Text of An Addres by Senator Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona) Before the Commonwealth Club Fairmount Hote.l, San Francisco, Ca.li tornia 12 o'clock, noon, February 12, 1964 AUTOMATIC RELEASE AT NOON, FEBRUARY 12, 1964 (CALIFORNIA TIME) There's an Iron Curtain joke that I've thought about a let these past days. It concerns the worker in a People's Factory whose wife wasex- pecting a child. ing Coincidentally, this fellow's factory was engaged in mak- baby carriages. The opportunity was obvious. Each day he smuggled out a different part from the assembly line, figuring that soon he'd have a brand new carriage for the expected offspring. After a few weeks, one of his comrade-workers inquired as to the status of the proJect. ''Funny thing," the man replied, "I've taken out every single part and I've put the thing together six times--but no matter how I do it, it keeps turning out to be a. machinegun." Funny thing. No matter how many times our State Department keeps putting together the various peaceful parts of Soviet foreign policy--it keeps turning out to be a machine gun, or something equally lethal! But the man in the joke, and the men in the administration keep plugging away, immune to reality, insulated against the cold facts of the cold war, optimists to the bitter end. It is in hope that the bitter end can be prevented, however, that• I am speaking to you today and that I have made my decision also to carry my appeal to the nation. I am well aware that the citizens of this nation, burdened by years of tension, would welcome any relief. I am well aware that there are popularity poll rewards for those who offer it. I know, and you know, that this administration's political strategy has been based upon the domestic bread-and-circuses which will divert attention from foreign policy, away from the world's tensions, and toward local good times. , -2- In President Johnson's State of the Union message there are only fleeting references to foreign policy. And yet, foreign policy is one area in which the President is committed, the Constitution, to assume leader- ship. by It is the area 1n which the people of the United States delegate him a most grave responsibility. In answering domestic needs, the nation has tools in abundance beyond the Presidency--not the least of which is the individual energy and intelligence of individual Americans. But foreign policy is national policy in a crucial sense. not Just another Job for the President . It is It is his primary responsibility. One Party's policies--or one party's ambitions--are deeply involved in domestic programs. But the fate of all parties, all peoples in the nation are entwined with the will of the President when it comes to foreign policy. Let us never forget it and never let politicians forget it--we live or die in the foreign policy of our nation. We cannot be comforted by a recent White House report that the President has held 175 meetings on foreign affairs, that he has discussed national security 30 times with the Secretary of Defense and 51 times with the Secretary of State. We cannot be comforted by the statistics of foreign policy meetings. Foreign policy is not something in which gold stars are given for mere attendance. / This is a deadly serious world we live in. This is _a deadly serious subject. And foreign policy cannot be a President's part-time job. It must be a full-time responsibility. It must be measured by a higher scale than marks 1n an appointment book. .. . t -3· By any higher scale, that measurement today is a measurement . failure. of It is a measurement of retreat in the world--not leadership in the world. It is a measurement of eroded strengths, ailing alliances, and threatening disasters. What peace we gQ_ have in the world 1s not altogether due t o o u r policy. It is due in very large part to the policy of the Soviet Union. Does that sound as though I had switched sides? Think about it. The raw strength of this nation is !!21 a policy. It is a ·fact. And it is that raw strength which the Soviet respects and which has forced it to refrain from disturbing the peace any more than it has. At the same time, the conflicts in the world also are due to Soviet policy. It is they who seek to inflame, and incite. It is they, ) not we, who subvert and commit aggression. Our policies have accomplished one thing. They have permitted the Soviet to carry out plans without fear of reprisal, without pressures of resistance, a.nd without risk of any punishment that would make their adventures unreasonably high priced. This has been the general rule, despite a few exceptions. In terms of the cold war, in terms of the conflict with international Communism, in short, I charge that we have yet to develop a policy. I charge that we have simply been crisis-hopping for an entire generation. The entire history of that generation has yielded not one shred of evidence that the irrational view of man that drives Communism has changed or will willingly change. . I • -4The entire history of that generation has not yielded one shred of evidence that the furies of expansion and aggression, of subversion and, above all, of ideological fervor, have lessened their drive in Communism. We have tried in other periods of good feeling to live tranquilly or even fraternally with Communism. And we were harshly rebuffed. are trying again. Today we We are not trying because we see new evidences, new facts, or because we have new policies, new strengths, new strategems, new confidence. No.We are trying because of an old and vain hope, a. weary wish, and because of vested interests in the mistakes of the past. · We are trying because we continue to see the issue of peace as an abstract issue--because we see Communism in the old-fashioned terms of a nation-state conflict. We are heading toward the same mistakes and toward new disasters because we have not nation as a faced the reality of Communism and its world view of conflict. ----------No matter the changes in the details of policy, the root of the same error feeds the growth of greater error. We should know better from tragic experience entirely separate from Communist experience. We thought for a time, and our British allies particularly thought for a time, that Nazi Germany was just a nation-state problem too. We thought that the national self-interest of the Nazis would modify and mellow the ideological dreams of National Socialism. It did not--and this free world of ours very nearly perished in the flaming aftermath of a simple conceptual error. I implore all those who will listen, to ask of the men who oppose themselves for the responsibilities of foreign policy formulation--to ask of them a single question. • I • .. . -5Do not be satisfied by glittering arrays of programs and proposa1s. Details are cheap and proposals tumble from a politician's kit bag 1ike rabbits from a magician's hat. Ask, instead, what they think of Communism. the profound crisis of the soul that engendered it. What they think of Whether they are prepared to come to terms with it--or whether concretely they would oppose it. Ask and demand the answer to that, for that is the question of war and peace in this world and in this day. And it will be the question tomorrow. It will be the question before November and it will be the question after November. History cannot long defer our payment on this account. We are in arrears already. I am advised that talking of this is not popular. It is too grim. Or it is too tough, too troublesome 1n a time when every fiber of our national being yearns for a holiday, a truce, a time to rest and to relax. I am told that it damages my image and assaults my candidacy. Conscience, I hear, is all right for a Senator--not for an aspirant to higher office. Don't rock the boat. Roll with the punch, ride with the tide • Follow the leader • Bend wi th the wind • I will not run that way. I cannot live that way. And I don't think America can either. I don't think freedom can live that way. It hasn't. It can't-- and it won't! What is m, political life - or compared the political life of any one man- to that? What is the difference then between what we have and what I would do in the foreign policy of this nation? r • " , • -6- Would I Just turn the ship around 180 degrees, reversing every policy, changing every negative to a positive or vice versa? Can I even tell you every particular of every program, every punctuation mark in every state paper? a boast. Only a confidence man would set such a compass or make such I would not do the one, or claim the other. I see the Presidency as much more than a patchwork quilt of programs. I see it as a responsibility of leadership that, foremost, carries the responsibility of a clear view of the world that we have and the world that we want--and a clear vision of the way that can attain it. I am not trying to peddle programs and panaceas. clear understanding of the world as it exists. policy can be determined. I am demanding a Without this no realistic This is the only base upon which to build a realistic policy to win peace. The long job of building such a policy is a national job. It must be done with the convictions of the people and not by the presumption or assumption · of politicians alone. The understanding, the base upon which to build is not complex and should not be. I have stated it before and would like to re-state it here precisely as I h before. ave Such things do not change--and should not. The fundamentals of a decent public order are based upon a view of manas endowed with inherent, intrinsic worth and rights. His worth and his rights must be protected by the rule of law enforced by an impartial judiciary, respect for personal liberty and religi on, a free press, diffusion of political and economic power, and emphasis on freedom of creativity for the individual. I • -7- Since we hold that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, a world in which we can liye safely by our principles must include both opportunity for all nations to live in the way prescribed by their people's convictions and the assurance that our system will · enjoy a decent respect from other governments. In present-day terms, the major objective of the U.S. foreign policy should be the reduction of Communist power to a level from which it cannot threaten the security of our natl.on or the peace of the world. This will require full mobilization of the free world's resolve and its resources to undermine the power now held by Communists and to encourage their eviction from positions of control. This does not mean war. It means the alternative to war; a way to win peace--to end threats to the nation--without war. The choice we fact is all there--because a choice begins with an understanding, not with gimmicks and gadgets, programs and proposals. The choice we have, the choice that is failing around the world is made from an entirely different understanding. Even if the barebones out- lines of every single foreign policy program were the same, the actions, the impact, the results could be totally different because of the different view. An example may help. I would certainly not reduce our effort to fight Communism in South Viet Nam. I would continue and increase that effort. But I see its purpose differently and would set its goal differently. I reject the idea of neutralizing that or any other embattled area of this earth just in order to achieve the false tranquillity of a stalemate with Communism. - 8 - Laos is a crumbling monument to the folly of neutrality in the struggle with communism. South Viet Nam could be another. The President himself bas said that the neutralizing in both sides of Viet Nam would be viewed with sympathy in Washington. Not in my pert of Washington, I can assure you% It has not worked. It never hes worked- and it never Communism cannot be coddled or compromised. It !!,!! will not work. !!ll.• It can only be beaten or eventually you must bend to it. The ways to beat it, and without war, are everywhere apparent. have always had the strength--that is why we have survived. We We have Just lacked the will, the basis of concept end conviction--in the right place at the right time to take the next step. And on this count, I sincerely believe that most Americans have always been far ahead of their government. The instinctively understand our power end the purpose to which it should be dedicated. It not diverted, if not denied the chance and, yes, the responsi- bility, I am convinced they would make the sort of decision about which I speak. Economically we have vast resources. produce communism. Its economy is in trouble. Free nations greatly outWithout our aid it might well collapse! Should we then !!!2, the enemy? Or should we hold our resources as a lever of persuasion, as a bulwark for the hopes of those who are free and a battering ram for those who!!!!!!, to be free? I say we should use those resources for freedom! Milit arily we have the strength to shield our purpose. strength is not immutable. It must be replenished. Rather than freezing the development of our military strength, we must revitalize it. ,, But that • - 9 - The great defensive alliances,which have in the past represented the most basic agreements between the nations we call friends, must also mutual trust • At present, mutual 2!!,trust weakens them be replenished, ?!!!,h and our unconscionable tendency unilaterally to negotiate with the enemy, to trust· him while rebuffing friends, is weakening them further. Psychologically, certainly, we should have the strength. is the product we understand best. Freedom No machines or gadgets we could ever export could have as compelling an impact upon the cold war as could the export of our ideas. It is the freedom to do and freedom to make, not what we make, that could end should inspire the world and wean support from the enemy. We try, today, to consolidate the communist empire. trying to disrupt it. we should be We honor the conquerors, we should discredit them • . We have stopped the development of advanced weapons systems. We gamble that the communists may follow suit. We offer aid and trade to support the collapsing borders of the slave empire. We gamble that the aid and trade will be used for soap and not for subversion. We negotiate in terms that seek the security of the communist heartland. We gamble that the security will pacify them end not embolden them. If we lose the gamble,what will history's dice toss us? Full-scale disaster and defeat! It is said ease tension. that we would; in opposing communism, risk a chance to But, maintain and increase our strength, and particularly with new determination, is that not a reasonable risk? Wemight lose a lot of sleep, but we would not lose our world. • • . - 10 - No government has the right truly to gamble with the security of its · citizens. Nations basis of bard fact. must take risks. But risks should be calculated on the They should not be gambles on nothing more than wishful thinking. The missile crisis proved that. It was a risk, but hardly a gamble. The strength, the cards, were all on our side. Only a real blunder by the Soviet- would have raised the level of danger. That is always a risk--but not a gamble, if prudently played. I have said, and I maintain, that the effective blockade we threw up around Cuba during the missile crisis should still be there, choking the life from the base of subversion which today threatens and inflames the entire hemisphere. Recently it stretched even to Zanzibar! nothing more forceful than evacuate our citizens! And we did When the flames spread farther into East Africa, it was a handful of British soldiers who restored order and safety--and the entire free world should say "Gold bless them" for it! And just as surely, I say that this nation could have responded instantly to the cut off of Guantanamo's water supply, by seizing the pumping station! In doing it, we would risk little but gain much--gain respect, gain new confidence, gain new hope for freedom everywhere. The situation in Panama cannot be divorced from the situation in Cuba or from the communist conflict in the broadest sense. munist agitators at work in Panama. And look a step beyond. the one in Panama. or not. There were com- There are There :!1!!