Lend Me Your Ears: Great Speeches in History

by Unknown

  I’m not satisfied when the Soviet Union is turning out twice as many scientists and engineers as we are.

  I’m not satisfied when many of our teachers are inadequately paid or when our children go to school on part-time shifts. I think we should have an educational system second to none.

  I’m not satisfied when I see men like Jimmy Hoffa, in charge of the largest union in the United States, still free.

  I’m not satisfied when we are failing to develop the natural resources of the United States to the fullest. Here in the United States, which developed the Tennessee Valley and which built the Grand Coulee and the other dams in the northwest United States, at the present rate of hydropower production—and that is the hallmark of an industrialized society—the Soviet Union by 1975 will be producing more power than we are.

  These are all the things, I think, in this country that can make our society strong or can mean that it stands still.

  I’m not satisfied until every American enjoys his full constitutional rights. If a Negro baby is born, and this is true also of Puerto Ricans and Mexicans in some of our cities, he has about one-half as much chance to get through high school as a white baby. He has one-third as much chance to get through college as a white student. He has about a third as much chance to be a professional man, and about half as much chance to own a house. He has about four times as much chance that he’ll be out of work in his life as the white baby. I think we can do better. I don’t want the talents of any American to go to waste.

  I know that there are those who say that we want to turn everything over to the government. I don’t at all. I want the individuals to meet their responsibilities and I want the states to meet their responsibilities. But I think there is also a national responsibility.

  The argument has been used against every piece of social legislation in the last twenty-five years. The people of the United States individually could not have developed the Tennessee Valley. Collectively, they could have.

  A cotton farmer in Georgia or a peanut farmer or a dairy farmer in Wisconsin or Minnesota—he cannot protect himself against the forces of supply and demand in the marketplace, but working together in effective governmental programs, he can do so.

  Seventeen million Americans who live over sixty-five on an average Social Security check of about seventy-eight dollars a month—they’re not able to sustain themselves individually, but they can sustain themselves through the Social Security system.

  I don’t believe in big government, but I believe in effective government action, and I think that’s the only way that the United States is going to maintain its freedom; it’s the only way that we’re going to move ahead. I think we can do a better job. I think we’re going to have to do a better job if we are going to meet the responsibilities which time and events have placed upon us.

  We cannot turn the job over to anyone else. If the United States fails, then the whole cause of freedom fails, and I think it depends in great measure on what we do here in this country.

  The reason Franklin Roosevelt was a good neighbor in Latin America was because he was a good neighbor in the United States, because they felt that the American society was moving again. I want us to recapture that image. I want people in Latin America and Africa and Asia to start to look to America to see how we’re doing things, to wonder what the president of the United States is doing, and not to look at Khrushchev or look at the Chinese Communists. That is the obligation upon our generation.

  In 1933 Franklin Roosevelt said in his inaugural that this generation of Americans has a “rendezvous with destiny.” I think our generation of Americans has the same “rendezvous.” The question now is, Can freedom be maintained under the most severe attack it has ever known? I think it can be, and I think in the final analysis it depends upon what we do here. I think it’s time America started moving again.

  [SMITH:] And now the opening statement by Vice-President Richard M. Nixon.

  [NIXON: ] Mr. Smith, Senator Kennedy.

  The things that Senator Kennedy has said, many of us can agree with. There is no question but that we cannot discuss our internal affairs in the United States without recognizing that they have a tremendous bearing on our international position. There is no question but that this nation cannot stand still, because we are in a deadly competition, a competition not only with the men in the Kremlin but the men in Peking. We’re ahead in this competition, as Senator Kennedy, I think, has implied. But when you’re in a race, the only way to stay ahead is to move ahead, and I subscribe completely to the spirit that Senator Kennedy has expressed tonight, the spirit that the United States should move ahead.

  Where, then, do we disagree?

  I think we disagree on the implication of his remarks tonight and on the statements that he has made on many occasions during his campaign to the effect that the United States has been standing still.

  We heard tonight, for example, the statement made that our growth and national product last year was the lowest of any industrial nation in the world.

  Now, last year, of course, was 1958. That happened to be a recession year, but when we look at the growth of GNP this year—a year of recovery—we find that it is 6.9 percent and one of the highest in the world today. More about that later.

  Looking then to this problem of how the United States should move ahead and where the United States is moving, I think it is well that we take the advice of a very famous campaigner: “Let’s look at the record.”

  Is the United States standing still?

  Is it true that this administration, as Senator Kennedy has charged, has been an administration of retreat, of defeat, of stagnation?

