I can't believe the Democrats ran Adlai Stevenson...TWICE!

[1932]

I'm reading Richard Parker's biography of JK Galbraith. Galbraith advised Stevenson in 1952 and 1956 and then advised JFK in 60.

Stevenson was a Wall St lawyer who became governor of Illinois. Truman decided not to run for reelection in '52. He, George Ball and a few others tried to recruit Stevenson to run. Stevenson resisted at first. He had written in his diary that he thought maybe it was time for the Republicans to have a chance to run the nation. (WTF!) Eventually he gave in.

Parker describes a recruitment dinner Ball had with Stevenson. They really didn't know what Stevenson's politics were before the dinner and when Ball found out that Stevenson believed in balanced budgets, no federal support for education, and a bunch of other right wing shit, he got drunk at the dinner out of depression.

They ran Stevenson anyway because they thought a moderate would have a better chance at beating Eisenhower. The saw Henry Wallace as the sure loser because he was too easy to cast as a communist during a time when the Republicans were getting a lot of mileage with their red-baiting.

After failing in '52, and in the run up to the '56 election, the Democratic braintrust tried to build a set of progressive issues on which Stevenson could run. Stevenson used them to win the primary, but spent the general election attacking Eisenhower personally (rather than telling America what he believed). He lost by a bigger margin in '56.

So what did Stevenson do after losing in '56? He was a lawyer for Reynolds Aluminum and the investment bank Henry Schroeder.

After '56, JFK started positioning himself for a run for the White House.

On the floor of the Senate, Kennedy attacked French colonialism in Algeria, which angered Stevenson because his clients had interests in Ghana, the Belgian Congo, and South Africa.

Is it any surprise that Stevenson lost twice?

What were democrats thinking?

[Arkana]

1. Is it 1960?

[1932]

5. We can learn from the past, don't you think?

If the democrats run pro-Wall St candidates who think Republicans have something valuable to offer the world, it might as well be 1952 again.

[Initech]

2. Wow, I have just lost all respect for Stephenson just now.

He thought the Republicans should be given a chance? If he had seen how much Republicans have FUCKED UP in the last 25 years (the drug war, Clinton's impeachment, the Iraq War, religious insanity, two terms of W..., Hannity and Limbaugh on radio and TV 24 hours a day), I can guarantee he wouldnt have said that!

edit: Made corrections.

[NYCGirl]

3. How could Truman have known about the last 25 years?

And it wasn't Truman who thought the GOP should be given a chance, it was Stevenson as the reason he didn't want to run.

[Initech]

4. Let me rephrase that:

If he was given a chance to see how much the GOP has fucked up in the last 25 years, I can guarantee Truman would not have said that.

[On the Road]

6. I Believe That Thought is Being Attributed to Stevenson

It certainly doesn't sound like Truman.

[1932]

7. No, Stevenson felt Republicans deserved a chance to govern.

Stevenson was so ambivalent about being president, he wrote in his diary that maybe it was the Republican's turn to govern.

Regardless, there's enough other stuff in Parker's book to make one lose respect for Truman.

Of his first 125 appointments, 98 were either CEOs, financiers, generals or Wall St lawyers. New Dealers lamented that government was shifting from power of the people to a West Point-Wall Street power axis.

Truman, according to Parker, was in the sway of people who wanted to scare America into accepting huge defense spending.

[LTR]

8. The GOP was a different animal in 1952

Still, it was the GOP. But Eisenhower wasn't a bad president. There was far less division between ideologies back then as there is now. It was there, but it wasn't as petty and nasty as it is now.

Keep in mind, when Truman left office, it was the end of a twenty year cycle of Democrats in charge. Perhaps he thought the country deserved some new blood in the White House. From what I understand, though, he didn't really like Ike.

And since when is a balanced budget considered 'right-wing shit'? Seems to me the only balanced budget in the past couple decades was during the Clinton years.

[1932]

10. Keynesians had all accepted that it was right to run deficits in times of

trouble.

That was the crux of the New Deal.

Stevenson said he didn't believe in the crux of the new deal. Ball was flabergasted. He also said he didn't believe in Truman's "Fair Deal" (which he outlined point-by-point), He opposed federal funding of public housing and opposed the repeal of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act. He said that with the Korean War stoking inflation, he would risk strikes if unions opposed him . He said the federal government should fund education only as a last resort. He called Truman's health reform proposals "socialized medicien" (which he meant as a perjorative). He said civil rights was a matter for the states to resolve (and this was after 1948, mind you -- he was taking the wrong side in a debate that was not exactly in its nascent stage). He said he opposed the New Deal's price stabilization plans, despite being from a farm state.

The only issue on which he agreed with Truman, basically, was that he was a tough anti-Communist.

This is all on p.256 of the book.

[Writer]

9. Adlai lost because Adlai's campaign SUCKED

And if you want to know what the heck I'm talking about, click on the below link and WATCH:

http://livingroomcandidate.movingimage.us/election/index.php?nav_action=election&nav_subaction=overview&campaign_id=165

Thank you

[LiviaOlivia]

11. Thank you for adding clarity to this thread.

which the OP did not.

[1932]

14. You should read Parker's book even if you don't like my OP.

It's a 600 page book that goes into a lot of detail about American history. Because Galbraith was an advisor to Stevenson's two campaigns and Kennedy's campaign, it has some illuminating things to say about those campaigns.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[1932]

24. Trying to learn from the past.

If mistakes are off limits for contemplation just because they were made by Democrats, we'd have almost nothing to talk about here.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LiviaOlivia]

34. Aren't you getting personal?

have read DU rules?

[1932]

36. That's my point. Unless you're a Stevenson,

you're reaction to these posts is odd. Nothing could be less personal than what I've written, but it's making you very angry. It's strange.

[Writer]

12. In addendum, the campaign synopses from this site are great...

They prove just how political choices aren't really all that simple (ahem).


Overview: 1952

President Harry S. Truman entered 1952 with his popularity plummeting. The Korean War was dragging into its third year, Senator Joseph McCarthy’s anti-Communist crusade was stirring public fears of an encroaching “Red Menace,” and the disclosure of widespread corruption among federal employees rocked the administration. After losing the New Hampshire primary to Tennessee Senator Estes Kefauver, who had chaired a nationally televised investigation of organized crime in 1951, President Truman announced on March 29, 1952, that he would not seek re-election. Truman threw his support behind Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson, who repeatedly declined to run but was eventually drafted as the Democratic nominee on the strength of his eloquent keynote speech at the convention.

Stevenson proved to be no match for the Republican nominee, war hero Dwight D. Eisenhower, who played a key role in planning the Allied victory in World War II. A poll in March 1952 found Eisenhower the most admired living American, and in November he won a landslide victory on the basis of his pledge to clean up “the mess in Washington” and end the Korean War.


Overview: 1956

For President Eisenhower, the only true emergency of his first term was the heart attack he suffered in September 1955. After his doctor pronounced him fully recovered in February 1956, Eisenhower announced his decision to run for re-election. The Democrats set up a replay of the 1952 contest by nominating Adlai Stevenson. The result was an even greater Republican landslide. Eisenhower was a popular incumbent president who had ended the Korean War. Two world crises helped cement his lead in the final days of the campaign: the Soviet Union invaded Hungary, and Britain, France, and Israel attacked Egypt in an effort to take over the Suez Canal. Eisenhower kept the United States out of both conflicts. As is traditional during a military crisis, American voters rallied behind their president. The events also undermined two of Stevenson’s key positions: the suspension of hydrogen-bomb testing and the elimination of the military draft.