_ will be There is talk of a new canal to replace There is considerable argument about whether we need it Butthat's another question. .. • • 'T - 11 - How would such a canal be bui1t? By pick and shove1? The effective and economic way to build it--the way we cou1d build it most reasonably--would be by excavation with nuclear explosives. But no, we cannot! The test ban treaty prohibits such a peaceful work with the power of the atom. we debated the treaty. I warned against such restrictions when Further, I say that And I warn of them again today. the best interests of this nation would be served by an immediate notice to the Soviet Union, end the other signatory nations, that we want to amend at least that portion of the treaty which prevents such peaceful use of nuclear energy. Why have we harnessed the atom? To keep it locked up? Throughout the area of foreign policy these inter-relations stalk us end often balk us. mental direction. They do it because we have no basic policy, no funda- Instead, we havea patchwork of old expediencies, compounded errors end compromises. It is not the dozens of detailed decisions that confound us or should concern us most at this time. It is the one great decision that confronts us. Will we forge e national purpose end then proceed upon it and for it? Or will we remain in constant retreat,in constant evasion? Make the one greet decision and then the myriad that follow will order and marshall themselves on the agenda of our destiny. Make that one great decision, and NATOcan be drawn from its current mire of despair and made a mighty weapon for freedom; perhaps even the beginning of a true community -of freedom to inspire, guide and restore the entire world. Make that one greet decision, and the restless, disordered yearnings for freedom around the world could be given focus in the light of responsibility rather than mere yearning • • I' - 12 - Make that one great decision and neutralism would stand naked as the moral fraud it is. Make that one great decision and communism would know that freedom means to bury it! Make that one great decision, and the long march to a tomorrow of peace, justice, and freedom will begin. And, God willing, it will prevail. .. , • Goldwater for Pres· en Committee NEWS RELEASE Excerpts of remarks by Senator Barry G. Goldwater before a campaign rally at the University of New Hampshire, Durham, N.H. the evening of ¥.arch 3, 1964 AUTOMATIC RELEASE TO There today. AMS OF MARCH 4, 1964 isn't a person here who doesn't realize that something is wrong with our world We can see it around the world. We can see it at home. This is the most powerful and most prosperous nation on earth and yet: --Cur citizens are harassed And abused even in countries which have depended upon us for ,q,id. --Castro slaps us in our backyard. --Communism goads and probes us around the world even while sustaining itself on our wheat. --Cur friends often find themselves rebuffed while we bow and scrape to our enemies. We pour out our riches and get vilification and chaos in return. --Cur technologies make economies boom around the world while we restrict and repress them at home. --At home our crime rates soar, rising four times as fast as our population. --Juvenile delinquency stalks our homes and blights our future. The quick buck, the dime-novel romances, pride and arrogance, morality that works on a sliding scale depending on your position--all these have replaced what Teddy Roosevelt once called Americanism: "the virtues of courage, honor, justice, truth, sincerity and hardihood-- the virtues that made America." (more) _- - 2 - Call these virtues old-fashioned, too simple for a. complex world, call them cliches--call then what you will, they remain the absolute basic necessities for a public administration that is honest effective, representative, and worthy of Americans. Your New England traditions helped to forge those virtues. Your town meetings gave them political meaning Your self-reliance gave them individual meaning. I recall, fer instance, that during the 20's one of the world's largest cotton textile plants closed down in Manchester, putting thousands out of work. You New Hampshire people did not run to the goverr..Il'.lent for help. You solved that problem with local groups and local initiative and you have been far better off because of it. Local initiative or Fe_d eral control--this is a. choice not of detail but of basic direction. Traditional values, so prevalent here in New England, should guide us in that choice. Public morality is another American tradition. No man is perfect and no series of decisions can be exfected to be perfect. But you have a right to demand that the men making those decisions at least be dedicated to the same traditions and values that you hold, to the same codes of behavior and morality. These are the very codes that conservatives hold dear. I do not believe that political office, for instance, should be regarded as a way to wealth any more than I think it should be a reward fer having wealth. It is an office bestowed upon those who share your values and in whom you can believe. No grab-bag of political premises is as important as this basic agreement between you and those you elect. Government cannot give you the sort of world you want. You must build that world. A just government's job is to protect rights, not abuse them; to free men, not oppress them; to set an example by leadership, not establish mastery by naked power. It is not the heart of the government but the heart of the people that makes a nation great. Look what's happened to governmentwhere it has grown and grown without limit, permitting abuses, tolerating the wheeler -dealers and the fast-buck boys. In one of our largest cities, the jails are so overcrowded that outbreaks of violence are feared every day. And even so, outside the walls, graft, corruption and special privilege fatten on the public's money. A judge resigns under fire. A high state agency is riddled with scandal. In the nation's capital itself, President Johnson's own protege, Bobby Baker, is a symbol of all those who regard the job of government as a personal hunting preserve for power and for fattened purses. Here in your own state, attempts to discuss the great, basic issues have recently been made a mockery by pamphlets which are so careless with the truth that they are little more than political ccmic books. You citizens of New Hampshire really don't have to look far to find the true meaning of the political soul-searching that you are being called upon to do--that all .Americans are being called upon to do. We have at the moment government by :wheeling and dealing. We have others who would replace it with government of personal ambition, or with carbon copies of what has been tried and has failed Eut we have a chance to makea real choice. My candidacy is not the only important element of that choice--far from it. The choice itself is far more important. There are many hundreds of political offices that will be involved, particularly Congressional offices and Senate seats. A candidacy of clear choice, based upon the values which so many of us share, based upon traditional American virtues of the sort Teddy Roosevelt talked about--such a candidacy can help those ether opportunities Roosevelt talked about--such a candidacy can help all those other opportunities for a new and cleaner political slate in this land. And that is what I promise you-not pie-in-the-sky but a new and clean political slate! You here in New Hampshire must take the first step in this year and in tbis land. Your choice Cr i t cbe an for a new beginning, for a rebirth of principle, and individual worth and dignity. You are not vcting just for programs and slogans. You are voting for families and the sort of world in which you want to live--for the sort of people you want to be. co uld be for mere of the same your Whichever way you go, you are holding history in your hands when you step to the ballot box . Handleit carefully. A whole world will be watching. But most importantly, your ccnscience will e watching. Let it be your guide. Goldwater or Presiden Committee NEWS RELEASE Excerpts of remarks by Senator Earry Goldwater at a campaign meeting at the Keene High School cafeteria, Keene, N. H. March 4, 1964 AUTOMATIC RELEASE TO AMs CF MARCH 5., 1964 We now have a President who saves money by turning off the lights in the White House--even as he adds billicns of dollars to our public debt. Why dcesn't he turn en some lights? This nation badly needs them. Lights of mcral leadership, lights of morality in high office, lights of conscience and honesty, lights of strength and courage at heme and abroad. And lights of law and order! Somehow it seems that these great lights are being turned off along with the lights in the White House. Look a.round the land and you can see what I mean. Where is the light of law and order? It is flickering out in streets that are running riot with disregard for traditional American standards of decency and the due process of law. We are faced, for instance, with a grave moral question in our racial relations. And where is it being settled? All the fine talk of settling it with new laws cannot obscure the brutal fact that it is being fought out--not settled!--in the streets. In three agonizing years we have come to the point where many of our citizens--citizens of all races--accept as normal the use of riots, demonstrations, boycotts, violence, pressures, civil discrder, and disobedience as an approach to serious national problems. I knew the long, sad background. I have been active in actions to correct it. Eut I cannot in ccnscience now condone or support the breakdown of civil order that is said of redress and correction and by others to be a necessary weapon to resist that redress and correction. And I believe you people of N.H. share my view. by some to be a necessary weapon It is not wise leadership that takes its cause on either side of this grave issue into the streets this way. It is net understanding of America or Americans that goads a man to abandon· civility in this manner. It is not leadership or understanding that tacitly supports it, that exploits it for political purposes, that inflames it in hopes of reaping the votes of violence, on either side of the coin. I charge that those who take either side of this cause into the streets in violation of the aw dishonor their cause, default their leadership, and defame this nation. I charge that an Administration that stands mute in the face of such violence and disorder is guilty of a cynical default in the exercise of its responsibilities. Justice will net be served, nor justice won in the streets . damaged. Future decades of hope are being dimmed. (more) Decades of progress are being - ·2 - that hearts Laws cannot heal the wounds that are being inflicted in the violence of action and talk now see and hear The old injustice and the new hope can end and begin only in the of men we And the hearts of many men today are being hardened, not opened by attempts to settle grievances violently in the streets. And where is this violence directed, really? It is directed at affairs that are basically personal, moral and individual. It is directed on the one hand at forcing more government intervention. and en the other hand at stopping government intervention. But the root cause stands out sharp and clear . Too much governmentand too little understanding, too much mob and too little individual responsibility . And how well the citizens of New Hampshire understand the importance of this individual responsibility . I say this, and I say it with heartsick regret: in the climatecreated over these past few years in this default of moral leadership and in this lack of understanding, we will see more violence before we see less; we will see more recourse to the naked ·force of government before we see less . And who suffers most? The very people whose problems men of good will north and south, white or Negro, have been hoping to solve in peace This climate of violence and disorder is R storm that is brewed in a governmentalphilosophy which too long has ignored individual responsibilities and individual capacities. Its winds blew through the wreckage of the family as the basic unit of our soniety . Government seeks to be parent, teacher, leader, doctor, and even minister. And its failures are strewn about us in the rubble of rising crime rates, juvenile delinquency, scandal, self-seeking and greedy grabs for power, even in evasion and distortion of issues in order to create false public relations images. Where are the standards of common decency, the traditional virtues of honesty, courage, self-control, truth, and justice? The settlers of New Hampshire and New England brought them to this country 3CO years ago. Are they now outmoded and unnecessary? These are not ccmplex matters. These are not virtues that are outdated by campaign oratory or by mealy-mouthed references to a society grown so complex that we must have new morals which are, in fact, no mcrals at all! lliese traditional virtues are the very heart of our national spirit and our national honor. They are the very heart of the great choice that we face in this election. These are things which you understand in your hearts and which no politician can twist away from you with a smile or a promise. Accuse me, if you will, of trying to simplify issues. I say that any man who stands for office has the responsibility to simplify and clarify! Confidence men use the tricks of complexity and double-talk. Honest men do not. And I repeat, that public morality is an issue and a major one. I repeat that violence in the streets, arrogant power in the government--I repeat that these are moral issues. And I ask that your conscience guide your political decisions, rather than your emotions, rather than expediency, rather than slick tricks and slick shows. Our people must not be tied to the flimsy standards of a bureaucracy. We have an older, richer, and truer morality. Let cur people go that way. Let them have the choice to go that way. Cur people must not be herded into the streets for the · redress of their grievances. We have better ways, mere lasting and more honest ways. Let our people go that way. Let them have the choice to go that way. -- Let our people go- -let them go away from violence and struggle, from divided citizenship, from declining responsibility and increasing regimentation. ·Let our people go, instead, ahead (more) - 3 together in the great and moral works we have to do at heme and in the world. Let our in courage and in faith, people--the people of New Hampshire, of New England, of America-go in honesty and in humility . Simple! old-fashioned! Call it what you will! I call it the way we have gone in our proudest, strongest mcments, in the fullness of our history and our destiny:--i call it the way to a future, under God, withcut equal in the world. Let our people go--let our people go that way; the moral way! There is no other way worthy of our dreams, or sufficient to our task. ·Goldwater for President Committee • • NEWS RELEASE Excerpts of remarks by Senator Barry Goldwater before a campaign rally at the Manchester Armory, Manchester, N. H. , March 5, 1964 AUTCMATIC REI;E.ASE TO AMs of March Peace, with justice and freedom, cannot be won or kept by the weak . be prevented by the faint - hearted and the unsure . 