  Is it true that as far as this country is concerned in the field of electric power, and all of the fields that he has mentioned, we have not been moving ahead?

  Well, we have a comparison that we can make. We have the record of the Truman administration of seven and a half years, and the seven and a half years of the Eisenhower administration.

  When we compare these two records in the areas that Senator Kennedy has discussed tonight, I think we find that America has been moving ahead.

  Let’s take schools. We have built more schools in these last seven and a half years than we built in the previous seven and a half, for that matter in the previous twenty years.

  Let’s take hydroelectric power. We have developed more hydroelectric power in these seven and a half years than was developed in any previous administration in history.

  Let us take hospitals. We find that more have been built in this administration than in the previous administration. The same is true of highways.

  Let’s put it in terms that all of us can understand.

  We often hear gross national product discussed, and in that respect may I say that when we compare the growth in this administration with that of the previous administration, that then there was a total growth of 11 percent over seven years; in this administration there has been a total growth of 19 percent over seven years.

  That shows that there has been more growth in this administration than in its predecessor. But let’s not put it there; let’s put it in terms of the average family.

  What has happened to you?

  We find that your wages have gone up five times as much in the Eisenhower administration as they did in the Truman administration.

  What about the prices you pay?

  We find that the prices you pay went up five times as much in the Truman administration as they did in the Eisenhower administration.

  What’s the net result of this?

  This means that the average family income went up 15 percent in the Eisenhower years as against 2 percent in the Truman years.

  Now, this is not standing still, but good as this record is, may I emphasize it isn’t enough.

  A record is never something to stand on; it’s something to build on, and in building on this record I believe that we have the secret for progress.

  We know the way to
progress, and I think first of all our own record proves that we know the way.

  Senator Kennedy has suggested that he believes he knows the way.

  I respect the sincerity with he—which he makes that suggestion, but on the other hand when we look at the various programs that he offers, they do not seem to be new. They seem to be simply retreads of the programs of the Truman administration which preceded him, and I would suggest that during the course of the evening he might indicate those areas in which his programs are new, where they will mean more progress than we had then.

  What kind of programs are we for?

  We are for programs that will expand educational opportunities, that will give to all Americans their equal chance for education, for all of the things which are necessary and dear to the hearts of our people.

  We are for programs in addition which will see that our medical care for the aged is much better handled than it is at the present time.

  Here again may I indicate that Senator Kennedy and I are not in disagreement as to the aim. We both want to help the old people. We want to see that they do have adequate medical care. The question is the means.

  I think that the means that I advocate will reach that goal better than the means that he advocates.

  I could give better examples, but for whatever it is, whether it’s in the field of housing or health or medical care or schools or the development of electric power, we have programs which we believe will move America, move her forward and build on the wonderful record that we have made over these past seven and a half years.

  Now, when we look at these programs, might I suggest that in evaluating them we often have a tendency to say that the test of a program is how much you are spending. I will concede that in all of the areas to which I have referred, Senator Kennedy would have the federal government spend more than I would have it spend.

  I costed out the cost of the Democratic platform. It runs a minimum of $13.2 billion a year more than we are presently spending to a maximum of $18 billion a year more than we are presently spending.

  Now, the Republican platform will cost more, too. It will cost a minimum of $4 billion a year more, a maximum of $4.9 billion a year more than we are presently spending.

  Now, does this mean that his program is better than ours?

  Not at all, because it isn’t a question of how much the federal government spends. It isn’t a question of which government does the most. It’s a question of which administration does the right things, and in our case I do believe that our programs will stimulate the creative energies of 180 million free Americans.

  I believe the programs that Senator Kennedy advocates will have a tendency to stifle those creative energies.

  I believe, in other words, that his programs would lead to the stagnation of the motive power that we need in this country to get progress.

  The final point that I would like to make is this: Senator Kennedy has suggested in his speeches that we lack compassion for the poor, for the old, and for others that are unfortunate.

  Let us understand throughout this campaign that his motives and mine are sincere. I know what it means to be poor. I know what it means to see people who are unemployed.

  I know Senator Kennedy feels as deeply about these problems as I do, but our disagreement is not about the goals for America but only about the means to reach those goals…

  [SMITH:] Three minutes and twenty seconds for each candidate, Vice-President Nixon, will you make the first summation?

  [NIXON: ] Thank you, Mr. Smith.

  Senator Kennedy, first of all I think it is well to put in perspective where we really do stand with regard to the Soviet Union in this whole matter of growth.

  The Soviet Union has been moving faster than we have, but the reason for that is obvious. They start from a much lower base.