[papau]

18. I agree - Parker's book does not correspond to my memory - or

I should say - does not correspond to what is left of my memory.

I saw Adlai from the seat reserved for Joe Citizen - and from that view he was of the left and "great" - except about the role of women.

What Ball saw - as quoted by Parker - was not seen by me.

[1932]

13. This is why he sucked. He didn't have progressive convictions.

As a result of the suckiness of the '52 election, Galbraith and others worked together for four years setting out programs and ideas which could form the core of Democratic beliefs. Stevenson used them to win the primary in '56, but then abandoned them during the general election.

Notably, almost all those principles became law when Kennedy was elected.

[Writer]

15. No, I suggest you read the synopses I provided and put those campaigns

into context.

[1932]

16. Believe me, those synopses are much less detailed than Parker's book.

There are almost 100 pages covering American politics from 1952 to 1956.

If you want context, you should read Parker's book.

Switch Bush for Eisenhower and Kerry for Stevenson, and do you think those short versions tell the whole story of 2004? There's much more to the story, and it's in Parker's book.

[Writer]

20. You are trying to treat politics as if its in a vacuum.

This is 2005. We are not following a major war victory. We are not in an economic boom. There is no Korean Conflict. Bush is not Eisenhower - period.

Why am I even going this far? The fact that you are trying to draw similarities between the 1950's and the 2000's is logically flawed!

[1932]

22. Oh, so it's possible that politicians who aren't really

Democrats, who don't have strong progressive convictions, and who don't found their campaigns around ideas can win presidential elections?

[Writer]

44. No it's possible that you've simplified your comparison to the point

that it doesn't make sense in modern contexts.

[1932]

48. What's the modern context you think I'm putting this in?

If I've drawn explicit parallels to contemporary scenarios, point them out, please.

If you're saying nothing I've written helps us understand the world at all, then you're saying we can never learn from history. That would put you in a tiny minority. Why would Parker even right this book if there's nothing that can be learned from it?

[AntiCoup2K4]

73. Bush isn't Eisenhower, but Eisenhower was a Bush candidate.

Prescott Bush assembled the Eisenhower/Nixon ticket, and just as with every Republican administration since, the Bush Criminal Empire were the ones behind the curtain.

Stevenson, on the other hand, sounds like he would have loved the DLC.

The more things change, the more they stay the same?

[Zynx]

52. Only FDR's reanimated corpse could have beaten Ike.

Eisenhower decided not only not to do away with the New Deal, but he actually kind of reaffirmed it. All in all, Eisenhower was actually a fairly good president.

[1932]

54. My argument isn't that another Democrat could have won.

My argument is that Stevenson was a really bad choice for president.

Eisenhower wasn't the best president. In many ways he simply extended the increase in military spending that Truman started, and continued with the anti-communist policy. (with some upward limits). New Dealers said about Truman that he was shifting to a West Point-Wall St power axis. That continued under Eisenhower.

But the New Deal was essentially dead with Truman.

A democrat committed to New Deal principles would have been better than Eisenhower or Truman.

What the Democrats needed was somone like Kennedy in '52 -- someone who would have gotten in early and not let the US inflate defense budgets.

Apparently there was a big debate over dividing Germany. New Dealers wanted one country and wanted the US to help the economy recover and felt that it wasn't the US's place to tell Germany what kind of government to elect once it had functioning economy.

Right wingers (R and D) wanted a divided germany so that there could be a confrontation with Russia that would justify escalating defense budgets. Truman decided to listen to those people.

It would have been great to have a president you did the former, not the latter. Or it would have been nice to have someone besides Eisenhower after Truman who had the courage to reverse the direction Truman had set the country.

[elperromagico]

59. The New Deal was dead with Truman?

What about the Fair Deal that Truman tried to push through Congress?

Here are some of the things the Fair Deal provided for:

Increase in the minimum wage
Extension of Social Security
Anti-discriminatory employment practices
National health insurance
National housing plan

Those things just don't sound like the death of the New Deal to me.

And as for JFK... Are you talking about the JFK who (falsely) claimed in 1960 that the United States had a missile gap? Or is the the JFK who ordered an increase in spending on nuclear weapons when he came into office? Or is it the JFK whose Secretary of Defense developed the Mutually Assured Destruction program that required a massive nuclear arsenal?

[1932]

70. Take it up with Richard Parker.

The Fair Deal was a disappointment to New Dealers.

He addresses some of these issues. Truman's fair deal just helped people keep pace. It'd didn't dramatically increase wages. And granted there was a Fair Deal program (and Stevenson disagreed with everything it did) the halmark of Truman's administration was military Keynesianism -- a huge increase in defense spending.

Parker also talks about Kennedy's campaigning and that he did use Sputnik, as everyone did, to imply that Eisenhower wasn't keeping the US safe.

Parker also says that Kennedy increased military spending right away, but he also says it took Kennedy 17 months to become a full convert to (non-military, non-business) Keynesian economics. The result was a record 106 consecutive months of econmic growth (compared to a series of recessions during the Eisenhower years and a growth rate that was half what the russians achieved.

Reading this thread, I get the impression that a lot of people would benefit from reading this book.

[papau]

17. Your anti-Adlai source is "wrong"-he was progressive, except about women's

role. Anti-nuke and American empire, for poor and for education. I passed out literature for Adlai - and recall him well. He was moderate left - but was accused of communist thoughts/plans and of being overly in favor of equality (again rxcept for women - sorry - he was not perfect)

some data for you:


http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/stevenson.html

Adlai E. Stevenson: Speech Accepting the Democratic Presidential Nomination http://u.webring.com/hub?ring=democratsonly;id=76;go 1956
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/adlaistevenson.html 1952
Adlai Stevenson, His wit and wisdom.
http://u.webring.com/hub?ring=democratsonly;id=14;go


Adlai Ewing Stevenson, the grandson of the former vice president, Adlai E. Stevenson (1893-97 -Grover Cleveland's Vice-President;), was born in Los Angeles on 5th February, 1900. After studying at Princeton University, Stevenson worked as a journalist and as a lawyer in Chicago.

In July 1941 William Knox persuaded Stevenson to join the Navy Department. During the Second World War Stevenson took part in several European missions for the State Department and from 1945 served on the American delegations to the foundation conferences of the United Nations Organization.

In 1948 Stevenson was elected governor of Illinois, where he developed a reputation for honesty and efficiency. He introduced a series of reforms including a merit system for the state police, improvements in state mental hospitals and greater state aid for schools.

While governor of Illinois Stevenson became a target for Joe McCarthy. Stevenson was attacked for appearing as a character witness for Alger Hiss, the alleged communist spy, in his perjury trial. Stevenson also upset a group of Conservative senators, including Pat McCarran, John Wood, Karl Mundt and Richard Nixon, when they sponsored a measure to deal with members of the Communist Party. Stevenson argued that "The whole notion of loyalty inquisitions is a national characteristic of the police state, not of democracy. The history of Soviet Russia is a modern example of this ancient practice. I must, in good conscience, protest against any unnecessary suppression of our rights as free men. We must not burn down the house to kill the rats." Despite the opposition of liberals such as Stevenson and Harry S. Truman, the Internal Security Act became law in 1950.

Stevenson was chosen as the Democratic Party candidate for the 1952 presidential election. he held progressive opinions about many subjects. But as expressed in this commencement address at all-female Smith College, he harbored traditional notions about women's roles. It was one of the dirtiest in history with Richard Nixon, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, leading the attack on Stevenson. Speaking in Indiana, Nixon described Stevenson as a man with a "PhD from Dean Acheson's cowardly college of Communist containment." In an attempt to link Stevenson with the Soviet spy ring he added: "Somebody had to testify for Alger Hiss, but you don't have to elect him President of the United States."