6, 1964 War cannot They only invite defeat . What peace we have in the world today is the result of our strength-of America's strength andCommunism's fear of it . Much of the chaos and conflict we have suffered has been the result of our failure to impress the fact of that strength upon a ruthless and aggressive enemy. Where our strength has been applied, the enemy has yielded and the cause peace has been served. closer to war. Cur Marines, landing in Lebanon in of 1958, did not move the world They moved the world, for a brief moment, closer to peace. back of the Berlin blockade in 1948, did not move the world closer to war . Cur breaking the It moved us for a brief and heroic moment closer to victory over the enemies of peace . And we could have broken the Wall in Berlin with the same assurance that our doing so would have served the cause of freedom- - and not recklessly risked war . Cur blockade of Cuba for those tense but heroic days in 1962 also served the cause of peace and forced the enemies of peace to retreat despite all their missile threats and despite all their talk of retaliation • A And a new blockade of Cuba could serve us as well and not recklessly risk war . Instead, it could prudently and effectively serve the cause of freedom . It is not the fact of our strength, but the failure of our leadership that has made such a mess of Vietnam . lie are bogged down in an aimless, leaderless war . should have a declaration of purpose . We But we have none beyond some political small talk. We have nothing that spells out our common purpose there in this particular time of crisis. We must win in Vietnam! A defeat or a stalemate would imperil freedom everywhere. (more) - 2 - Eut the fear of decision seems to paralyze our leadership. We willingly risk defeat but will not risk the decisions that could lead to victory. Is it reckless to ask for such decisions? Would it be reckless to make them? Who is being reckless today when the question of war and peace arises? Is it reckless to demand that our armed strength be maintained and developed even further? Cr is it reckless to plan, as we today plan, for cutbacks in weapons development, for phasing out of vital systems, for a posture that will be less than we may need in the ccming years? I say that is reckless. I charge that it is reckless in the extreme to depend upon deals with our enemies in the hope that they will mellow, beccme our friends, even change their entire way of life. There were those who thought it would wcrk with Hitler. mistake. Millions died as a result of the I don't believe the people of New Hampshire want our leaders to take such a risk again. What could be more reckless than hoping for a sharing of values with Con:munist leaders who even this week have dedicated a new Institute of Scientific Atheism to sweep away the last vestiges of religion. There are no good and evil forces, according to the announcement of this new Ccn:munist enterprise. All religious belief must be abolished everywhere in the world, they say. Who is reckless? Those who trust such people? Or those who oppose them? Is it reckless to say that there are effective economic, psychological, diplomatic, and political ways to weaken the enemy--to make sure he cannot wage war, to make sure that his aggressions end, that his plans for new aggressions fail, that his old aggressions will be rolled back? Is that reckless? The men who say it is offer no realistic alternative. They offer nothing but weakness. When asked to face the facts, they prefer to change the subject, to talk of daydreams and illusions. No one wants the sort of hard world we have. But it is the world we have. And wishful thinking will not win for freedom nor will promises keep the peace. The enemies of peace and freedom in this world understand one thing. They understand strength. They understand determination. They laugh at weakness. Gratitude isn't in their vocabulary. And they will never change until they are forced to change by the overwhelming conviction that free men will not be buried, that free men will not be scared or blackmailed, that free men will not live under Con:munism, that their sons will not live under Con:munism, and that their grandchildren will not live under Communism. -Let Nikita Khrushchev's grandchildren live under freedom! Let them be released from Communism! Those are goals worthy of freedom! Those are goals that freedom's strength can win. Let us offer to the world the moral leadership which will achieve these goals. - Goldwater for Pres· de t Committee . •: .®ru NEWS RELEASE Excerpts of remarks by Senator Barry Goldwater at a Veteran's Dinner at the Highway Hotel, Concord, N. H., Friday, March 6, 1964 AUTOMATIC RELEASE TO AMs of March 7, 1964 The people of New Hampshire and the rest of the nation have had about as much razzledazzle, public relations politics as they can stomach -- maybe more. We have too many people telling us that we can't understand foreign policy and economic policy because they're just too complicated for ordinary mortals. The truth of the matter is that if we don't understand those policies, it s simple because they don't make sense. 1 Above all we have too many people telling us that everything is fine, that there's nothing to worry about. Why, we even hear that we shouldn't worry about the election because that's in the bag too! What we're really getting from Washington today is the command: "Don't Rock the Boat! " Well, I think it's high time to rock that boat a little! Maybe it will get us back on course. Maybe it will stop us from drifting and dreaming while our problems mount at home and little fires become ten-alarm emergencies abroad. Everything isn't all right and common sense Americans know it. The people of New Hampshire know it better than most. It isn't all right when the spectacle of wheeling and dealing, even of dishonesty in high places encourages a further break-down of moral fiber everywhere. It isn't all right when crime goes up four times as fast as our population, when juvenile delinquency anguishes our families and ravages our streets. It isn't all right when cynicism replaces faith, when expediency replaces patriotism. . It isn't all right when we read every day of scandals that touch the White House, of scandals that touch some of the most important state houses. It isn't all right when the Secretary of Defense has to make a special trip to Vietnam to try and figure out a policy that should have been set three . years ago. It isn't all right when allies like France break away and oppose us while we court the favor of our enemies. It isn't all right when millions of Americans can disagree with de Gaulle about everything he's doing but still wish that someone would stick up for America, the way he has stuck up for France. It isn't all right when serious social problems are fought out in the streets, rather that being thought out in our hearts and in peace, wh.ere the only solutions lie - 2 - But still we are told that we mustn't criticize. That's "bellyaching," the President says. We mustn't rock the boat. It isn't good politics to talk about tough problems to be made to solve them. and the tough decisions that may have It isn't good politics to say that the individual has responsibilities and that the government should have limits. It isn't clever to say that men should have an opportunity to solve their own problems and build their own futures without becoming wards of bureaucrats who will tell them what to do, tell them when to do it, tell them how to do it, and then pay for it all with the money that government has taken away from them in the first place. That's all part and parcel of the pitchman's approach to life. It's all part and parcel of the arrogance that believes your votes can be bought by a smile or for a piece of pie-i_n-the-sky, or a hot dog on the street corner. And I reject every part of that parcel! I am not a lollipop candidate. I could never be a soft-soap President. I will not sugar-coat the tasks we fact. No office in the land is worth that sort of compromise with your conscience. And no man should be worthy of your trust who will compromise, evade, and doubletalk just to elect, elect, and elect. The most impor\ant choice that you can be offered is the choice between directness or confusion in foreign policy, between more individual freedom or more government regimentation and red tape in domestic policy. My candidacy is dedicated to offering you that choice. An election s.houldn't be a shopping list. An election in New Hampshire or any place else should be a signpost. It should point the direction of the nation and signify its choice--not just sew-up a grab-bag of special interests. There is a new mess in Washington. It can be cleaned up--or left to fester. a mess in the world. It can be cleaned up--or left to grow and eventually to bury us. There is I cannot say that the way we should go will be easy. I know it won't. In your hearts you know it can't be. But I will pledge you every effort of heart; mind, and body to restore a decent sense of morality to government --to seek a balance of power and not a monopoly of it --to seek peace with freedom and justice, but without compromising either --to assure that we remain strong enough to do what is right in the world rather than having to do what is exdient --to assure that we can keep the peace and keep our honor! ## # Goldwater for Pres· den Committee NEWS RELEASE Excerpts of remarks by Senator Barry Goldwater before a campaign rally at the Manchester Armory, Manchester, N.H., March 5, 1964 AUTCMATIC RELEASE TO AMs of March Peace, with justice and freedom, cannot be won or kept by the weak. be prevented by the faint -hearted and the unsure. 6, 1964 War cannot They only invite defeat. What peace we have in the world today is the result of our strength-of America's strength and Communism's fear of it. Much of the chaos and conflict we have suffered has been the result of our failure to impress the fact of that strength upon a ruthless and aggressive enemy. Where our strength has been applied, the enemy has yielded and the cause peace has been served. closer to war. of cur Marines, landing in Lebanon in 1958, did not move the world They moved the world, for a brief moment, closer to peace. back of the Berlin blockade in 1948, did not move the world closer to war. Cur breaking the It moved us for a brief and heroic moment closer to victory over the enemies of peace. And we could have broken the Wall in Berlin with the same assurance that our doing so would have served the cause of freedom--and not recklessly risked war. Cur blockade of Cuba for those tense but heroic days in 1962 also served the cause of peace and forced the enemies of peace to retreat despite all their missile threats and despite all their talk of retaliation. And a new blockade of Cuba could serve us as well and not recklessly risk war. Instead, it could prudently and effectively serve the cause of freedom. It is not the fact of our strength, but the failure of our leadership that has made such a mess of Vietnam . We are bogged down in an aimless, leaderless war. should have a declaration of purpose . We But we have none beyond some political small talk . We have nothing that spells out our common purpose there in this particular tin:e of crisis. We must win in Vietnam! A defeat or a stalemate would imperil freedom everywhere. (more) - 2 - Eut the fear of decision seems to paralyze our leadership. We willingly risk defeat but will not risk the decisions that could lead to victory. Is it reckless to ask for such decisions? Would it be reckless to make them? Who is being reckless today when the question of war and peace arises? Is it reckless to demand that our armed strength be maintained and developed even further? Cr is it reckless to plan, as we today plan, for cutbacks in weapons development, for phasing out of vital systems, for a posture that will be less than we may need in the ccming years? I say that is reckless. I charge that it is reckless in the extreme to depend upon deals with our enemies in the hope that they will fellow, become our friends, even change their entire way of life. There were those who thought it would wcrk with Hitler. mistake. Millions died as a result of the I don't believe the people of New Hampshire want our leaders to take such a risk again. What could be more reckless than hoping for a sharing of values with Ccn:munist leaders who even this week have dedicated a new Institute of Scientific Atheism to sweep away the last vestiges of religion. There are no good and evil forces, according to the announcement of this new Ccn:munist enterprise. All religious belief must be abolished everywhere in the world, they say. Who is reckless? Those who trust such people? Cr those who oppose them? Is it reckless to say that there are effective economic, psychological, diplomatic, and political ways to weaken the enemy--to make sure he cannot wage war, to make sure that his aggressions end, that his plans for new aggressions fail, that his old aggressions will be rolled back? Is that reckless? The men who say it is offer no realistic alternative. They offer nothing but weakness. When asked to face the facts, they prefer to change the subject, to talk of daydreams and illusions. No one wants the sort of hard world we have. But it is the world we have. And wishful thinking will not win for freedom nor will promises keep the peace. The enemies of peace and freedom in this world understand one thing. They understand strength. They understand determination. They laugh at weakness. Gratitude isn't in their voca"bulary. And they will never change until they are forced to change by the overwhelming conviction that free men will not be buried, that free men will not be scared or blackmailed, that free men will not live under Communism, that their sons will not live under Communism, and that their grandchildren will not live under Communism. -Let Nikita Khrushchev's grandchildren live under freedom! Let them be released from Communism! Those are goals wcrthy of freedom! Those are goals that freedom's strength can win. Let us offer to the world the moral leadership which will achieve these goals. Goldw ter for Pres· den - Committee NEWS REL ASE Excerpts of remarks by Senator Barry Goldwater at a Veteran's Dinner at the Highway Hotel, Concord, N. H., Friday, March 6, 1964 AUTOMATIC RELEASE TO AMs of March 7, 1964 The people of New Hampshire and the rest of the nation have had about as much razzledazzle, public relations politics as they can stomach -- maybe more. We have too many people telling us that we can't understand foreign policy and economic policy because they're just too complicated for ordinary mortals. The truth of the matter is that if we don't understand those policies, it's simple because they don't make sense. Above all we have too many people telling us that everything is fine, that there's nothing to worry a bout. Why, we even hear that we shouldn't worry a bout the election because that's in the bag too! What we're really getting from Washington today is the command: ''Don't Rock the Boat!" Well, I think it's high time to rock that boat a little! Maybe it will get us back on course. Maybe it will stop us from drifting and dreaming while our problems mount at home and little fires become ten-alarm emergencies abroad. Everything isn't all right and common sense Americans know it. The people of New Hampshire know it better than most. It isn't all right when the spectacle of wheeling and dealing, even of dishonesty in high places encourages a further break-down of moral fiber everywhere. It isn't all right when crime goes up four times asfast as our population, when juvenile delinquency anguishes our families and ravages our streets. It isn't all right when cynicism replaces faith, when expediency replaces patriotism. It isn't all right when we read every day of scandals that touch the White House, of scandals that touch some of the most important state houses. It isn't all right when the Secretary of Defense has to make a special trip to Vietnam to try and figure out a policy that should have been set three . years ago. It isn't all right when allies like France break away and oppose us while we court the favor of our enemies. It isn't all right when millions of Americans can disagree with de Gaulle about everything he's doing but still wish that someone would stick up for America, the way he has stuck up for France. It isn't all right when serious social problems are fought out in the streets, rather that being thought out in our hearts and in peace, where the only solutions lie - 2 - But still we are told that we mustn't criticize. That's "bellyaching, We mustn't rock the boat. It isn't good politics to talk about tough problems to be made to solve them. 11 the President says. and the tough decisions that may have It isn't good politics to say that the individual has responsibilities and that the government should have limits. It isn't clever to say that men should have an opportunity to solve their own problems and build their own futures without becoming wards of bureaucrats who will tell them what to do, tell them when to do it, tell them how to do it, and then pay for it all with the money that