  Although they have been moving faster in growth than we have, we find for example today that their total gross national product is only 44 percent of our total gross national product. That’s the same percentage that it was twenty years ago; and as far as the absolute gap is concerned, we find that the United States is even further ahead than it was twenty years ago.

  Is this any reason for complacency?

  Not at all, because these are determined men, they are fanatical men, and we have to get the very most out of our economy.

  I agree with Senator Kennedy completely on that score.

  Where we disagree is in the means that we would use to get the most out of our economy.

  I respectfully submit that Senator Kennedy too often would rely too much on the federal government on what it would do to solve our problems, to stimulate growth.

  I believe that when we examine the Democratic platform, when we examine the proposals that he has discussed tonight, when we compare them with the proposals that I have made, that these proposals that he makes would not result in greater growth for this country than would be the case if we followed the programs that I have advocated.

  There are many of the points that he has made that I would like to comment upon; the one in the field of health is worth mentioning.

  Our health program, the one that Senator Javits and other Republican senators as well as I supported, is one that provides for all people over sixty-five who want health insurance—the opportunity to have it if they want it. It provides a choice of having either government insurance or private insurance, but it compels nobody to have insurance who does not want it.

  His program under Social Security would require everybody who had Social Security to take government health insurance whether he wanted it or not, and it would not cover several million people who are not covered by Social Security at all.

  Here is one place where I think that our program does a better job than his.

  The other point that I would make is this: this downgrading of how much things cost, I think many of our people will understand better when they look at what happened when during the Truman administration, when the government was spending more than it took in.

  We found savings over a lifetime eaten up by inflation. We found the people who could least afford it, people on retired incomes, people on fixed incomes, we found them unable to meet their bills at the end of the month.

  It is essential that a man who is president of this country certainly stand for every program that will mean growth, and I stand for programs that mean growth and progress.

  But it is also essential that he not allow a dollar spent that could be better spent by the people themselves.

  [SMITH:] Senator Kennedy, your conclusion.

  [KENNEDY:] The point was made by Mr. Nixon that the Soviet production is only 44 percent of ours. I must say that 44 percent in that Soviet country is causing us a good deal of trouble tonight. I want to make sure that it stays in that relationship. I don’t want to see the day when it’s 60 percent of ours and 70 and 75 and 80 and 90 percent of ours, with all the force and power that it could bring to bear in order to cause our destruction.

  Secondly, the vice-president mentioned medical care for the aged. Our program was an amendment to the Kerr bill; the Kerr bill provided assistance to all those who are not on Social Security. I think it’s a very clear contrast.

  In 1935 when the Social Security Act was written, 94 out of 95 Republicans voted against it. Mr. Landon ran in 1936 to repeal it.

  In August of 1960 when we tried to get it again, this time for medical care, we received the support of one Republican in the Senate on this occasion.

  Thirdly, I think the question before the American people is, as they look at this country, and as they look at the world around them, the goals are the same for all Americans; the means are at question; the means are at issue.

  If you feel that everything that is being done now is satisfactory, that the relative power and prestige and strength of the United States is increasing in relation to that of the Communists, that we are gaining more security, that we are achieving everything as a nation that we should
achieve, that we are achieving a better life for our citizens and greater strength, then I agree. I think you should vote for Mr. Nixon.

  But if you feel that we have to move again in the sixties, that the function of the president is to set before the people the unfinished business of our society, as Franklin Roosevelt did in the thirties, the agenda for our people, what we must do as a society to meet our needs in this country and protect our security and help the cause of freedom—as I said at the beginning, the question before us all that faces all Republicans and all Democrats is, Can freedom in the next generation conquer, or are the Communists going to be successful? That’s the great issue.

  And if we meet our responsibilities, I think freedom will conquer. If we fail—if we fail to move ahead, if we fail to develop sufficient military and economic and social strength here in this country, then I think that the tide could begin to run against us, and I don’t want historians ten years from now to say these were the years when the tide ran out for the United States. I want them to say these were the years when the tide came in, these were the years when the United States started to move again. That’s the question before the American people, and only you can decide what you want, what you want this country to be, what you want to do with the future.

  I think we’re ready to move. And it is to that great task, if we are successful, that we will address ourselves.

  Senators Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen Clash on Qualifications for the Presidency

  “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”

  J. Danforth Quayle, forty-one, second-term senator from Indiana, was Vice-President George H. W. Bush’s surprise choice for a running mate on the Republican ticket in 1988. Lloyd Bentsen, sixty-seven, fourth-term senator from Texas (who defeated Bush for a Senate seat in 1970), was the choice of the Democratic candidate, Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts.