Vandenberg, John Foster Dulles, and Dwight D. Eisenhower. So have five Presidents, at both political parties. The man we elect as President this November must understand the nature of this legacy and be committed to its continuation. In addition, he must clearly perceive the nature of the world in which he seeks to apply this bipartisan policy. A man fit to corrtuct our foreign policy must understand that, although the United States is the world’s most powerful nation, America is hot omnipotent — and that there cannot be an American solution to every world problem. A man fit to conduct our foreign policy must realize that, although we are well aware of the pernicious influence of world Communism, we face many problems abroad which would be with us today even it Marx and Lenin had never been, born — even if Communism Were to vanish from the face of the earth. He must preceive that the character of the Cold War has changed — that we are moving from « period of simple bipolar confrontation between two superpowers into a period of greater diversity. He must know that there are a myriad of international problems to which the use of fdree provides no answer. He must understand that most other nations are composed of men and women who, if pressed to the ultimate choice, will choose — like Americans — to fight rather than surrender. And he must realize that diplomacy by nuclear ultimatum is f one sure path to war. In the turbulent years since World War 11, our nation has been blessed with men of such understanding in positions of national leadership. These men have hammered out the principles of the bipartisan consensus. Their achievements are everywhere: in America’s strength, in the new resilience of frpe nations, in the triumph of diversity, and in the disaray of Communism. What ape the fundamentals of this bipartisan consensus? What are its most recent achievements, and what guidelines does it offer WW Election Day/Nov, 3 "Sun Aapgy. I ntti tarty" l sue of this campaign. Let me sum up all this. The great choice between honest Conservatism and the sort of pseudo liberalism that has come to be marked by Federal controls and bureaucracy is very much with us no matter the shortsightedness of a few who look but W<U not see. I won my party’s nomination as a Conservative. I won it because millions of my fellow Republicans believe that an honest choice will find most Americans going Conservative ths year. I won my party’s nomination because I do, frankly, take a tough line when it comes to keeping Comgnunism from boggling up our world or threatening the peace. I won my party’s nomination because millions of my fellow Republicans believed I had the experience, the conviction, and the ability for national leadership. The issues that won the nomination for me are the same issues we are taking to the people today. They are the same issues on . which I expect to win on Nov- | amber &

la this period of national refcrthe central questions of foreign mi - rri h :j. I for ytsni tturt blmnml. A first principle is commitment to maintaining our nation’s defenses. la the past four yean, we have vastly increased the superiority of U. S. strategic power over that of the Soviet Union. And we hav* responded with power and precision to each Communist probe of our intentions — in Cuba, in Berlin, to Vietnam, and in the Gulf of Tonkin. We are today the strangest nation in the history of the world. We will take all necessary steps to remain so. Yet strength alone is never enough. The stuff of strength i$ a raw substance to be put to use -r for evil purposes or for good, with recklessness or with restraint, towards deepening chaos and war or towards order and peace. The vital key to our national security is responsibility in the use of strength, determination, wisdom, flexibility, restraint, and a clear sense of priorities. Our power is relative, not absolute. Our every action must meet the supreme test of responsibility. A second principle is that of partnership with the developed nations of the Atlantic and Pacific communities. The new Europe of today — and the new Japan — are living proof of the success of America’s postwar policy. But history does not stand still; success produces an entirely new spectrum of problems. The world has changed since 1949, when NATO was created. The time is coining for new solutions to these problems; and our European friends can be assured that within the great bipartisan tradition, America is ready to share as a full partner to these efforts. Our commitment to NATO is unshakeable. In our relations with the new Europe, the problems of trade is fundamental. In the past 2 years, we have made an historic beginning in the’ Trade Expansion Act. If we can keep up our efforts to expand trade, negotiate, and break down the barriers, a new Atlantic economic unity is tnvitable —a unity which will further strengthen our mutual security and enrich our lives. At the same time, we must also develop nqw ways to popi our Atlantic resources — and those of Japan — in an intensive effort to assist the developing continents. For we have a vital common stake in the peaceful evolution of these societies. A third principle is that of communication with the Commun-ist-ruled peoples of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union —of bridge-building in behalf of freedom. In the past four years, the present administration has witnessed — and has treated with care and prudence — one of the greatest changes of modern history, a change that aids the cause of freedom •— the fragmentation of the Sino-Soviet empire. Everywhere the forces of national independence are slowly but relentlessly eroding the old Community unity. Everywhere the people of