government has taken away from them in the first place. That's all part and parcel of the pitchman's approach to life. It's all part and parcel of the arrogance that believes your votes can be bought by a smile or for a piece of pie-i_n-the-sky, or a hot dog on the street corner. · And I reject every part of that parcel! I am not a lollipop candidate. I could never be a soft-soap President. I will not sugar-coat the tasks we fact. No office in the land is worth that sort of compromise with your conscience. And no man should be worthy of your trust who will compromise, evade, and doubletalk just to elect, elect, and elect. The most important choice that you can be offered is the choice between directness or confusion in foreign policy, between more individual freedom or more government regimentation and red tape in domestic policy. My candidacy is dedicated to offering you that choice. An election shouldn't be a shopping list. An election in New Hampshire or any place else should be a signpost. It should point the direction of the nation and signify its choice--not just sew-up a grab-bag of special interests. There is a new mess in Washington. I t cbe an cleaned up--or left to fester. There a mess in the world. It can be cleaned up--or left to grow and eventually to bury us. k I cannot say that the way we should go will be easy. I know it won't. In your hearts you know it can't be. But I will pledge you every effort of heart, mind, and body to restore a decent sense of morality to government --to seek a balance of power and not a monopoly of it --to seek peace with freedom and justice, but without compromising either --to assure that we remain strong enough to do what is right in the world rather than having to do what is exdient --to assure that we can keep the peace and keep our honor! # # # Goldwater for President Committee NEWS RELEASE Excerpts from remarks by Sen. Barry Goldwater on a television broadcast on WM.JR-TV, Manchester, N.H., March 7, 1964 AUTCMATIC RELEASE TO SUNDAY PAPEF.S, MARCH 8 There is only one time when Americans, or any freemen their knees.or bow their heads. And that is when they pray. and wcmen, should be on Yet, today, more and more, we are asked to bow before, to kneel and yield, to other powers, other forces. Government is not God. Yet there are those who act as though it is. Every head of every family in the land has felt scme of this pressure. The family is the basic unit of our society. It is essentially the family system of our civilization that permits us and our neighbors to live together in order and in decent respect for one another's rights--to live together in decent recognition of cne another's responsibilities. Breach or break the concept of the family and you undermine society itself. disappears. Government moves in. Morality The power of decision is moving away from the family. Problems which could and should be solved in the family, beccme so-called social problems that must be solved by government. Problems which could and should be solved locally, become regional problems that must be solved in the state house. Problems that could and should be solved in the state house, beccme national emergencies that must be solved by Federal power. Every head of every family in the land is being subjected to a form of bureaucratic bullying in which an increasingly centralized government must be doctor, lawyer, policeman, teacher, accountant, and even prayer leader, to every man, woman, and child. This is not the way the people who founded this wonderful state of New Hampshire wanted it. But the trend of government for the past few years has been in exactly that direction--toward central control and away frcm local control. Eeyond all of the details, all the promises, all the pie-in-the-sky, the choice that we face today is whether we want it to go on and on, or whether we want to take back into our own hands the basic responsibilities for our own lives. This is not to say that the choice is between all government or no governn:ent. That's absurd. There are problems which can be solved only through government. are which levels of government and which problems. (more) The vital choices - 2 - Call these virtues old-fashioned, too simple for a complex world, call them clichea--call them what you will, they regain the absolute basic necessities for a public administration that is honest, effective, representative, and worthy of Americans. Your New England traditions helped to forge those virtues. Your town meetings gave them political meaning. Your self-reliance gave them individual meaning. I recall, fer instance, that during the 20's one of the world's largest cotton textile plants closed down in Manchester, putting thousands out of work. You New Hampshire people did net run to the government for help. You solved that problem with local groups and local initiative and you have been far better off because of it. Local initiative or Federal control--this is a choice not of detail but of basic direction. Traditional values, so prevalent here in New England, should guide us in that choice. Public morality is another American tradition. No man is perfect and no series of decisions can be expected to be perfect . But you have a right to demand that the men making those decisions at least be dedicated to the same traditions and values that you hold, to the same codes of behavior and morality. These are the very codes that conservatives hold dear. I do not believe that political office, for instance, should be regarded as a way to wealth any more than I think it should be a reward fer having wealth. It is an office bestowed upon those share your values and in whcm you can believe. No grab-bag of political premises is as imperas this basic agreement between you and those you elect. Government cannot give you the sort of world you want. You must build that world. A just government's job is to protect rights, not abuse them; to free men not oppress them; to set an exampleby leadership, not establish mastery by naked power. It is not the heart of the government but the heart of the people that makes a nation great. Look what's happened to government where it has grown and grown without limit, permitting ..buses, tolerating the wheeler-dealers and the fast-buck boys. In one of our largest cities, the 'ails are so overcrowded that outbreaks of violence are feared every day. And even so, outside the walls, graft, corruption and special privilege fatten on the public's money. A judge resigns under fire. A high state agency is riddled with scandal. In the nation's capital itself, President Johnson's own protege, Bobby Baker, is a symbol of those who regard the job of government as a personal hunting preserve for power and for fattened purses. Here in your own state, attempts to discuss the great, basic issues have recently been made a ockery by pamphlets which are so careless with the truth that they are little more than political comicbooks. You citizens of New Hampshire really don't have'to look far to find the true meaning of the political ooul-searching that you are being called upon to do--that all Americans are being called to do. We have at the moment government by wheeling and dealing. We have others who would replace t with government of personal ambition, or with carbon copies of what has been tried and has failed. But we have a chance to make a real choice. My candidacy is not the only important element of choice--far from it. The choice itself is far more important. There are many hundreds of olitical offices that will be involved, particularly Congressional offices and Senate seats. that A candidacy of clear choice, based upon the values which so many of us share, based upon raditional American virtues of the sort Teddy Roosevelt talked about--such a candidacy can help hose ether opportunities Roosevelt talked about--such a candidacy can help all those other opporunities for a new and cleaner political slate in this land. And that is what I promise you-ct pie-in-the-sky but a new and clean political slate! You here in New Hampshire must take the first step in this year and in this land. Your choice ·ould be for mere of the same. Cr i t cbe an for a new beginning, for a rebirth of principle, and individual worth and dignity. You are not voting just for programs and slogans. You are voting for ourfamilies and the sort of world in which you want to live--for the sort of people you want to be. Whichever way you go, you are holding history in your hands when you step to the ballot box. A whole world will be watching. But most importantly, your conscience will e watching. Let it be your guide. handle it carefully. - - • - NEW HAMPSHIRE HEADQUARTERS-84 NORTH MAIN STREET-CONCORD. N. H.•PHONE 224-7766 SENATOR NORRIS COTTON Honorary Chairman STEWART LAMPREY Chairman and Campaign Director MILDRED K. PERKINS Chairman Woman's Division FOR RELEASE MONDAY AM'S, MARCH 9, 1964 CONCORD - Senator Barry Goldwater, the leading contender for the Republican Presidential nomination, today expressed his "confidence" about the results of tomorrow's New Hampshire primary. In a pre-Primary Day statement released from his Concord Headquarters, the Arizona front-runner said that the "conscience and common sense" of the New Hampshire voters "will guide them to the right decision as they always have in the past." Senator Goldwater repeated his call for a "turning on of lights of moral leadership ••• and lights of strength and courage at home and abroad. ''These lights," said Senator Goldwater, "must burn brighter than they are burning today, and for my part I have striven to shed light at every opportunity on the great issues of the day." The conservative Republican expressed his gratitude "to the people of New Hampshire for giving me the opportunity to visit their state and I will be forever grateful to the untold number of workers who have labored so diligently and so unselfishly, not for me, but for the cause we share -- the cause of faith and freedom. " I t now remains," st ated Senator Goldwater, "for the voters of New Hampshire to make their choice. I am confident that their conscience and their common sense will guide them to the right decision as they always have in the past." Signed: Lestor S. Harvey, Fiscal Agent, 784 Maple St,, Manchester, N. H, 1 Page 2 Full Statement Follows: This New Hampshire Primary has been one of the great experiences of my life and t ha t of my family. We shall never forget our travels in and around this beautiful state to which we intend to return at the earliest possible opportunity . We shall never forget.t the warmth and hospitality shown us by thousands of New Hampshire people in whom we, as Westerners , have recognized a deep kinship. As I have stated time and again throughout this campaign, I am a candidate for the Presidency because I want to offer the members of my party and the citizens of America a choice. A choice between more government, more centraliza tion of authority in Washington, more government interference in the everyday affairs of all of us, or less government, less centralization, less interference, in fact minimum interference by the Federal Government in our lives . I have been specific in my answers . I have not tried to dodge, or evade, the issues . I never have. I never will . I have done my best to inform thepeople of New Hampshire where I stand and what I would do as President of the United States . In this last week, I have called for a turning on of lights of moral leadership, lights of morality in high offices, lights of conscience and honesty, lights of strength and courage at home and abroad . And lights of law and order. These lights must burn brighter than they are burning today and, for my part, I have striven to shed light at every opportunity on the great issues of the day . I am grateful to the people of New Hampshire for giving me the opportunity to visit their state, to partake of their courtesy, to make friends, I hope, in the North, in the South, in the East and in the West . And I will be forever grateful to the untold number of workers who have labored so diligently and so unselfishly, not for me , but for the cause we share -- the cause of faith and freedom. It now remains f or the voters of New Hampshire to make their choice. I am confident that their conscience and their common sense will guide them to the right decision as they always have in the past . -30 - • Committ ee President , . . Speech by Sen. Barry Goldwater before the California Republican Assembly, at the Hacienda Hctel, Fresno, California, March 14, 1964 AUTOMATIC RELEASE TO SUNDAY PAPERS, MARCH15 This is your thirtieth year. From Fresno to Fresno!· It's been quite a trip. And there is every reason to believe, also, that this will be your finest year--that your thousands of members will be in the lead of the hundreds of thousands of Californians who will help carry the Republican Party to victory in 1964. Your next annual convention, I am confident, will be a celebration of that victory. You, and America, will have men in the White House, in the Congress, in the Senate who will understand what you've been talking about and who will listen to what you will be talking about. This isn't just Western-style confidence which I share with you. confidence. And I say that most Americans share it with us! This is American The balance of political power is shifting in this land, shifting in every way. :'ve seen it in virtually every section of the country . I know it well from the many times I have campaigned for Republican candidates right here in California. I know it frcm the two million miles of campaigning I've done for Republican candidates, all Republican candidates, throughout this land during my eleven years in the Senate and, particularly, as chairman of the Senate Campaign Con:mittee. This Republican Party of ours, across the nation, is no longer a minority party that has to apologize for its principles or double-talk to squeeze out votes. This Party of ours, despite the registration figures, is the maj ority Party when it comes to this nation's real needs, real hopes, and its vital spirit. This is no caretaker party. This is a can-do party. This is no sit-it-out-and-wait-for-the-next-time Party. This is a can-win Party. This is a will-win Party • And I look forward this year to campaigning, and campaigning with every ounce of my strength, for the finest Republican candidates ever to go before the people of this nation-from White House to State House, from Congress to court-hoUAe. This is a Republican year--for a dedicated and united Republican Party. America today is ready to throw off the old shackles of regimentation and red-tape. America today is ready, willing, and more than able to speak up for individual initiative, individual dignity, individual responsibility. Even Democrats know that there is such a mood in P.merica. In fact I've heard some Democrats lately who have been trying to sound more Republican than some Republicans I know. temocrats seek to exploit this new mood of P.merican politics. Why should Americans settle for second-hand conservatives? (more) We seek to represent For second-hand fiscal - 2 - responsibility? For second-hand foreign policy that is policy and not politics? second-hand strength in our defenses? No reason at all! Americans can have the real thing. they will bave--real Republicanism! For They can have--and I say . This isn't a fearful generation we must reach. This is a generation of hope and courage. This is a generation that wants the chance to solve some of the problems which government mismanagement has created. This is a generation, in particular, that wants to get on with the business of building a free and peaceful world. We have been frustrated through three years of indecision. Freedom, which under Dwight Eisenhower was a crusade, bas become a wholly negotiable stack of chips in a game of political expediency. We now have a President who tries to save money by turning off lights in the White House--even as he heads toward a staggering addition to the national debt. This same President, by viewing the world as little more than political precincts and wards, also is turning off lights. Lights of leadership, of conscience and honesty, of strength and courage. Where is the bright light of an American statement that can