Joseph McCarthy also attacked Stevenson as being soft on communism and claimed that he would like to spend sometime with him so that "I might be able to make a good American out of him." Stevenson retaliated by pointing out the dangers of "phony patriots", "ill-informed censors" and "self-appointed thought police". At one meeting he told his audience: "Most of us favour free enterprise for business. Let us also favour free enterprise for the mind."

Stevenson also had the added problem of having criticised J. Edgar Hoover and the efficiency of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1949. Since that date Hoover had been collecting information on Stevenson and when he became the Democratic Party candidate in 1952, the FBI compiled a nineteen-page memorandum on material that could damage his campaign. The FBI agent, Donald Surine, passed this onto Joseph McCarthy. This included false information alleging Stevenson was a homosexual and a Marxist. Faced by this smear campaign and the popular wartime hero, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Stevenson lost by 33,936,252 votes to 27,314,922.

In early 1954 Stevenson began attacking Eisenhower for not condemning the activities of Joseph McCarthy. Although McCarthy had now started investigating army commanders, he was unwilling to directly attack the man who had helped him win victory in 1952. Instead he delegated the task to his vice president, Richard Nixon. On 4th March, 1954, Nixon made a speech where, although not mentioning McCarthy, made it clear who he was talking about: "Men who have in the past done effective work exposing Communists in this country have, by reckless talk and questionable methods, made themselves the issue rather than the cause they believe in so deeply."

With the worst aspects of McCarthyism now over, Stevenson was selected as the Democratic Party candidate in 1956. His call for an end to aboveground nuclear weapons tests created a storm, but was ultimately enshrined in the Test Ban Treaty of 1963. Dwight D. Eisenhower was a popular president and with the economy in good shape, Stevenson had little chance of defeating his Republican Party opponent and lost by 35,585,316 to 26,031,322.

Over the next few years Stevenson concentrated on writing books on politics. This included Call to Greatness (1954), What I Think (1956), Friends and Enemies (1958) and Looking Outward (1963).

When John F. Kennedy was elected president in 1960, he appointed Stevenson as the U.S. representative to the United Nations. Adlai Ewing Stevenson served in this post until his death in London on 14th July, 1965

Sourced
• The problem of cat versus bird is as old as time. If we attempt to resolve it by legislation why knows but what we may be called upon to take sides as well in the age old problems of dog versus cat, bird versus bird, or even bird versus worm. In my opinion, the State of Illinois and its local governing bodies already have enough to do without trying to control feline delinquency.
For these reasons, and not because I love birds the less or cats the more, I veto and withhold my approval from Senate Bill No. 93.
o Vetoing a Bill that would have imposed fines on owners who allowed cats to run at large. (23 April 1949)
• The whole notion of loyalty inquisitions is a national characteristic of the police state, not of democracy. The history of Soviet Russia is a modern example of this ancient practice. I must, in good conscience, protest against any unnecessary suppression of our rights as free men. We must not burn down the house to kill the rats.
o Voicing opposition to the Internal Security Act of 1950
• I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.
o Speech during 1952 Presidential campaign
• The Republican party makes even its young men seem old; the Democratic Party makes even its old men seem young.
o Comparing Richard Nixon to Alben Barkley during the 1952 presidential race, as quoted in Richard Nixon: A Political and Personal Portrait by Earl Mazo (1959) Chapter 7
• Words calculated to catch everyone may catch no one.
o Speech to Democratic National Convention, Chicago, Illinois. (21 July 1952)
• Let’s face it. Let’s talk sense to the American people. Let’s tell them the truth, that there are no gains without pains, that we are now on the eve of great decisions, not easy decisions.
o Acceptance speech, Democratic National Convention, Chicago, Illinois (26 July 1952)
• We talk a great deal about patriotism. What do we mean by patriotism in the context of our times? I venture to suggest that what we mean is a sense of national responsibility which will enable America to remain master of her power— to walk with it in serenity and wisdom, with self-respect and the respect of all mankind; a patriotism that puts country ahead of self; a patriotism which is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime. The dedication of a lifetime— these are words that are easy to utter, but this is a mighty assignment. For it is often easier to fight for principles than to live up to them.
o Speech to the American Legion Convention in New York City (27 August 1952)
• It was always accounted a virtue in a man to love his country. With us it is now something more than a virtue. It is a necessity. When an American says that he loves his country, he means not only that he loves the New England hills, the prairies glistening in the sun, the wide and rising plains, the great mountains, and the sea. He means that he loves an inner air, an inner light in which freedom lives and in which a man can draw the breath of self-respect.
o Speech to the American Legion Convention in New York City (27 August 1952)
• The sound of tireless voices is the price we pay for the right to hear the music of our own opinions. But there is also, it seems to me, a moment at which democracy must prove its capacity to act. Every man has a right to be heard; but no man has the right to strangle democracy with a single set of vocal chords.
o Speech in New York City (28 August 1952)
• There is no evil in the atom; only in men’s souls.
o Speech in Hartford, Connecticut (18 September 1952)
• In America any boy may become President, and I suppose it's just one of the risks he takes.
o Speech in Indianapolis, Indiana (26 September 1952)
• My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.
o Speech in Detroit, Michigan (7 October 1952)
• Nothing so dates a man as to decry the younger generation.
o Speech at the University of Wisconsin, Madison (8 October 1952)
• If we value the pursuit of knowledge, we must be free to follow wherever that search may lead us. The free mind is not a barking dog, to be tethered on a ten-foot chain.
o Speech at the University of Wisconsin, Madison (8 October 1952)
• I do not believe it is man's destiny to compress this once boundless earth into a small neighborhood, the better to destroy it. Nor do I believe it is in the nature of man to strike eternally at the image of himself, and therefore of God. I profoundly believe that there is on this horizon, as yet only dimly perceived, a new dawn of conscience. In that purer light, people will come to see themselves in each other, which is to say they will make themselves known to one another by their similarities rather than by their differences. Man's knowledge of things will begin to be matched by man's knowledge of self. The significance of a smaller world will be measured not in terms of military advantage, but in terms of advantage for the human community. It will be the triumph of the heartbeat over the drumbeat.
These are my beliefs and I hold them deeply, but they would be without any inner meaning for me unless I felt that they were also the deep beliefs of human beings everywhere. And the proof of this, to my mind, is the very existence of the United Nations.
o (Speech in Springfield Illinois (24 October 1952)
• The early years of the United Nations have been difficult ones, but what did we expect? That peace would drift down from the skies like soft snow? That there would be no ordeal, no anguish, no testing, in this greatest of all human undertakings?
Any great institution or idea must suffer its pains of birth and growth. We will not lose faith in the United Nations. We see it as a living thing and we will work and pray for its full growth and development. We want it to become what it was intended to be— a world society of nations under law, not merely law backed by force, but law backed by justice and popular consent.
o (Speech in Springfield Illinois (24 October 1952)
• A funny thing happened to me on the way to the White House...
o Speech in Washington D.C. (13 December 1952)
• We live in an era of revolution— the revolution of rising expectations.
o Look (22 September 1953)
• All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions.
o Speech at Princeton University (22 March 1954)
• We mean by "politics" the people’s business— the most important business there is.
o Speech in Chicago, Illinois (19 November 1955)
• We hear the Secretary of State boasting of his brinkmanship— the art of bringing us to the edge of the abyss.
o Speech in Hartford, Connecticut (25 February 1956); Referring to Secretary of State John Foster Dulles
• The idea that you can merchandise candidates for high office like breakfast cereal— that you can gather votes like box tops— is, I think, the ultimate indignity to the democratic process.
o Speech at the Democratic National Convention (18 August 1956)
• You will find that the truth is often unpopular and the contest between agreeable fancy and disagreeable fact is unequal. For, in the vernacular, we Americans are suckers for good news.
o Commencement address at Michigan State University The New York Times (9 June 1958)
• Freedom is not an ideal, it is not even a protection, if it means nothing more than freedom to stagnate, to live without dreams, to have no greater aim than a second car and another television set.
• "Putting First Things First", Foreign Affairs (January 1960)
• With the supermarket as our temple and the singing commercial as our litany, are we likely to fire the world with an irresistible vision of America’s exalted purpose and inspiring way of life?
o The Wall Street Journal (1 June 1960)
• The first principle of a free society is an untrammeled flow of words in an open forum.
o The New York Times (19 January 1962)
• She would rather light a candle than curse the darkness, and her glow has warmed the world.
o Remark upon learning of the death of Eleanor Roosevelt, drawing upon the motto of the Christopher Society: "It is better to light one candle than curse the darkness." ; quoted in The New York Times (8 November 1962)
• * You are in the courtroom of world opinion…. All right, sir, let me ask you one simple question: Do you, Ambassador Zorin, deny that the U.S.S.R. has placed and is placing medium- and intermediate-range missiles and sites in Cuba? Yes or no— don’t wait for the translation— yes or no?" "You can answer yes or no. You have denied they exist. I want to know if I understood you correctly. I am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over, if that’s your decision. And I am also prepared to present the evidence in this room.
o To Soviet U.N. Ambassador Valerian A. Zorin in the United Nations Security Council during the Cuban missile crisis (25 October 1962)
• For my part I believe in the forgiveness of sin and the redemption of ignorance.
o Response to a heckler asking him to state his beliefs. Time (1 November 1963)
• A politician is a statesman who approaches every question with an open mouth.
o Quoted in The Fine Art of Political Wit by Leon Harris (1964)
• Nixon is the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, then mount the stump for a speech on conservation.
o Quoted in The Fine Art of Political Wit by Leon Harris (1964)
• The Republicans stroke platitudes until they purr like epigrams.
o Quoted in The Fine Art of Political Wit by Leon Harris (1964); this statement is derived from one by humorist Don Marquis.
• An editor is someone who separates the wheat from the chaff and then prints the chaff.
o Quoted in The Fine Art of Political Wit by Leon Harris (1964); This statement has also been attributed to Elbert Hubbard
A beauty is a woman you notice; a charmer is one who notices you.
Adlai E. Stevenson