Communist states have a new sense of hope and possibility. Under the past three Presidents, we have sought to encourage this thrust toward national diversity. We have opened windows of light, air, and hope to these people — through cultural programs, educational exchanges, travel and trade. In Eastern Europe* and the Soviet Union itself, we must and will do more to encourage this evolution towards increasing national freedom. At the same time, we must understand that the new fragmentation of the Communist world presents us with dangers as well as opportunities. Especially in Asia, the Sino-Soviet rift removes the restraints on Peiping — and increases the possibility of recklessness. A fourth principle of bipartisanship relates to the priority placed on preserving unity and promoting social and economic progress in our own hemisphere. In the past four years we have created the Alliance for Progress, an historic new partnership aimed at achieving economic and social justice for all people within a framework of free democratic government. Through the Organization of American States we have isolated Castro’s Cuba and drastically curtailed his influence in the hemisphere. A fifth principle of bipartisanship relates to the three-fifths of mankind who. live in Asia, and Africa: our commitment to assist them in the difficult and complex tasks of nation-building. Os all the revolutions o»‘ our time, none has altered the shape of the map more fundamentally than the march towards full nationhood in Asia and Africa. The thrust towards expanding economic opportunities, social justice, and individual dignity in those vast continents inspires our hopes and commands our sympathies.' Through deft American diplomacy, we have gradually learn-

gd how so mm n»d MNst sos procro of natioo-building to these vast areas And we have simultaneously helped to prevent inroads through Communist subversos past four years, our tostrumanis to this great struggle far peaceful development have been many: a reinvigorated Foregin Service infused with skilled and energetic men and women who speak foreign languages, respect foreign cultures, and understand the vital importance of people in al walks ol life, an aid program that stresses community development and the essential ingredient ol self-help; creative use of our agrteSMUral abundance through Food for Peace; and the excellence and compassion of America's youth in that most successful of foreign policy initiatives, the Peace Corps. Those who view the deveoping nations as mere pawns in the cold war straggle or as mirror Images of America have no understanding of men or nation*. We cannot and will not create obedient sattellites among these people. But we can and will assist in the growth of well-routed, viable nations seeking their own destiny in freedom — in their own way, in allegiance to their own values and traditions. Here again — as in Europe — the test of-our succes will be the strength of the independence that develops; and that means independence of Washington as well as Moscow, hard as some may find it to accept such independence. The test of our maturity will be our reaction to that independence. A sixth principle is that of unswerving commitment to support for the United Nations. In a complex, changing world the United Nations has time and again proven its unique value as an instrument for peace. It has become the primary forum where men and nations can daily reason together to avert catastrophe, a unique peace-keeping mechanism that has helped to blunt more than 13 different threats to the peace over the past 19 years. The survival of the U. N. is dependent upon the financial responsibility of its members. We must press for payment from those who have failed to meet their obligations. And we will never permit those who default on their dues to cause the organizations collapse. And we must do all in our power to strengthen the peace-keeping machinery of the U. N. — realizing that a stable professional U. N. peace-keeping force is the prefered instrument for restoring, peace when explosive local die*» putes erupt. A final principle of bipartisanship is commitment to the pursuit of effective, safeguarded arms control. Mankind lives today under the dark shadow of a spiralling armaments race. One fact of our age is the proliferation of power and weapons. In the past such races hav? ended in war. Our obligation, as never before, is to break the ancient cycle. Under this Administration, as under its predecessors, we have relentlessly sought an answer to this human dilemma. We have taken a first great step in the Test Ban Treaty —a treaty that was possible because both sides clearly benefited from a lessening of atmospheric poisoning. We must take further steps. We must patiently press forward in our search for new areas of mutual agrement to reduce the threat of war. In recent years we have moved to attain such agreements. We have joined with the Soviets on a resolution to prohibit the orbiting of nuclear weapons in outer space. And we established a “hot line” between Washington and Moscow to lesson the chances of miscalculations which might lead to war. Now such, my friends, is the record and shape of bipartisanship in our nation’s foreign affairs. Yet where do we find the Republican candidate for President in relation to tins record. He is totally at odds with it —for in spirit and in action he has drastically departed from the tradition of his party. He has told us where he stands: he rejects foreign aid; he disdains negotiation; he dismisses the United Nations; he opposes our bridges to the people of the Communist nations; he terrifies our partners and allies; and he condemns our efforts to end the armaments race. Recall, for instance, the solid bipartisan backing for the nuclear test bantreaty — the support of President Eisenhower and 25 of 33 Republicans in the Senate. And recall, as well, the moving words of Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican Senate Leader. “I want so take a first step, Mr. President,” he said. “I am net a young man — One of my age thinks about his destiny a little. I should not like to have it written pn my tombstone, he knew what happened at Hiroshima, but he did not take a first step.” Senator Goldwater knew what happened at Hiroshima. But he said “no’ ’ so the Test Bgn. He refused to take a first step. Yet his seeming callousness to this Treaty is hardly surprising. Far. astonishing as it may be, Senator Goldwater seems to believe that the escalation of international conflicts will bring peace.