outshine Khrushchev's boast that our grandchildren will live under Communism? Where is the American statement that says, for all the world to hear and believe, that Khrushchev's children or grandchildren will live under freedom! I say that statement is in the Republican Party and its principles. in Republican leadership! I say it is This is the essence of the choice we face. It is the essence of a choice the whole world faces--but which only America can put into effective action. Tyranny or freedom! Expediency or principle! There are those who criticize anyone who, as they put it, wraps himself in the American flag. Well I would far rather wrap myself in that flag than in the shrouds of indecision and defeat. I would rather see that flag flying proudly and respected than see it torn, flung down, and spat upon. It is not international wisdom or patience that keeps turning the other cheek to every slap at freedom. Nor is that the way to peace. There are no first-step compromises that lead to second-step hopes for peace. There are only little defeats that lead to major defeats. What peace this troubled planet ever has known has come through the strength of men determined to keep the peace. What peace we have in the world today is the result of our strength and the strength of the free world. And what peace we can hope for tomorrow will ccme the same way. The one sure way to prevent war in our time is to make sure that Communism knows it cannot win a war if it starts one. The one sure way to peace in our children's time is to reduce the power of Communism to the point where it no longer threatens the peace of the world, to help remove frcm positions of power the Communists who do threaten the peace of the world. It is, of ccurse, easier said than done. at least setting and understanding a goal? But what cause ever was successful without And, today, in the eyes of anxious millions around this world and here at heme, we stand implicitly accused as a nation that has not set a clear goal or an understandable course. (more) - 3 - With one hand we seek new trade with the Soviet--and at a time when its economy \Jith the other hand we slap the wrists of good friends who trade with Soviet satellites. Where is the goal there? Where is the course that other nations can understand and follow? There is none! is tottering! With cne hand we suppcrt the false neutralization of Laos--the neutralization that has become a Communist take-over. With the other hand we grope for some expedient solution in Vietnam--even neutralization! Eut what is the goal? Where is the course? Where is the clear-cut purpose to defeat Communism which might revitalize -the Southeast Asia Treaty Crganization? There is no goal, course, or purpose. and slow strangulation· of freedcm. There is only sudden death in the jungles We willingly risk, at every turn, defeat in the cold war. We risk a tomorrow in which, backed against the wall of our indecision, we will face no choice but surrender or holocaust. There is far less risk, while we are strong, and while the enemy is divided, and over-extended, of using our strength as a shield and our firm purpose as a sword to settle-without war-the claims of freedcm and the crimes of tyranny. Wherever our strength has been applied, the enemy has yielded • no war as a result! .And there has been When our Marines landed in Lebanon in 1958, the world did not move closer to war. It moved for a brief moment closer to peace. When our ships blockaded Cuba in 1962 we removed, for all too brief a moment, a bold Communist threat to the peace. Such aggressive moves will plague us again and again, if we do not move resolutely in the future. Cuba remains Communism's open-door to Latin America. Zanzibar has been newly opened as a side door to Africa. Vietnam threatens to be a revolving doer in Southeast Asia. Indonesia may be a trap door in the samearea • And, meantime, in the original heartland of freedom itself, in Europe, our NATO alliance teeters on the edge of disintegration: If men who share such a heritage of freedom, such a heritage of history and conviction cannot agree even upon their common defense against a common enemy, then freedcm 1 s cause is sick indeed. The tragedy is that it need not be! I refuse to believe for an instant that the break-up of NATO is inevitable, that the Western powers are deemed by forces of history to split and squabble, to be divided and conquered, that the days of Western civilization are numbered. It is only Communist theory that reads history that way! .And those who share the reading in any way have lost their fight at the outset--worse, they have lost their faith! ihey have lost their faith in the power of freedom to inspire men. They have lost their faith in the use of freedom's strength. They have lost their faith in the simple proposition that men can move history, mold it, and make it. We have, in cur own strength and in the strength of the whole free world, the lever to move history. It is not our armed strength alone that gives us that lever. Although, if the day ever comes when we lack that strength and yet are still opposed by an enemy such as Communism, history will move us onto its scrap-pile. The arsenal of our strength, the strength that can oppose, halt, and roll-back (more) - 4 - Communism is immense It offers the way to victory without war, to peace without the sacrifice of freedom or justice. Let me inventory some of the strength in that arsenal: First, we have economic strength. The free world's economy is a Colossus compared t o the collectivist clap-trappery of Communism. If our goal could but be to apply that economy as a force against Communism, rather than as a support for Communism, we might see in our own time the collapse of a system that cannot even feed its people and certainly cannot forever fool them. Next, we have the power of our ideas. The free world's psychological strength is a mighty fortress . That of Communism is a house of cards. If our goal could be to apply our psychological force rather than forever apologize fer it, we might in our time strip away the mask of legitimacy from the fraudulent regime and foolish philosophy of Communism. There is another great strength in our alliances and institutions. The free world's political strength is gigantic. But its muscles grow flabby from disuse and misuse. They must be exercised. When they are not, Communism's fear-driven machine wins without resistance, and is encouraged to excesses. lhe list is as endless as the diversity of free men and free institutions. opportunities are as endless as the dedication of free men. The Is it reckless to talk this way of winning the cold war? Is it reckless to say that we risk war less through strength than through weakness? Is it reckless to say that this generaticn can be the first in a new era of freedom, rather than the next-to-last gasp of a worn-out world no longer ready to work, to strive, to dedicate itself to freedom? ihe truly reckless leadership in such a world as ours today is the laggard leadership that shrinks frcm decision, that confuses comfort and conscience, that buys tiKe and votes with the fate of the entire · free world. Cur generation, our nation, was not born to sit in easy-chair silence. The umbrella of false security is not the symbol we deserve. The plea of "Don't Rock the Boat" is not the slogan we deserve. Either we seek the victory of freedom, the peace of freedcm or we are not worthy of the name American. Cur choice must not be just between the details of expedient programs. This is a real and grim world in which real and hard decisions, based upon realized goals, must be made. I implore all those who are concerned, all those who will listen to ask of the men who propose themselves for the responsibilities of foreign policy formulation--to ask of them a single questicn: Ask what they think of Communism. Ask what they think of the profound crisis of the soul which produced it. Ask whether they are prepared to come.to terms with it--or whether concretely they would oppose it. Ask and demand an answer to that, for that is the question of war and peace in our time. It will be the question tomorrow. It is the question before November. It will be the question after November. Cnly a political pitchman would pretend to give the answers in infinite detail. These are national problems for a national solution, involving all of us. It is the direction, the decision, that is important--the first step that is crucial Either we start the march or we abandon it--as we have been abandoning it, resting on our laurels, hoping for miraculous signs of friendship frcm a foe that bas sworn destruction of our society . I am told that talking this way is unpopular. It is too grim. It is too tough. It is too much trouble to think about. We didn't ask for the responsibility. We can't seek the mission . We want to rest, to relax, call a truce, take a holiday. I didn't get into politics to relax. I wasn't born in this land to follow the (more) - 5 - leader er abandon my conscience. I won't run that way. I cannot live that way. And I don't think America can either! I don't think freedcm is wen that way. I don't think that peace can be bought that way. I don't think freedom can live that way . It never has. It can't--and it won't! If advocating firmness in foreign policy, if seeking peace through strength is pocr politics then I gladly risk my political life. It is my country's life that most deeply concerns me. That is the reason I am here. It is the reason that one for the histcry books. It is the reason you are here. 1964 is more than an election for the record books . It is This generation must pay its share of freedom's vast responsibility. I say that it cannot pay that share in fear, frozen in indecision. I say it must be paid by dedication and a new direction . that The time has come to let our people go--go toward the fulfillment of the best is in us. The time has come to let our people go--go forward in individual respcnsibility. The time has come to let our people go--go forward for freedcm. Let our people go in those directions--and this time of ours will be worthy of every age that has prepared us, of every tradition that has enriched us, of every challenge that faces us. MARC 16, H 1964. RELEASE AT NO N, MARCH AUTOMATIC 16 The decline of moral and ethical. behavior in public service, in the long run, could be as harmful to the nation's security as an H-bomb. Public office is conferred for public purpose and the use of that office must be confined to the public interest and the common good. Any government official, at any level, is not merely a private citizen. The very fact that he holds public office imposes an obligation not to misuse the power stemming from that office. Recent disclosures in Washington, particularly those concerning Bobby Baker, who held the high office of Secretary of the United States Senate, indicate that an educational campaign on the obligations of public office is highly desirable. And this is just the sort of lesson that Republicans are going to give in this election year! A candid disclosure of White House participation in the Baker case would be one place to start the educational campaign. Public . service is not only a contract to perform in the public good, but it is a pledge to maintain the integrity of our form of government. No Republic nor any form of government can endure unless people have confidence in their government. Respect, trust and the support of the people can only be gained by elected officials when their moral integrity and competence is unquestioned. Political power does not exist for the profit of any individual or any group of individuals. These are facts that seem to escape some of our public servants with increasing frequency lately--at least from the facts that we are able to uncover. When a government official in Washington or anywhere else fails to ad.minister his office for the good of those who are governed instead of for the selfish gain of those who govern, he should be forced to reveal his acts and his accomplices. If this requires the granting of immunity to certain witnesses before a Grand Jury, then I suggest serious consideration be given to it. There are grave, long-range risks to public confidence in government integrity when willful corruption, lack of efficiency, corrupt awarding of government contracts and the unequal distribution of justice are tolerated in higb places. Our founding fathers established a system of checks and balances which set forth the public right to know and review public acts as a counterbalance to corruption spawned by misuse of government power and authority. -more- Any threatened breakdown of this system must be met with an increased vigilance on the part of our people. The private interests of a public figure must pass the scrutiny of public performance. The use of authority to enrich political or other groups must be ex- posed and stopped. The use of confidential information gathered as a public figure for private gain must be exposed and stopped. We have seen too muchof the abuses and too little of the exposure in the past few months. An improvement in virture and truth in our government and in the dealings of appointed and elected officials is essential if we are to retain and improve this Republic so it can meet the tests that lie ahead. Competency, service. efficiency and honesty are the keystones of proper public Good government, good politics and good public service is good morals. These are things that a Republican victory can restore in ### 1964. • President e Speech by Senator Barry Goldwater at the Sport s Arena, Los Angeles, California, March 19, 1964 RELEASE ON DELIVERY This is more than just a political meeting tonight. Republicanism! This is a victory for real This is the most impressive gathering in the whole political history of California. With the help of millions more -- across this nation -- who believe as you believe, this may well be the great omen of a great Republican year. I say it will be. I say that 1964 will be a great Republican year. A great year for our Republican principles. A great year for American principles. A great year for freedom! This time we are going to have a choice -- not an echo!. My friends, that is why I have been saying and why I deeply believe -- this election is not one for the record books. This election is one for the history books. Let's look at history for a moment. How will history remember Nikita Khrushchev? It may remember him as the man who said that our grandchildren will live under Communism. How will history remember Lyndon Johnson? in the White House! As the man who turned off the lights Instead, we need a President who will tell Nikita Khrushchev that his children will live under freedom. Instead, we need a President who will turn 2B. some lights in the White House. We need a President who will turn on lights of leadership. Lights of conscience. Lights of morality. A Republican President elected in 1964 will turn on those lights. Republican principles will turn on those lights all over the world. Republican leadership will restore pride at home and respect abroad. Republican leadership will end the days of drift and indecision in our foreign policy. Republican leadership will end the decline of morality in public office. !fa Republican President found a Bobby Baker in his closet -- he would open the door and air it out, not slam the door and try to hide it. Who does Lyndon Johnson think he is? Who is he to tell the American people that they sh ould see no evil hear no evil , and speak of no evil when the shadow of that evil f a ll s on t he Whi te House it se l f l - :, President I don't care if there is a Baker's dozen of sacred cows involved in this scandal -- they should be herded out in a Roundup of Honesty. The very prestige of the Presidency itself will remain under a cloud until this is done. , My friends, this whole world will remain under a cloud unless there is a change. There can be no real and lasting peace in this world, no peace with freedom and justice, so long as America's leadership is too weak to use America's strength to keep the peace. Peace is not won or kept by weakness. and compromise. The enemy is not deterred by indecision Yet where in the world today are the enemies of freedom