A diplomat's life is made up of three ingredients: protocol, Geritol and alcohol.
Adlai E. Stevenson

A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular.
Adlai E. Stevenson

A hungry man is not a free man.
Adlai E. Stevenson

A hypocrite is the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation.
Adlai E. Stevenson

A politician is a statesman who approaches every question with an open mouth.
Adlai E. Stevenson

Accuracy to a newspaper is what virtue is to a lady; but a newspaper can always print a retraction.
Adlai E. Stevenson

After four years at the United Nations I sometimes yearn for the peace and tranquillity of a political convention.
Adlai E. Stevenson

All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions.
Adlai E. Stevenson

An editor is someone who separates the wheat from the chaff and then prints the chaff.
Adlai E. Stevenson

An Independent is someone who wants to take the politics out of politics.
Adlai E. Stevenson

Change is inevitable. Change for the better is a full-time job.
Adlai E. Stevenson

Communism is the corruption of a dream of justice.
Adlai E. Stevenson

Communism is the death of the soul. It is the organization of total conformity - in short, of tyranny - and it is committed to making tyranny universal.
Adlai E. Stevenson

Do you know the difference between a beautiful woman and a charming one? A beauty is a woman you notice, a charmer is one who notices you.
Adlai E. Stevenson

Do you, Ambassador Zorin, deny that the USSR has placed and is placing medium - and intermediate - range missiles and sites in Cuba? Yes or no? Don't wait for the translation. Yes or no?
Adlai E. Stevenson

Every age needs men who will redeem the time by living with a vision of the things that are to be.
Adlai E. Stevenson

Flattery is all right so long as you don't inhale.
Adlai E. Stevenson

For my part I believe in the forgiveness of sin and the redemption of ignorance.
Adlai E. Stevenson

Freedom is not an ideal, it is not even a protection, if it means nothing more than the freedom to stagnate.
Adlai E. Stevenson

Golf is a fine relief from the tensions of office, but we are a little tired of holding the bag.
Adlai E. Stevenson

He is the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation.
Adlai E. Stevenson

He who slings mud generally loses ground.
Adlai E. Stevenson

I believe in the forgiveness of sin and the redemption of ignorance.
Adlai E. Stevenson

I believe that if we really want human brotherhood to spread and increase until it makes life safe and sane, we must also be certain that there is no one true faith or path by which it may spread.
Adlai E. Stevenson

I don't envy the driver and I don't think the American people will care to ride in his bus very far.
Adlai E. Stevenson

I don't want to send them to jail. I want to send them to school.
Adlai E. Stevenson

I find Paul appealing and Peale appalling.
Adlai E. Stevenson

I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.
Adlai E. Stevenson

I have tried to talk about the issues in this campaign... and this has sometimes been a lonely road, because I never meet anybody coming the other way.
Adlai E. Stevenson

I think that one of the most fundamental responsibilities is to give testimony in a court of law, to give it honestly and willingly.
Adlai E. Stevenson

I'm not an old, experienced hand at politics. But I am now seasoned enough to have learned that the hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning.
Adlai E. Stevenson

If the Republicans will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.
Adlai E. Stevenson

In America any boy may become President and I suppose it's just one of the risks he takes.
Adlai E. Stevenson

In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks you take.
Adlai E. Stevenson

It is an ancient political vehicle, held together by soft soap and hunger and with front-seat drivers and back-seat drivers contradicting each other in a bedlam of voices, shouting "go right" and "go left" at the same time.
Adlai E. Stevenson

It will be helpful in our mutual objective to allow every man in America to look his neighbor in the face and see a man-not a color.
Adlai E. Stevenson

It's hard to lead a cavalry charge if you think you look funny on a horse.
Adlai E. Stevenson

Law is not a profession at all, but rather a business service station and repair shop.
Adlai E. Stevenson

Laws are never as effective as habits.
Adlai E. Stevenson

Making peace is harder than making war.
Adlai E. Stevenson

Man does not live by words alone, despite the fact that sometimes he has to eat them.
Adlai E. Stevenson

Man is a strange animal. He generally cannot read the handwriting on the wall until his back is up against it.
Adlai E. Stevenson

My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.
Adlai E. Stevenson

Nature is indifferent to the survival of the human species, including Americans.
Adlai E. Stevenson

Nature is neutral.
Adlai E. Stevenson

Newspaper editors are men who separate the wheat from the chaff, and then print the chaff.
Adlai E. Stevenson

Nixon is finding out there are no tails on an Eisenhower jacket.
Adlai E. Stevenson

Nothing so dates a man as to decry the younger generation.
Adlai E. Stevenson

On the plains of hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions who at the dawn of victory lay down to rest, and in resting died.
Adlai E. Stevenson