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER to, IW

And so to believing, fchto talked the language of nuclear JrresponaibUity Senator Goldwater blames his critics for making the control of nuclear weapons file central Issue of this eampgignYet he to wrong on two counts. First, it was he himself who injected the issue fay bis own demands for delegation of Presidential control. The injection of the issue has now been deplored by General Eisenhower. I agree with General Eisenhower that detailed discussion of the specifics of nuclear command and control should not be injected info the campaign. And second, control of nuclear weapons to only part of a far larger issue: the qualities of mind and spirit required of a candidate for the Presidency if we are to protect our interests, advance freedom, and keep toe peace in our tradition of bipartisanship. Does Senator Goldwater have such qualities of mind and spirit? What value he give to the rationally, wisdom ,and restraint of his predecccors on matters of war and peace? Let us quote to you a few of his most carefully considered ideas. They appear in the concluding chapter of his book “The Conscience of a Conservative": “A shooting war may cause the death of many billions of people including our own. But we cannot, for that reason, make the avoidance of a shooting war our chief objective.” “Or, “We must — ourselves — be prepared to undertake military operations against vulnerable Communist regimes.” Throughout, Goldwater declares that our main objective must be “not ‘peace’ but victory.” Or again, hear these more casual words from a newspaper interview in May 1961: “Someday, I am concinced, there will either be a war or we’U be subjugated without war — real nuclear war — I don’t see how it can be avoided — perhaps five or ten years from now.” Now any man living in our nuclear age who calmly says that “victory" not peace is our objective, who often implies that war seems inevitable — does not passes a firm sense of reality. In the words of my colleague, Senator Eugene McCarthy, such a man lives in a world in which the calendar has no years, in which the clock has no hands, —a world in which the pale horse of death is indistinguishable from the white horse of victory. In his frantic impatience with the world as it is, Senator Goljiwater wishes to back the Soviet Union into a corner where its only alternatives would be retreat or nuclear war. Indeed, one of Goldwater’s main goals seems to be — and again I quote him — “to invite the Communist leaders to choose between total destruction of the Soviet Union and accepting local defeat.” Senator Goldwater does not seem to realize that such juvenile games of nuclear “chicken” will eventually result in the annihilation of both players. Senator Goldwater does not yet realize that in our age of quick and total destruction, there is no such thing as quick and total victory. No rational leadership can promise us speedy escape from problems which demand prolonged and costly effort for solution. All that can be honestly promised is what President Johnson has given us: unremitting, constructive work — with hopeful advances but with the continued need for vigilance and dedication. It is Republican nominee’s predilection for the quick, easy solution, his penchant for diplomacy by ultimatum, that has impelled many long-time Republican newspapers to repudiate Senator Goldwatter. Typical of such repudiation were the words of two editorials from the New York HERALD TRIBUNE last weekend, in announcing its support for President Johnson: Senator Goldwater “has shown himself, in sum, a poor risk for the most personal and most awesome of a President’s responsibilities, the conduct of foreign rela- ‘ tions in an age when survival may in crisis, depend on his judgment — and his judgment alone.” “—To entrust America’s future — to the vague negativisms of the Goldwater campaign would truly be a leap in the dark. It is a leap throughtful Americans could not contemplate without a shudder.” My friends, this is a leap which Americans need not take. Our country in led today by a man of prudence and compassion, a man fully conscious of his responsibility to use our awesome power with reeson and restraint, a man fully aware of the world as tt is. A year ago this autumn, shortly before bis death, John F. Kennedy offered us all a prescription for responsible leadership in the years that lie ahead: “in a world full of frustrations and irritations”, he said, “America’s leadership must be guided by the lights of learning and reason.” Today more than ever this good counsel ring# true. Amepca's challenge is indeed to make the world safe fop diversity in freedom. Let us reject the vioces of frustration and irritation. Let us make shine the lights of leaning and of reason. We can do sb —'and we will do so — under the leadership of Lyndon B. Johnson.