faced with the sort of strong American leadership that will discourage them? Instead they are encouraged to push harder, to push closer to the fatal step that could take the whole world over the brink of war. Brinkmanship of the sort practised by John Foster Dulles and Dwight Eisenhower did not encourage the enemy to go to the brink. It discouraged them from doing it. It kept them from doing it by making very clear that we wereprepared to face up to them and face them down. Today it is Soviet brinkmanship that commands the field. back-downmanship that is losing the field. And it is American There is only one way for this, the mightiest nation in history, to deter war and to keep the peace. That way is to make sure that the enemy knows he cannot a n d w not i l lwin any war and to keep the peace. Our enemy will never know that. Our enemy will never respect that so long as the architects of defeat are in power in Washington. We £ell have peace through strength in this world but we must have a change first. Freedom can win its victory without war -- but it cannot win it without leadership! We must have the change that permits us to. use our vast economic power to defeat Communism, rather than feed it. We must have the change that will permit us to use our great psychological power to shout down Communism rather than poor-mouthing freedom. We must have the change that permits us to use our political power to bring new life to our alliances rather than forever pressing for new smiles from our enemies. These are ways to win without war! Where is the leadership in an Administration that can set no higher goal for the fighting in Vietnam than bringing the situation "under control." That's their new, official language. \ Not a victory! Just bring it under control. Why in heaven's name isn't it under control? It isn't under control because it remains just what it has been for three years an aimless, leaderless war. We are sacrificing the lives of American soldiers there. cate some American ccnvictions there! I say we should dedi- - 3 - Where is the leadership in an Administration that cannot even win a battle of wits with tiny Panama! Where is the leadership in an Administration that talks of total victory, and chiefs of staff, and battle plans when it comes to domestic spending programs but stands like a weak sister when the American flag is torn down, spat upon, and burned around the world! Where is the leadership in an Administration that stands cross-eyed -- with our friends -- wide-eyed with our enemies -- wall-eyed in Berlin -- glassy-eyed in Southeast Asia, and downright blind in Cuba! That's what happens when the lights of courage, conviction, and clarity are turned off in the White House. And at home, still other lights are turning out. Look around the land and you can see what I mean. Where is the light of law and order? It is flickering out in streets that are running riot with disregard for traditional American standards of decency and the due process of law. We are faced, for instance, with a grave moral question in our racial relations. And where is it being settled? All the fine talk of settling it with new laws cannot obscure the brutal fact that it is being fought out -- not settled! -in the streets. In three agonizing years we have come to the point where many of our citizens citizens of all-races -- accept as normal the use of riots, demonstrations, boycotts, Violence, pressure, civil disorder, and disobedience as an approach to serious national problems. I know the long, sad background. But I cannot that is said others to be believe that I have been active in actions to correct it. in conscience now condone or support the breakdown of civil order by some to be a necessary weapon of redress and correction and by a necessary weapon to resist that redress and correction. And I you people of California share my view. It is not wise leadership that takes itscause on either side of this grave issue into the streets this way. It is not understanding of America or Americans that goads a man to abandon civility in this manner. It is not leadership or understanding that tacitly supports it, that exploits it for political purposes, that inflames it in hopes of reaping the votes of violence, on either side of the coin. I charge that those who take either side of this cause into the streets in violation of the law dishonor their cause, default their leadership, and defame this nation. I charge that an Administration that stands mute in the face of such violence and disorder is guilty of a cynical default in the exercise of its responsibilities. Justice will not be served, nor justice won in the streets. Decades of progress are being damaged. Future decades of hope are being dimmed. Laws cannot heal the wounds that are being inflicted· in the violence of action and talk that we now see and hear. The old injustice and the new hope can end and begin only in the hearts of men. And the hearts of many men today are being hardened, not opened by attempts to settle grievances violently in the streets. And where is this violence directed, really? It is directed at affairs that are basically personal, moral and individual. It is directed on the one hand at forcing more government intervention and on the other hand at stopping government intervention But the root cause stands 01 ,t sharp and CJ.ea,:-,. - 4 - Too much government and too little understanding, too much mob and too little individual responsibility. I say this, and I say it with heartsick regret: in the climate created over these past few years, in this default of moral leadership and in this lack of understanding, we will s e e m violence o r e before we see less; we will see more recourse to the naked force of government before we see less, unless we have a change -- a real change! And who suffers most from the state of things as they are? The very people whose problems men of good will north and south, white or Negro, have been hoping to solve in peace! This climate of violence and disorder is a storm that is brewed in a governmental philosophy which too long has ignored individual responsibilities and individual capacities . Its winds blow through the wreckage of the family as the basic unit of our society. Government seeks to be parent, teacher, leader, doctor, and even minister. And its failures are strewn about us in the rubble of rising crime rates, juvenile delinquency, scandal, self-seeking and greedy grabs for power, even in evasion and distortion of issues in order to create false public relations images. Where are the standards of common decency, the traditional virtues of honesty, courage, self-control, truth, and justice? Are they now outmoded and unnecessary? These arc not complex matters. These are not virtues that are outdated by campaign oratory or be mealy-mouthed references to a society grown so complex that we must have new morals which are, in fact, no morals at all! These traditional virtues are the very heart of our national spirit and our national honor . They are the very heart of the great choice that we face in this election . These are things which you understand in your hearts and which no politician can twist away from you with a smile or a promise. Accuse me, if you will, of trying to simplify issues. I say that any man who stands for office has the responsibility to simplify and clarify! Confidence men use the tricks of complexity and double-talk. Honest men do not. And I repeat, that public morality 12_ an i.ssue and a major one. I repeat that violence in the streets, arrogant power in the government -- I repeat that these are moral issues. And I ask that your conscience guide your political decisions, rather than your emotions, rather than expediency, rather than slick tricks and slick shows. Our people must not be tied to the flimsy standards of a bureaucracy. an older, richer, and truer morality. We have Let our people go that way. Let them have the choice to go ,that way. Our people must not be herded into the streets for the redress of their grievances. We have better ways, more lasting and more honest ways. Let our people go that way. 1il them have the choice to go that way. Let our people go -- let them go away from violence and struggle, from divided citizenship, from declining responsibility and increasing regimentation. Let our people go, instead, ahead together in the great and moral works we have to do at home and in the world. Let our people -- the people of California, The West The East, The South, the people of all America - go in courage and in a faith ·. honesty and in humi Li ty ! - 5 - Simple! old-fashioned! Call it what you will! I call it the way w e hgone ave in our proudest, strongest moments, in the fullness of our history and our destiny. I call it the way to a future, under God, without equal in the world. gf_ our people go let our people go that way; the moral way. There is no other way worthy of our dreams, or sufficient to our task. -------- - -- • President 0 Speech by Senator Barry Goldwater before the Detroit Economic Club, Detroit, Michigan, March 25, 1964 FOR RELEASE 2 P.M. MARCH 25 As anyone can tell from the cast of characters this evening, this is a purely non-political gathering. You'll have to excuse me, however, if politics does enter into my remarks. Whether we like it or not, the great issues of the day arepolitical.. choices are political. Our The great issu.e of whether we will let our enterprise economy work, or whether we will let our people work or whether we will go backward to the days of bureaucratic economic controls -- that issue is political. Whether we are to have a foreign policy that means something to friend and foe alike, or whether we will continue to hop from cdsis to crisis that issue is political. 1 1 Whether we are to have a government of balanced powers, or a new political royalty of centralized power -- that issue is certainly political. Whether we are to live by law, or whether we are to make our laws in the streets -that issue is political. And, sadly enough, the very issue of whether we can assure the security of this nation, and effectively bolster the security of the en tire free world -- that grave issue is clearly political too. Because of this, I ask you to consider, in your conscience and in your heart, that election day 1964 will also be D-Day 1964 -- decision day as to whether this nation is to keep the peace through strength, or whether it will risk war through weakness. There are those who seek to complicate this issue. I seek to simplify it so that it may be understood and not glossed over. Questions of life and death should be understood. No concepts need more clarity, more understanding. Double-talk and verbal fog is worse than dishonesty at a time such as this It could be fatal Many of you are deeply concerned with this. Many of you arc deeply involved From this area comes a great share of the tools with which this nation can keep the peace. in this. But from this area also, has come the leading advocate, the leading architect of a so-called defense policy which, by the late 196O's and the early 197O's will have turned the shield Of the Republic into a swiss cheese wall, full of holes ----- a policy which will have isolated the power of America behind a Maginot line of illusionc •·-- a policy which will enco 1rage our enemies to become bolder, to risk the final , fatal step toward nuclear war --- a policy which will turn the profession of arms into a second class craft ---- a policy which will have so hardened the arteries of our defenses that r-? . resp to challenge will be impossible leaving us with the alternativejust only a withdrawal or unclear holocaust. 1 - 2 - The architect of this policy is the present Secretary of Defense: a one-time loser with the Edsel, right here in Michigan a four-time loser in terms of his trips to VietNam and an all-time loser if his policies and the policies of the Administration that supports and applauds him are not changed in 1964!! In simplest terms, the policies of this Administration and the adding machine warriors to which it has entrusted our defenses, add up to unilateral disarmament. This, of ·course, is a perfect complement to a foreign policy which seeks to curry favor with our enemies even as it alienates our friends. It is the perfect support for a national slogan of "Don't Rock the Boat." It is the perfect sugar coated-pill to tranquilize us into believing that peace can be kept by coming to terms with Communism rather than by over-coming Communism. What peace there is in the world today is the result of our strength. flict that breaks out is the result of our weakness. The con- Wherever and whenever we have moved from strength, we have moved closer to peace. Wherever we have moved from fear or weakness we have moved closer to war On the dark day that Nikita Khrushchev sabotaged the Paris Conference, President Eisenhower's Secretary of Defense, Tom Gates, alerted the Strategic Air Command. We moved from resolution and strength. And Nikita Khrushchev backed down. He moved from fear . He returned to Moscow, via East Berlin, and warned the Commun ist world to avoidfurther provocations, to be patient, in effect -- to back down. Again, under President Eisenhower, our first move in the Berlin crisis of 1958 59 was to move an extra aircraft carrier to the Sixth Fleet as a clear warning to the Communists. Khrushchev cooled down again, far more quickly and with far less cost to us than when Robert McNamara called up the reserves in 1961. That was a chaotic and costly maneuver that did nothing but perpetuate the now permanent crisis in Germany. When our Marines moved into Lebanon, when we moved our naval and air power in the Formosa Straits,'we moved closer to peace, not war. It was when our nerves failed at the Bay of Pigs that we moved closer to war by opening the door for the missile crisis. During the missile crisis, briefly, we moved from strength -- and the Communists had to retreat. But since then the balance has been tipping away from us again. Indecision and lack of follow-through have stored up Communism's outpost in our hemisphere and have permitted it to expand its influence. A blockade of Cuba would not risk war. It is the blockade against common sense in this Administration that risks war by letting problems fester rather than resolving them. But let us be very clear on the crucial point -- the national power which has permitted us to move from strength in the past and which even today could permit us to do so, this power is !12! perpetual or automatic. It cannot be maintained at a stand-still. There is another side to the power equation; the Communist side. If our power remains at a standstill while their's grows we shall be, in effect, disarming ourselves. And this, I charge, is what we are doing. Jf the Communists make a major weapons breakthrough while we sit on our plans, burn our bombers , and permit free world alliances to crumble there can be no peace in the world, Communism would have the tools of nuclear blackmail and would use them . And this mighty nation., mighty no longer, would be ringed by crisis, hemmed in by threats, and pressed closer and closer to the brink of war or surrender . There are four fatal flaws in our defense posture which foreshadow that grim time. These flaws will not be repaired by the men who created them. interest in their own mistakes . They have vested Let me list the flaws and then elaborate upon them. First--we arc building a Maginot line of missiles. Second--we are failing to introduce rapid technological advances, sometimes because of false economy, sometimes because of misguided steps toward disarmament. Third--we are permitting our defense policies to disrupt NATO and our other alliances. Fourth--we are downgrading the armed services, ignoring professional military advice, and substituting one-man's bookkeeping technique for national policy. Let's look at the missiles first. They are fine weapons--when and if they work! I The industrial know-how that has gone into them is first class. The men who use them are dedicated and skillful. But the systems themselves are complex almost beyond belief. They are not perfect and they are not perfectly reliable. When I questioned this reliability earlier in the year I was answered with a personal attack