On this shrunken globe, men can no longer live as strangers.
Adlai E. Stevenson

Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.
Adlai E. Stevenson

Peace is the one condition of survival in this nuclear age.
Adlai E. Stevenson

Some people approach every problem with an open mouth.
Adlai E. Stevenson

That which seems the height of absurdity in one generation often becomes the height of wisdom in another.
Adlai E. Stevenson

The best reason I can think of for not running for President of the United States is that you have to shave twice a day.
Adlai E. Stevenson

The definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.
Adlai E. Stevenson

The elephant has a thick skin, a head full of ivory, and as everyone who has seen a circus parade knows, proceeds best by grasping the tail of its predecessor.
Adlai E. Stevenson

The first principle of a free society is an untrammeled flow of words in an open forum.
Adlai E. Stevenson

The general has dedicated himself so many times, he must feel like the cornerstone of a public building.
Adlai E. Stevenson

The hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning.
Adlai E. Stevenson

The human race has improved everything, but the human race.
Adlai E. Stevenson

The idea that you can merchandise candidates for high office like breakfast cereal - that you can gather votes like box tops - is, I think, the ultimate indignity to the democratic process.
Adlai E. Stevenson

The New Dealers have all left Washington to make way for the car dealers.
Adlai E. Stevenson

The relationship of the toastmaster to speaker should be the same as that of the fan to the fan dancer. It should call attention to the subject without making any particular effort to cover it.
Adlai E. Stevenson

The Republicans stroke platitudes until they purr like epigrams.
Adlai E. Stevenson

The time to stop a revolution is at the beginning, not the end.
Adlai E. Stevenson

The whole basis of the United Nations is the right of all nations - great or small - to have weight, to have a vote, to be attended to, to be a part of the twentieth century.
Adlai E. Stevenson

There was a time when a fool and his money were soon parted, but now it happens to everybody.
Adlai E. Stevenson

This the first time I ever heard it said that the crime is not the burglary, but the discovery of the burglar.
Adlai E. Stevenson

Those who corrupt the public mind are just as evil as those who steal from the public purse.
Adlai E. Stevenson

To act coolly, intelligently and prudently in perilous circumstances is the test of a man-and also a nation.
Adlai E. Stevenson

We can chart our future clearly and wisely only when we know the path which has led to the present.
Adlai E. Stevenson

We have confused the free with the free and easy.
Adlai E. Stevenson

We mean by "politics" the people's business - the most important business there is.
Adlai E. Stevenson

We must recover the element of quality in our traditional pursuit of equality. We must not, in opening our schools to everyone, confuse the idea that all should have equal chance with the notion that all have equal endowments.
Adlai E. Stevenson

We should be careful and discriminating in all the advice we give. We should be especially careful in giving advice that we would not think of following ourselves. Most of all, we ought to avoid giving counsel which we don't follow when it damages those who take us at our word.
Adlai E. Stevenson

We travel together, passengers on a little spaceship, dependent on it's vulnerable reserves of air and soil, all committed, for our safety, to it's security and peace. Preserved from annihilation only by the care, the work and the love we give our fragile craft.
Adlai E. Stevenson

What a man knows at fifty that he did not know at twenty is for the most part incommunicable.
Adlai E. Stevenson

You are in the courtroom of world opinion. You have denied they exist, and I want to know if I understood you correctly. I am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over. And I am also prepared to present the evidence in this room!
Adlai E. Stevenson

You know, you really can't beat a household commodity - the ketchup bottle on the kitchen table.
Adlai E. Stevenson

You will find that the truth is often unpopular and the contest between agreeable fancy and disagreeable fact is unequal. For, in the vernacular, we Americans are suckers for good news.
Adlai E. Stevenson

Your days are short here; this is the last of your springs. And now in the serenity and quiet of this lovely place, touch the depths of truth, feel the hem of Heaven. You will go away with old, good friends. And don't forget when you leave why you came.
Adlai E. Stevenson

]
Attributed
• A beauty is a woman you notice; a charmer is one who notices you.
• A diplomat's life is made up of three ingredients: protocol, Geritol and alcohol.
• A hungry man is not a free man.
• A politician is a statesman who approaches every question with an open mouth.
• A wise man does not try to hurry history.
• Accuracy to a newspaper is what virtue is to a lady; but a newspaper can always print a retraction.
• After four years at the United Nations I sometimes yearn for the peace and tranquillity of a political convention.
• All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions.
• An editor is someone who separates the wheat from the chaff and then prints the chaff.
• An Independent is someone who wants to take the politics out of politics.
• Anecdote: During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to him, "You have the vote of every thinking person!" Stevenson called back, "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"
• Anecdote: Stevenson arrived late to a speaking engagement because a military parade blocked traffic, upon arriving, he proclaimed: "This not the first time a war hero has gotten in my way..."
• Anecdote: When asked on a television show if he had any advice to give to young politicians, he replied: "Yes, never run against a war hero."
• As citizens of this democracy, you are the rulers and the ruled, the law-givers and the law-abiding, the beginning and the end.
• Change is inevitable. Change for the better is a full-time job.
• Communism is the corruption of a dream of justice.
• Communism is the death of the soul. It is the organization of total conformity— in short, of tyranny— and it is committed to making tyranny universal.
• Every age needs men who will redeem the time by living with a vision of the things that are to be.
• Flattery is all right so long as you don't inhale.
• Freedom rings where opinions clash.
• He who slings mud generally loses ground.
• I have tried to talk about the issues in this campaign... and this has sometimes been a lonely road, because I never meet anybody coming the other way.
• I refuse to personally criticize President Eisenhower, I will not submit to the Republican concept of gravity.
• I think that one of the most fundamental responsibilities is to give testimony in a court of law, to give it honestly and willingly.
• I'm not an old, experienced hand at politics. But I am now seasoned enough to have learned that the hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning.
• Ignorance is stubborn and prejudice is hard.
• In quiet places, reason abounds.
• It is an ancient political vehicle, held together by soft soap and hunger and with front-seat drivers and back-seat drivers contradicting each other in a bedlam of voices, shouting "go right" and "go left" at the same time.
• It is not the years in your life but the life in your years that counts.
• It will be helpful in our mutual objective to allow every man in America to look his neighbor in the face and see a man— not a color.
• It's hard to lead a cavalry charge if you think you look funny on a horse.
• Law is not a profession at all, but rather a business service station and repair shop.
• Laws are never as effective as habits.
• Man does not live by words alone, despite the fact that sometimes he has to eat them.
• Man is a strange animal. He generally cannot read the handwriting on the wall until his back is up against it.
• Nature is indifferent to the survival of the human species, including Americans.
• On the plains of hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions who at the dawn of victory lay down to rest, and in resting died. (it ain't over till it's over)
• On this shrunken globe, men can no longer live as strangers.
• Peace is the one condition of survival in this nuclear age.
• Public confidence in the integrity of the Government is indispensable to faith in democracy; and when we lose faith in the system, we have lost faith in everything we fight and spend for.
• Respect for intellectual excellence, the restoration of vigor and discipline to our ideas of study, curricula which aim at strengthening intellectual fiber and stretching the power of young minds, personal commitment and responsibility— these are the preconditions of educational recovery in America today; and, I believe, they have always been the preconditions of happiness and sanity for the human race.
• Saskatchewan is much like Texas- except it's more friendly to the United States
• She would rather light candles than curse the darkness, and her glow has warmed the world. (speaking about Eleanor Roosevelt)
• Some of us worship in churches, some in synagogues, some on golf courses.
• Some people approach every problem with an open mouth.
• That which seems the height of absurdity in one generation often becomes the height of wisdom in another.
o Variant: That which seems to be the height of absurdity in one generation often becomes the height of wisdom in another.
• The art of government has grown from its seeds in the tiny city-states of Greece to become the political mode of half the world. So let us dream of a world in which all states, great and small, work together for the peaceful flowering of the republic of man.
• The best reason I can think of for not running for President of the United States is that you have to shave twice a day.
• The elephant has a thick skin, a head full of ivory, and as everyone who has seen a circus parade knows, proceeds best by grasping the tail of its predecessor. ** Comment on the Republican symbol.
• The human race has improved everything, but the human race.
• The journey of a thousand leagues begins with a single step. So we must never neglect any work of peace within our reach, however small.
• The Republicans have a "me too" candidate running on a "yes but" platform, advised by a "has been" staff.
• The time to stop a revolution is at the beginning, not the end.
• The whole basis of the United Nations is the right of all nations great or small— to have weight, to have a vote, to be attended to, to be a part of the twentieth century.
• There are worse things than losing an election; the worst thing is to lose one's convictions and not tell the people the truth.
o Responding to an assertion that his support for a ban on nuclear testing would probably cost him votes.
• There is a New America every morning when we wake up. It is upon us whether we will it or not.
• There was a time when a fool and his money were soon parted, but now it happens to everybody.
• Those who corrupt the public mind are just as evil as those who steal from the public purse.
• To act coolly, intelligently and prudently in perilous circumstances is the test of a man- and also a nation.
• Understanding human needs is half the job of meeting them.
• Unreason and anti-intellectualism abominate thought. But shouting is not a substitute for thinking and reason is not the subversion but the salvation of freedom.
• We can chart our future clearly and wisely only when we know the path which has led to the present.
• We have confused the free with the free and easy.
• We live in a time when automation is ushering in a second industrial revolution
• We mean by "politics" the people's business— the most important business there is.
• We must recover the element of quality in our traditional pursuit of equality. We must not, in opening our schools to everyone, confuse the idea that all should have equal chance with the notion that all have equal endowments.
• We travel together, passengers on a little spaceship, dependent on it's vulnerable reserves of air and soil, all committed, for our safety, to it's security and peace. Preserved from annihilation only by the care, the work and the love we give our fragile craft.
• What a man knows at fifty that he did not know at twenty is for the most part incommunicable.
• What do I believe? As an American I believe in generosity, in liberty, in the rights of man. These are social and political faiths that are part of me, as they are, I suppose, part of all of us. Such beliefs are easy to express. But part of me too is my relation to all life, my religion. And this is not so easy to talk about. Religious experience is highly intimate and, for me, ready words are not at hand.
• You can tell the size of a man by the size of the thing that makes him mad.
• Newspaper editors are men who separate the wheat from the chaff, and then print the chaff.

Quotes of others about Stevenson
• He had that quality for which the Africans . . . have found a special term . . . 'Nommo'. . . the Bantu word for the gift of making life rather larger and more vivid for everyone else. ~ Barbara Ward, German economist.

[1932]

23. So he wasn't a corporate lawyer after '56 who was unhappy with Kennedy

for criticizing colonialism? He went on a tour of Africa in support of his clients ripping off Africans.

[papau]

38. 1961 to death in 65 he was Ambass to UN pushing Nuke treaties

Any lawyer advocates what his client wants - that is what lawyers do

And Corporations want to make money - a process called ripping off Africans in your post.

If JFK said a criticism of colonialism that bothered Adlai, Adlai's anger got no play in the media or the party - I never knew Adlai was angry with JFK (but I was only a worker bee).

[1932]

42. No kidding. But what kind of message does that send to voters?

Our allegiances follow the buck? Come on. If you start saying that one minute you are for the people and the next minute imperialism is cool because the companies that get rich off of it pay your salary, then don't run for president, and don't criticize Democrats who care about what's good for the people more than what's good for corporations, or run for the Repubican nomination.

[papau]

43. Our allegiances follow the buck? To some point that is true - and I

do not recall Adlai being that contrary to progressive values- ever.

In 56-58 we gave the Brits and French the finger, and I recall Adlai feeling that was not the way to treat them. I do not recall Adlai giving any endorsement of imperialism - indeed he always spoke against it.

[1932]

46. It's in Parker's book.

My argument isn't that people knew this about Stevenson. My argument is that Stevenson felt this way, yet Truman and others felt he was the right guy to push into the presidency.

They should have known that a guy who didn't even feel himself at home with Democratic principles would never be able to convince voters that he had the conviction they were looking for. It's nice that some DU'ers remember him fondly, but he lost in a landslide in '52 and did worse in '56. So you're in very rare company if you liked him. And if you thought he was very progressive, you should be aware that a big reason Truman picked him was because they felt he would be the most conservative off all possible choices and therefore least like to be accused of being communist (and they were surprised that he was even more conservative than they thought he was! -- see post 10).

Incidentally in '52, Stevenson didn't even run in the primary. He was elected by insiders at the convention after nobody else got a majority. (They used different rules back then.) So, had Truman not pushed him among insiders, he never would have been the nominee and he porobably wouldn't have run in '56 either.

[papau]

51. My memory is that he was "at home with Democratic principles" - but

Federal role was not then the key point re civil rights, and his women's role view - that sucked - was supported by Dem women! :-(

I think the distinctions made in the Parker book are too dramatic - they did not seem so clear at the time.

As for "least like to be accused of being communist" that was indeed a major concern - the GOP/GE/Media were hard at work back then smearing everyone - indeed Adlai was still called a communist, or soft on communism, by various GOP voices and the media.

[1932]

53. Yes, because he presenting outwardly something he wasn't.

That's my point.

When Kennedy ran in '60, Galbraith sent him a memo on his campaign in which he said that Nixon comes across as contrived, whereas, on every issue he speaks, Kennedy exudes conviction. Conviction is important. When you read what Stevenson believed privately, it's hard to imagine that he was able to speak with conviction.

He was managed into a candidate that didn't match who he was and this is, perhaps, why he lost in a landslide in '52 and then did even worse in '56.

Also, I think you dismiss WAY TOO EASILY the notion that arguing that the feds had no role in civil rights was somehow state of the art thinking. Do you have any evidence that true progressives believed that 85 years after the end of the civil war? In 1948, this was a major issue at the Democratic convention with the southern democrats saying one thing and most other Democrats saying something else.


If you read my OP and post 10, you'll see that there's not much drama there. It's just facts.

Letting the fear of being labeled a communist be the chief motivation of who you nominate when the Republicans were willing to call EVERYTHING Communist, no matter how illogical that claim is, is probably the thing here that is worth criticizing.

Parker writes that during the cold war, many moderate politicians were very criticial of cold war scare mongering not for any ideological reason, but because they knew that the implication was that the US Gov't was handing over to Moscow complete control of the US Federal Gov't. It forced the US to have to react to Moscow's actions. My impression is that the same logic applies to campaigning. When you pick your candidate based on the fear that Republicans will call your nominee a communist, you're conceding control of your campaign to Republicans, and you're making it very hard to win. I think that's what happened with Stevenson.

[papau]

58. I agree - for far too long fear of "not strong on enemies" has ruled

the Dems -

but that was because, with our media controlled by the right, that thought also ruled the voters. The 50's media was permitted to be "left" as to a few social causes - but they had to appreciate the greatness of those that were "strong patriots" (read GOP).

Adlai was my Governor - and in Illinois he indeed did lead the civil rights fight during his stay in office (the world of "letting Blacks work would mean less educated whites might lose jobs" was in effect at the time - and he helped the unions kill that nonsense - albeit that nonsense it didn't totally die until the late 60's).