that even questioned my patriotism. I was not answered with the cold facts of missile reliability. How in the name of cQmmon sense can we fail to be concerned about this question of reliability when twice this year alone, ICBM's have burned in their silos-when we have never tested a Minuteman, an Atlas or a Titan with all their components in a .full scald systems test including the warhead explosion! How can we fail to be concerned about this question of reliability when we have never tested the hardness of our launch sites, when there are plaguing problems of contamination in the very sensitive fuels of the liquid fuel missiles? How can we fail to be concerned about this question of reliability when we have not tested the reliability of guidance systems under the impact of electromagnetic pulses emitted by a possible counter-missile nuclear blast? I • How can we fail to be concerned when the only answers we have been getting have been personal attacks and when tests are made with special crews and under ideal conditions--and when, even then, we have not scored the sort of reliability one should expect from a weapon system on which, in a few year, will rest our major reliance. I say that drawing-board perfection is not enough for the defense of the United $tates! I say that ledger-book juggling is not enough for the defense of the United States. When I talk about missile reliability, I do not talk in terms of ideal conditions, of special crews, of ideal preparations. That is the way some people keep their books. I talk of missiles that must be reliable in the worst of conditions even during or after nuclear attack, with crews that never have fired a complete weapon, and on an instant's notice. Only that sort of reliability impresses the enemy. Only that sort of reliability serves to deter war. Today, by Secretary McNamara's own admission, we seek to compensate for the unknown factors of missile reliability by redundancy of system and targeting, by the brute force techniques of extra missiles for every target- -by techniques which obviously can be outmoded by qualititive advances in the Soviet--advances that are possible as a result of their past high yield and high altitude experiments. People ·often have asked why I risked political suicide to vote against the test ban treaty. This is why! Because I fear the suicide of my country far more than the political fate of any individual. - 4 - The Senate Preparedness Subcommittee has warned in a formal report that "it is prudent to assume that the Soviet Union has acquired a unique and potentially valuable body of clata on high yield blast, shock, communications blackout, and radiation and electromagnetic phenomena which is not available to the United States." Than who is being reckless with the peace of the world and the security of this nation? I .say that the reckless men are those who will not face the facts, who ignore the possibility of the Soviet developing counter-measures which will immobilize this Maginot Line of missiles that we are building. I say we need the missiles. But I say we need tomorrow's missiles as well as yesterday's. Secretary McNamara gives us no assurance, of follow-on missiles . This Administration says that they might be provocative! I say that they might save our lives! We need more to defend this country and keep the peace. We need a mixture of forces, we need flexibility. Again, I do not speak only of yesterday's manned bombers. What of tomorrow's? This Administ.ration declares we won't have any after 1970! This Administration has not moved ahead with a single new strategic weapons system, missile .2E. manned! The weapons we have today are the great legacy of the Eisenhower years. The deterrent gap we face tomorrow is inevitable if no new weapon systems are introduced. In this tough and troubled world, man is not obsolete. Manned weapons, guided by man's mind, eyes, hands, and heart are not obsolete. Missiles are an "either or" weapon . Manned systems alone provide full flexibility -- and, again, who is reckless, the man who wants to put all our eggs in a rigid, doomsday system, or the men who want to retain freedom of action, discretion of maneuver, flexibility of response? Even in the vastness.of space there may be a mission for man. But space weaponery is taboo to this Administration -- despite obvious Soviet interest in it. Manned systems have many characteristics lacking in ballistic missiles -- the ability to hit unanticipated targets, to perform post-attack reconnaissance, to do the jobs of mopping up, to allow margins for the errors 0f missile targeting, to permit maneuver, to be re-used and recalled if desired. I I The motto of the Strategic Air Command is "Peace is our Profession." sure that they have the tools Let us make to practice that profession! The second flaw in our defenses is technological decline. The new A-11 of which President Johnson boasts was started during the Eisenhower years -- not the McNamara years! The TFX, Mr . McNamara's six-and-a-half billion dollar contribution to campaign politics -- is a second best weapons system. As you probably know, by the way, that plane wasn't even called the TFX during the election in Texas where it is supposed to be built. It was called the LBJ! Furthermore, Secretary McNamara, the one-man band, reversed the unanimous recommendati'ons of the impartial source selection boards and made the TFX award to the highest bidder with least advanced design. He rejected as to ri·sky for American skills such advances as thrust reversers to give better control, and .the extensive use of titanium to provide a lighter plane .for carrier use. I mention those details because the A-11 does use titanium and because the Department of Defense is now considering thrust reversers and titanium for TFX itself! Again, it seems, the human computers have goofed! An even more striking case of technological backwardness is the McNamara veto of the nuclear aircraft carrier It was a Democr at Congressman Melvin Price, who said that building conventional carriers today is "li ke the Union Paci fic Rai lroad going back to steam engi nes because the Diesel costs a li ttle bi t more .. 11 - 6 - Take just one notable example, the case of the X-22, the VSTOL, vertical take-off and landing aircraft. It involved a twenty million dollar research contract. Seventy-five Navy professionals -- civilian and uniformed -- spent 4,000 man hours evaluating the designs of two aircraft companies. They made a clear choice, for the best plane at the least cost. The Secretary of the Navy, Fred Korth, excused himself from involvement because he had been a director of the parent company of one of the firms involved. Next, Secretary McNamara's deputy whiz kid spent less than a half hour conferring with some of his colleagues -- but not with any of the military men involved! He didn't even have a briefing on the subject! And in that half hour he reversed 4,000 hours of careful evaluation! Why? Perhaps there is a detail that should be explained. He wanted to get an insight on the management capabilities of the company to whom he arbitrarily . awarded the contract. Who did he ask? As you might expect, Secretary Korth, the former board member who, earlier, had disqualified himself. Again, we saw the NcNamara team accepting the poorest plane at the highest cost because of its delusions of competence. This amounts to nothing less than contract by crony and weapons by whimsy. It destroys the front of false economy behind which so many errors are being hidden. Robert McNamara may be the greatest bookkeeper we have ever had in government. He claims to have saved alot of money. But he has lost more morale in the military than any Secretary Of the services we ever have had! The record of defense mismanagement has been obscured by the brillance of news management. The over-use of official secrecy has clamped lids on reams of damaging testimony given before Congressional committees. But the truth is apparent. We have no new strategic weapons. We do face the disruption of our alliance system. We are withdrawing into a Fortress America. Our power i2_ at a standstill. Our military morale is declining. And Robert McNamara is the Secretary of Defense. His ledger-sheet leadership is leading to a deterrent gap in the next decade. He sees the world in a rear-view mirror. He sees the enemy through rose-colored glasses. He seeks defense through disarmament, but he risks the peace through creeping weakness. The shield of peace is the power of the peace-loving nations. drops is the day that bombs may drop. The day that shield Today, the preponderant strength we have carried over from the Eisenhower · ·years gives us the capability to rebuff and roll back Communism, and also the power to deter war . Today it is the will !2_ win that we lack. Tomorrow, if we do not change our course and our commanders, we may not have the capability even if we should find the will! I do not want to risk the security of this nation, of the entire free world by replacing the real shield of peace with vain hopes and misplaced faith. This is no computer room game weplaying. are This is freedom's time on the line of history. And if i1e cannot or will not defend ourselves it might well be freedom's last time for dark centuries to come. Let our arms match our cause! Let our men match the times! This is the way to peace through strength. Tl:is is the way freedom's cause can win, This is the victory that we must seek. Let our people g o t h a t w a y ! without w abut r with honor and justice • President Speech by Senator Barry Goldwater at the Sheraton Palace, San Francisco, March 31, 1964 FOR RELEASE WEDNESDAY AM April 1., 1964 As you've heard, I've been doing quite a bit of traveling in California recently. I look forward to doing a lot more. There isn' t a city, a town, or a hamlet in this state that I want to write off for a Republican victory in November -- for my own campaign r ight here and now. I don't care what the odds are, or how tough the fight is -- we Republicans are going to take it on, and we Republicans are going to win it! And I include the great city of San Francisco in that list. I know what the odds are -- but I know just as well that Republicans in San Francisco this year are going to battle their opponents right down to the wire. From the enthusiasm I've seen here, I know it's going to be a great fight and that it can be a winning fight ! You have a great state. You ha.ve a great Republican state. this year I know that you're going to prove it. dollar. And The heart of the Party in California is as sound as a Republican Best of all., it's a fighting heart. Everywhere I've gone I've met Republicans who are ready, willing, and able to roll up their sleeves and take off the gloves for a fighting campaign -- for a winning campaign in California and the nation. The time has come for every Republican in this land to take off the gloves. We have a fight on our hands -- and we have got to win it! Cur Party is a.t stake. Will we be content to mumble away as a minority echo? I say we must stand up and be counted for what we truly represent -- a real choice, real Republicanism, and the very real reflection of American hopes, American dedication, and American determination! Cur nation is at stake. --- -days work. This Administration is determined to carry us back to the depression when red tape and regimentation were the answer to every problem. Republicans know this won't work. Most Americans know this won't Republicans and all. Americans should know! (more) - 2 - government thrift can't be practiced by piling up new debts, jobs can't be created or poverty fought by discouraging enterprise, -economic security can't be achieved by destroying the value of savings through inflation, good will in our cities cannot be achieved by inciting or condoning violence. He can be proud of the fact that Republicans reject every one of those worn out and wrong ways. He republicans are proud of them do not have to apologize for our principles, We We can live with them -- and this entire nation can prosper with them! The stakes are great enough to make this the year of a new Republican crusade . The stakes are great enough to make this the year of our greatest challenge and our greatest united effort. But now we know t h a t m than o r e our political lives, even more than our political direction is at stake. The freedom of this entire world, the hope of every man who wants to be free and the dignity of every man who wants to stay free is on the line. I charge that this Administration is playing a cynical and dangerous game as it attempts to straddle that line. Last week the challenge became quite clear. clear and the dangers became clear. The cynicism became On the one hand we heard the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, J. W. Fulbright, calling for the reality of a Munich in order to combat what he feels are myths regarding Moscow. On the other hand we heard noises in the White Ilouse and the State Department which were supposed to make us believe that the Administration's chief foreign policy spokesman in the Senate had suddenlv decided to speak only for himself. But what was going on at the same time in the United Nations? There, Adlai Stevenson also was talking about a changed world and calling for new directions in U.S. policy. Was he talking unofficially? Doesn't anyone in this Administration talk to anyone else before they try to commit this nation? There are, of course, details of this latest Fulbright statement which the Administration publicly can repudiate. But Republicans shouldn't let them get off the hook of the truth. Beyond any details, the root assumptions of the Fulbright statement are the root assumptions of the Administration's foreign policy. This is their baby and Republicans should not let the citizens of this country forget it! Tonight I want to answer these basic points. I want to state why I believe -1. They are dead wrong. 2. They are dangerously weakening the posture of this nation in a world which is still involved in a cold war that no amount of hot air will thaw. 3. They truly reflect the direction of U.S. Foreign policy under this Administration! - 3 - Senato r Fulbright begins his trip through the looking- glass with a grand assumption . Both sides in the cold war, he says , have repudinted a policy of total victory . Is that what Khrushchev was doing when he said that our grandchildren would live under Communism? Is that what Communist spokesmen are doing now when they repeat that their connnon goal is the triumph of Communisim throughout the world? We can find many instances where we have repudiated the idea of victory over Communisn... This .Administration is a walking dictionary of such repudiations. Dut where have the Communists repudiated it? Does this Administration have a -- or is it just having a .EiI2£ dream? pipe line to their secret· line .. thought Neville Chamberlain once made the mistake of assuming that Adolph Hitler really didn't mean what he had said in Mein Kampf. This Administration is making the same mistake about Khrushchev today . Senator Fulbright's second basic assumption also is an Administration assumption. The Soviet, he says, has tacitly accepted the establishment of American strategic superiority. Why, if this is the case, do we find that the Soviet Union right here and now, in this world and in this reality, is devoting almost 18 percent of its national income to military expenditures? Our expenditures amount to just 9 percent of our gross national product. Are the Soviets spending such a share of their wealth on weapons, on research, on their armed forces because they have accepted our superiority? This nation, just last week, established new anti-submarine warfare command to counter the growing threat of Soviet undersea craft. Is that Red submarine threat evidence of their acceptance of our strategic superiority? Of course not, it is one more striking evidence that the Soviet has done no such thing -- that the Soviet is working and working hard to overcome our superiority. Common sense alone should make any .