Back then the rich did not war on the poor except via Federal and State budget cuts - it was not like now where the rich steal from the middle class and our kids in their never ending greed.

Adlai came across as quite liberal for the times - indeed I can think of no national name that could have done better in the actual election - and who was as liberal.

[Steely_Dan]

27. EXCELLENT POST

I enjoyed reading it.

-Paige

[1932]

30. Don't forget to read Parker's Galbraith biography too.

If you don't have time for the whole thing, start at about page 230 and read the next 100 pages.

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. Adlai Stevenson's best line: "You're the thinking man's candidate!"

Stevenson responded "Yes, Madam, but I need a majority."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Remember when politicians used to have a bit of grace and humor?

[spaniard]

25. I can't believe they (or anyone) would have preferred Wallace...

..over Stevenson.

Especially if winning was the goal.

[Steely_Dan]

28. Actually...

I don't altogether disagree with you.

However, it is commonly believed that Stevenson lost because he was considered too "intellectual" for the common man. That is to say, he could not effectively communicate with the electorate. He was indeed, a brilliant man in my humble opinion.

-Paige

[1932]

31. I'm not arguing that Stevenson could have won.

I'm just wondering how the Democratic party thought they were going to win running a guy who wrote in his diary that the Republicans perhaps deserved their turn, and who didn't believe in anything Truman did other than being a raging anti-communist, and who abandoned an ideas-base primary campaign in order to personally attack his opponent, and who criticized another Democrat for being an anti-colonialist because he felt he had to protect his corporate clients.

[Steely_Dan]

32. Hey, He Wasn't Perfect...

Touche...

[kskiska]

77. He also had a great appeal to women

He was surrounded by women who were nuts about him. Lauren Bacall admits having a terrific crush on him and was a great supporter who spent lots of time with him. Bogey was jealous.

Ike was a national hero and hard to beat. My grandmother loved Ike because "he had a nice smile." Ike was apolitical and was courted by both parties to run. For some reason he chose the Republicans.

[Bucky]

33. Look for a little more balance, '32. And about that balanced budget thing,

What's wrong with that?

[1932]

37. See post 10.

I hope it answers your question.

As for balanced budgets, that's what the New Deal was all about. Republicans refused to run deficits. Keynesians believed that in times of trouble, the gov't should run deficits in order to create full employment to increase demand for goods.

After WW2 a new type of Keynesians emerged -- business Keynesians who believed that the government should run deficits in order to build up a huge military, which would make the government a major player in the economy. True Keyensians didn't really think that was Keynes's point. But, nonetheless, true progressives believe that deficits in times of trouble are necessary (which Stevenson didn't believe) and they believed that spending huge amounts on the military actually distorted markets and was a poor alocation of resources (which Stevenson didn't seem to believe) -- and then there's all that stuff in post 10.

[dflprincess]

35. One of the big criticisms for Stevenson

was that he was an "egg head". Because, God forbid, we wouldn't want a president that was too smart.

[NNadir]

39. Um, Kennedy was the only democratic Senator NOT to censure McCarthy.

McCarthy was a close personal friend, and was, actually Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s (the current congressman) Godfather.

Kennedy feigned a back injury and stayed in the hospital to avoid censuring his friend.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/progjfk2.htm

Stevenson had his faults and weaknesses, but Eleanor Roosevelt was an enthusiastic supporter of his. That is a lot, because Ms. Roosevelt was one of the finest human beings ever to live in the White House. Mrs. Roosevelt wanted Stevenson again in 1960, but found herself nonetheless trapped into supporting someone she detested, John F. Kennedy. She - correctly as it turns out - was particularly suspicious of his incredible weakness on Civil Rights.

When Martin Luther King gave the "I have a dream," speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Kennedy was a few blocks away, shut up in the White House watching it on television and trying to think of ways he could avoid the whole matter. He tried to have the whole things stopped in fact because he was afraid of its effect on his re-election chances. When he was defied, he made no effort to even acknowledge the existence of the "March on Washington."

Kennedy is one of the most over-rated Presidents in history. He certainly was no liberal and almost stumbled (largely through a lack of gravitas at the Vienna) into incinerating all life on earth. He also put together the team that gave us Vietnam.

[1932]

40. Parker talks about that.

He adds that McCarthy was popular with Massachusetts catholic voters, which put Kennedy in an awkward position.

Parker writes about how Kennedy angled himself as an anti-communist too (ie, a "guns and butter" democrat, which worried Galbraith). However, in private, Galbraith found that Kennedy was very interested in the US not being imperialistic and wasn't a cold warrior and wanted detante and to reduce the military budget and increase social spending.

Kennedy's shift on civil rights during his presidency is much-discussed. You're not telling the whole story if you stop at MLK's Mall speech.

In any event, my point was about Stevenson. Stevenson criticzed Kennedy for criticizing French colonialism in Algiers, and then went on a tour of South African, Ghana, etc., to firmly place himself in support of his corporate clients' interests. And at least Kennedy -- unlike Stevenson -- believed that protecting civil rights was the job of the federal goverment. Stevenson told Ball that he thought that was a job for the states.

[NNadir]

47. Kennedy lived for 86 days after Dr. King's speech.

If he did something meaningful in that time, it would be interesting to hear about it.

People have a way of imagining with unjustified generosity what Kennedy's intentions were about this or that. Of course, such claims cannot be contradicted, but neither are they generally supportable.

Without Lyndon Johnson in the White House I very much doubt that there would have been any passage of the Civil Rights Bill.

[1932]

49. See post 45. Read that speech. June 11, 1963.

[papau]

41. I sort of agree re JFK - and with '32 re Adlai on deficits (Adlai liked

public spending - his Ill highway construction really helped the state - but he was also proud of balanced budgets in time of economic growth.

JFK had great vision but like Adlai's having a blind spot re women's role, JFK was scared of the Southern Dem reaction to civil rights for blacks.

But the Vietnam thing is IKE and the Dulles brothers - folks agreed on elections settling Vietnam in 54 - and Ho won a fair vote in the North and was about to win a fair vote in the South when Dulles decided democracy would be against the US value system for Vietnam in 54 - the idea that South Vietnam might have oil and gas I am sure had no influence on that decision. In 58 Ike sent in troops, which JFK increased from a couple thousand or less to 16000 his first year.

The JFK Vietnam team of corporate WIZ KIDS screwed up - but that is another story.

[1932]

45. On 6/11/63 JFK introduced the bill that became Civil Rights Act of '64

He gave this speech:

Good evening my fellow citizens:

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 of others, to say this 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.

And remember, Stevenson thought the federal government should not enforce civil rights and that it was a matter for the states.

[papau]

50. True of course - but Adlai was very pro-civil rights, BUT it was JFK

that found the guts to oppose the Southern Dems and get a Federal Law.

All through the 50's when Dems controlled a branch of Congress, they really did not control as the Southern Dems would break away and vote with the GOP.

JFK had the guts to go against them - but that was in 63, not in 58 when he thought Adlai would take a 3rd shot in 60.

[1932]

55. Stevenson told George Ball in '52 civil rights was for states not fed gov

So whatever he felt personally about civil rights, he wa willing to tolerate a state-by-state realization of civil rights and he wasn't willing to use the federal government to enforce civil rights (and, implicitly, didn't really see constitutional basis for civil rights).

In '60, during primaries, Kennedy promissed Galbraith and Schlesinger that he would remove an anti-civil rights Senator from the chair of the judicial committee. And he did introduce the CRA.

Also he did criticize colonialism and imperialism in Africa as a Senator, whereas Stevenson approved of it because it benefited his clients and therefore his bank account.

[papau]

60. True as to Adlai - JFK actions should be viewed through the 56-58

finger that we were giving the Brits/French at the time (which was partially anti-Jewish also).

I do not know what JFK's motivation for his comments at the time on colonialism (although I liked them) - and I do not know how a President could determine the chair of the Senate judicial committee (although again I agreed with idea as I was tearing my hair out at the time over the southern Dem/Gop blockade on doing good).

I also do not know Adlai's motivation post 56 to 60 and his comments on Africa. I suspect money making was a part - but I also suspect foreign policy with the Brits/French was a part.

[Demoiselle]

56. I was a sentient being then...and this really doesn't sound like Adlai

He was adored by his base of liberal democrats, was quite possibly the most eloquent speaker since Lincoln, came across as warmly human and very bright (and funny). Progressives (not a word in vogue then) felt pretty strong.....perhaps because we had very strong labor unions,many (then) new social programs and a real sense of shared purpose, thanks to the Depression and WWII. I urge you to read some other books about him before you draw such unpleasant conclusions.
Things you must remember.: After 5 terms of Democratic presidents and with congress still firmly in the hands of the Dems...American voters elected the war hero who had led them and their sons through the war...an amiable, bland, old-fashioned Republican (one who kept his party affiliation to himself until he decided to run on the Repub side) who seemed to be everybody's warm hearted gramps. There wasn't a Democrat in the country who could have beaten him....certainly NOT Henry Wallace!!
And one more thing. The book you cite is about Galbraith....a through and through Kennedy man. The Kennedys really disliked Stevenson. Jack had every expectation of being named Adlai's Veep in '56 but Stevenson decided against naming him and threw the nomination to theopen convention. (They picked Estes Kefauver.) The Kennedys felt betrayed, played rough, and they held grudges. The book may have a similar bias.

[papau]

61. I agree :-)

:-)

[1932]

74. Here's Parker's bio.

If you can discern a bias, let me know:

Richard Parker is Lecturer in Public Policy and Senior Fellow of the Shorenstein Center. An economist by training, he is a graduate of Dartmouth College and Oxford University. He has worked as an economist for the UNDP, as cofounder of Mother Jones Magazine, and as head of his own consulting firm, serving congressional clients, including Senators Kennedy, Glenn, Cranston, and McGovern, among others. Parker has held Marshall, Rockefeller, Danforth, Goldsmith, and Bank of America Fellowships. His books include: The Myth of the Middle Class, a study of U.S. income distribution;Mixed Signals: The Future of Global Television News; and the intellectual biography, John Kenneth Galbraith: The Making of American Economics. His articles have appeared in numerous academic anthologies and journals and in the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, New Republic, Nation, Harper's, Le Monde, Atlantic Monthly, and International Economy, among others.

[elperromagico]

57. Could any Democrat at that time have beaten Ike?

I have serious doubts.

[Nederland]

62. Don't you think

...that the fact that the Republicans were running General Dwight D. Eisenhower, hero of WWII and, in March of 1952, THE most admired living American, had a little something to do with the loss?

Do you think?

[enigma000]

63. Eisenhower would have been a tough candidate to beat

The Democrats had been in power for 20 years; sometimes it is felt that there has to be a rotation of political parties at the top, from time to time or stagnation sets in.

The Korean War was was gaining unpopularity.

Adlai Stevenson might have been one of the few candidates who was willing to run. Remember not too long ago, Bush looked like he was a shoo-in for re-election. And this may have caused A-list candidates like Hillary Clinton to postpone their White House ambitions for a later occasion, while more B-list candidates took a shot at the nomination.

[1932]

64. As I've said before

I'm not arguing that a Democrat could have won. I'm suggesting that they could have picked a better democrat to run. In losing, they could have done a better job of showing people what they stood for.

As for '56, Korean War spending meant a recession in three out of four years during the first term. Notwithstanding Eisenhower's caution against the military-industrial complex, he had spent more during his administration escalating cold war spending than FDR spent to win the war (and FDR was taking the US miliary from the 9th largest (on par with Belgium) to the largest in the world).

The Democrats definitely could have done a better job running in '56. And again, I'm not saying they could have won. But Stevenson did worse in '56 than in '52 and he stood for little more than personal attacks on Eisenhower during the general election. (The campaign had an internal debate with the speech writers asking for Stevenson to put forward ideas and the political managers arguing for personal attacks, with the political managers prevailing.)

I really think '52 and '56 are lessons on how not to pick a candidate and how a candidate should not run for office.

It's really surprising that I'm getting so much resistance to that idea since Stevenson lost in a landslide TWICE. Kerry only lost by 4%.

What next at DU? Are people going to defend Mondale and Dukakis as brilliant picks for the nomination too?

[Nederland]

65. Response

I guess you've probably explained why they ran Stevenson. All the "better" picks didn't want to run and lose.

[1932]

66. Kefauver didn't get a majority at the convention

in '52. They had different rules back then, so back room dealings resulted in Stevenson being picked even though he didn't run in a single primary.

Could you imagine that happening today?

He was the nominee in '56 mostly because he was the nominee in '52. That's sort of like Bush being the incumbent in 2004 only because the Supreme Court picked him to be president in 2000. It's building on a mistake.

Perhaps the Democratic Party would have been better off with Kefvauver, even though he was really a sort of faux-populist. Or maybe we shouldn't have spent so much time as a party undermining in Wallace and the P.C.A.?

Maybe the lesson is that we really need to think hard about conviction and honest progressively in our nominees and we shouldn't pick our candidates based on a fear of what Republicans are going to say about them. For example, what we really needed in '52 was a candidate who stood up for the people. But the democrats were deathly afraid that anyone who seemed too much like a populist would be seen as a communist. But maybe that's the debate we should have been having. Instead we conceded to Republicans and removed from the debate any questions about whether huge military spending instead of social spending was smart.

The equivalent today is that the Democrats are afraid to run anyone who doesn't seem strong on terrorism. What are we sacrificing by letting the Republicans define our candidates like that?

[ISUGRADIA]

67. Uh, a large majority of the delegates were not chosen in primaries

in 1952.

[1932]

69. Uh, thus the crappy outcome of the convention.

[ISUGRADIA]

68. There was no way in hell Henry Wallace would have ever been

nominated in 1952 after running against Truman in 1948, getting smashed in the process, and being an apologist for Stalin.

[1932]

71. I don't think he was running. I meant to write "Party of Wallace"

ie, P.C.A. candidates.

Humphrey ran in '52 and probably would have been a good choice. Kefauver was a faux-populist, but at least the debate would have been about populism.

And once again, this isn't an argument about how the Democrats could have won. It's about picking candidates who move the progressive debate forward and who, even if they lose, help Americans see what it is that Democrats believe in.

[ISUGRADIA]

76. Humphrey was not a candidate until 1960

He had no serious bid in 52, just a favorite son candidacy. I understand your other points though.

[lynne]

72. If we are bright, it will be a lesson learned -

[rhett o rick]

75. Oh yeah, well i can't believe the Republicans ran Dick Nixon.

Once I was an anti-Vietnam War Republican. After we got rid of Johnson, I felt the Republicans had an excellent opportunity to elect someone great. Instead they chose Dick Nixon, already, a proven loser. Why, I asked myself, didn't they go for someone decent. I think the answer is the same as why they ran Bushy. They want a dupe as their leader. It didn't take much of the Nixon experience to make me run screaming from the Republican Party, never to look back.