•'merican soberly consider that the Soviet has not accepted our superiority. They fear it, yes. They envy it yes. And they are trying to overcome it! What nation bred in aggression done less? and commi tted to conquest, ever has Senator Fulbright 1 s wrong sswnptions are not his alone. The Secretary of Defense has made the same mistake in his implied belief that strategic strength can be frozen at present levels. Ile has made it in his decision to phase out important clements of our strength. Ile has made it in his plans for disarming this nation. Lyndon Johnson has mode this same mistake in his State of the Union message -- in his promise that we will not seek an excess of military power that might provcke the Soviet. Ile has made it in his promise that we will take steps toward the reduction of annaments even in the absence of international agreements No! Fulbright I s folly is not his alone.. It is folly which has been officially adopted by the Young Democrats of this state and by the Western Federatinn of Young Democrats. It is the folly of all men who grow weary of freedom's fight and retreat into isolation and appeasement. Where would this folly lead us? The details are even spelled out. It would lead us, in an example the Junior Senator from Arkansas himself suggests, to recognizing that Castro is just a minor nuisance with whom we must put up -- forever . ( more) - 4 - Communism in this hemisphere is no minor nuisance . It bas threatened us once with nuclear missiles. It threatens us today with a Soviet-supplied garrison that aims subversion into every nation of this hemisphere . If Senator Fulbright and the Administration want to lmow more about this "minor nuisance", I would suggest that they start with the 122 pages of documented evidence of Castro's subversion against Venezuela alone published last month by the Organization of American States. Castro is no minor nuisance. Ile is a real menace. And so, when it comes to sound thinking, is this Administration's foreign policy. Chairman Fulbright says that we cannot depose Castro. have tried and failed . So let 1 s give up. Ile says we If at first you don 1 t succeed -- skip it! I say we simply haven 1 t tried hard enough. The. suggestion that we must either accept Communism in Cuba or invade Cuba is defeatist and dangerous nonsense. The people of Cuba, with help and with support, even if without direct intervention by U.S. troops, could recapture their country and restore this missing link in hemispheric security. He know that Castro as a result of Democrat bungling, highlighted by the Bay of Pigs fiasco, is more secure than ever and that the job of deposing him is tougher than ever. But it must be done. Are Cubans to have no hope? Is freedom to have no chance? Listen, however, to how differently Senator Fulbright talks when it comes to other situations in Latin America! Ile says that there may have to be a violent overthrow of established governments in Latin America. Why? to achieve what he calls social reforms. Maybe he wants to provide air cover for the nationalziation of Latin lands and industries! Where did he stand at the Bay of Pigs? The Administration has tried to run for cover on Senator Fulbright's recommendations on Cuba. Prsent policy, it is claimed, will be maintained. What policy? We have an economic blockade that was bound to fail the moment the Administration made the wheat deal with the Soviet. As the British put it, Britian has a surplus of buses which they can sell in Cuba just as reasonably as the U.S. can peddle its wheat in Russia. The Administration's blockade of Cuba is failing simply because the Administration's entire foreign policy is failing. Communism is not an isolated problem to be met with patchwork policies and contradictions. It 1 s a global problem that must be met by global policy and a coherent determination. No matter how this Administration tries to disavow the Fulbright suggestions on Cuba, the basic assumptions which they share with their chief Senate spokesmen will make it inevitable that the policies will come together . A truly effective policy on Cuba, in my view, would include the recognition of a Cuban government in exile. Why has this step not been taken if this Administration is so determined? The existence of such an exile government would, by the very fact of its stated hostility to Castro, enormously increase the pressures against (more) - 5 - shipping to Cuba . It would provide a rnllying point for Cuban libcrntion forces and for the governments and forces of other Latin American states. Such a recognition would, bv the stroke of a pen, make life very much harder for Castro and bring very much closer the day of his overthrow by his °'m exiled people. Let me repeat, this is an action that requires the stroke of a pen, not the stroke of n sword. This ' Administration says that men no longer have the power to move history, that they must just drift with it. Senator Fulbright calls i.t flexibility. Niki ta Khrushchev calls it inevitability. Lyndon Johnson might call it just reasoning together. I call it suicide. We do have the strength to move history. We have the strength to move it without war. We have economic strength, political strength and psychological strength. These are peaceful means that have not been given a chance to work! and to win! I say that we Republicans have a battle cry! Will it be: War through weakness! Or Peace through strength! I do not seek the Presidency to strip this nation of its defenses or to abandon the cause of freedom in this world! I seek the Presidency so that this nation will be strong enough to deter war and determined enough to encourage freedom. I ask your help, and the help of all Americans, so that an American President can tell Niki ta Khrushchev "you are wrong. Our children will not live under communism." "Your children will live under freedom." I seek the Presidency so that from A to Zin this troubled worldfrom Albania to Zanzibar -- men who want to be free will know that in this citadel of freedom there is hope, there are helping hands, there is faith, courage and determination - that under God and with God's help they will be free •••• That this world will find peace with liberty and justice for all. .. That this is what victory means and that this is what .America means! I ask your help in this cruade to restore pride at home and respect abroad. This is why I say that llcpublicans must take off the gloves. is why I say that this election is not just one for the record books. election is one for the history books. (more) This Thi s - 6 - Let those who will, hang back from the fight, or turn the other cheek every time this .Administration slaps us with a new political attack. Let those who will, fight their friends - while Lyndon laughs and Lyndon gains. Republicans should do better than that. than that. Republicans can do better And if Republicans are going to win, in the state houses, in court houses, in the Congress, and in the White House -- Republicans are going to have to do better than that. You can do it right here in California. You can tell the nation that Republicans are going to fight this Administration right down to the last line of its inflationary economic p·oli·cies. right down to the last line of its encouragement of class warfare right down to the last line of its concessions to Communism right down to the last line of its red ink and its white flags! Americans have plenty to be mad talk about. about. nepublicans have plenty to Let's get on with the job of winning this election. We will never have a better chance. We will never face a more clear choice. Let our people go -- and there is no task we need fear, no challenge we cannot meet. Let our people go - so that when our time is written, it will not be said that we were the smug generation, the ease-takers, the sleepwalkers. Let our people go -- so that free men in a peaceful world, for seven times seven ages will say: there are men who matched their time -- this is the time that made men free! END for • President Committee • Speech by Senator Goldwater at the Youth for Goldwater Rally, International .Amphitheater, Chicago, Illinois, Friday, April 10th FOR FRIDAY AM's RELEASE April 10, 1964 I know that the program says this is a youth rally tonight. change. But let me suggest a I say that this is a victory rally! This Republican party of ours, across the nation, is no longer a minority party that has to apologize for its principles or double-talk to squeeze out votes. As a matter of fact, you folks here in Chicago know that one of the real challenges is just to make sure that all our votes get counted! The heroes of this election might just be the poll watchers! I hope you have enough of them. This party of ours, despite the registration figures, is the majority party when it comes to this nation's real needs, real hopes, and its vital spirit. This is no caretaker party. This is a can-do party. This is no sit-it-out-and-wait-for-the-next-time party. This is a can-win party. This is a will-win party. And I look forward this year to campaigning, and campaigning with every ounce of my strength, for the finest Republican candidates ever to go before the people of this nation-from White House to State House, from Congress to Court-House. This is a Republican year--for a dedicated and united Republican party. America today is ready to throw off the old shackles of regimentation and red-tape. America today is ready, willing, and more than able to speak up for individual initiative, individual dignity, individual responsibility. Even Democrats know that there is such a mood in .America. In fact I've heard some Democrats lately who have been trying to sound more Republican than some Republicans I knew. Democrats seek to exploit this new mood of American politics. We seek to represent it. Why should Americans settle for second-hand conservatives? For second-hand fiscal responsibility? For second-hand foreign policy? For second-hand strength in our defenses? No reason at all! Americans can have the real thing. they will have -- real Republicanism! They can have--and I say This isn't a fearful generation we must reach. This is a generation of hope and courage . This is a generation that wants the chance to solve some of the problems which government mismanagement has created. This is a generation, in particular, that wants to get on with the business of building a free and peaceful world. (more) - 2 - We have been frustrated through three years of indecision. Freedom, which under Dwight Eisenhower was a crusade, has become a wholly negotiable stack of chips in a game of political expediency. We now have a President who tries to save money by turning off lights in the White House -- even as he heads toward a staggering addition to the national debt. I say that L.B.J. should stand for light bulb Johnson. This same Pres·i dent, by viewing the world as little more than political precincts and wards, also is turning off lights. Lights of leadership, of conscience and honesty, of strength and courage. Where is the bright light of an American statement that can outshine Khrushchev's boast that our grandchildren will live under Communism? Where is the American statement that says, for all the world to hear and believe, that Khrushchev's children or grandchildren will live under freedom! · -I say that statement is in the Republican Party and its principles. in Republican leadership! I say it is This is the essence of the choice we face. It is the essence of a choice the whole world faces--but which only America can put into effective action. Tyranny or freedom! Expediency or principle! There are those who criticize anyone who, as they put it, wraps himself in the Areerican flag. Well I would far rather wrap myself' in that flag than in the shrouds of indecision and defeat. I would rather see that flag flying proudly and respected than see it torn, flung down, and spat upon. It is not international wisdom or patience that keeps turning the other cheek to every slap at freedom. Nor is that the way to peace. There are no first-step compromises that lead to second-step hopes for peace. There are only little defeats that lead to major defeats. What peace this troubled planet ever has known has come through the strength of men determined to keep the peace. What peace we have in the world today is the result of our strength and the strength of the free world. And what peace we can hope for tomorrow will come the same way. The one sure way to prevent war in our time is to make sure that Communism·knows it cennot win a war if it starts one. The one sure way to peace in our children's time is to reduce the power of Communism to the point where it no longer threatens the peace of the world, to help remove from positions of power the Communists who do threaten the peace of the world. It is, of course, easier said than done. at least setting and understanding a goal? But what cause ever was successful without And, today, in the eyes of anxious millions around this world and here at home, we stand implicitly accused as a nation that has not set a clear goal or an understandable course. With one hand we seek new trade with the Soviet--and at a time when its economy is tottering! With the other hand we slap the wrists of good friends who trade with Soviet satellites. Where is the goal there? Where is the course that other nations can understand and follow? There is none! With one hand we support the false neutralization of laos--the neutralization that bas become a Con:m.unist take-over. With the other hand we grope for some expedient so1ution in Vietnam--even neutralization! But what is the goal? Where is the course? - 3 - Where is the clear-cut purpose to defeat Communism which might revitalize the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization? There is no goal, course, or purpose. and slew strangulation of freedom. There is only sudden death in the jungles We willingly risk, at every turn, defeat in the cold-war. We risk a tomorrow in which, backed against the wall of our indecision, we will face no choice but surrender or holocaust . There is far less risk, while we are strong, and while the enemy is divided, and over-extended, of us ing our strength as a shield and our firm purpose as a sword to settle-without war--the claims of freedom and the crimes of tyranny. Right here in this area you are witnessing the fruits of a policy that has tried to buy friends rather than stick to principles. Communist Yugoslavia has soaked up approximately two-and-a-third billion dollars in U.S. aid, since 1948. The purpose was to bribe Tito away from Communism. What has it accomplished? It has bolstered a dictatorship which, today, moves closer than ever to Moscow. It has bolstered, with 700 million dollars worth of military aid alone a nation that would fight against the West in any showdown now foreseeable. Now how does this affect you directly, right here in this area? The Communist Tito, fattened by our aid, made secure by our deference, and emboldened by our vacillation is even now trying to seize control of Serbian Orthodox church properties in this country, destroying the rights of Serbian-Americans and making a mockery of our policies toward Yugoslavia. The head of the Serbian Orthodox diocese in North America already has been attacked by the puppet church in Yugoslavia . And for a final irony, the Serbian orthodox monastery is located in Libertyville! How Tito must laugh at that -- and how freedom should weep! Again, America and Americans must suffer because this, the strongest nation on earth, has suffered--from weakness. All free men suffer when we are weak. Peace itself suffers when we are weak. Wherever our strength has been applied, the enemy has yielded. no war as a result! -----It moved And there has been -------- When our Marines landed in Lebanon in 1958, the world did not moveclcser to war. for a brief Itt.ment closer to peace. When our ships blockaded Cuba in 1962 we removed, for all too brief a moment, a bold Communist threat to the peace. Such aggressive moves will plague us again and again, if we do not move resolutely in the future. Cuba remains Communism's open-door to Latin America. Zanzibar has been newly opened as a side door to Africa. Vietnam threatens to be a revolving door in Southeast Asia. Indonesia may be a trap door in the same area • And, meantime, in the original heartland of freedom itself, in Europe, our NATO Alliance teeters on the edge of disintegration. (more) - 4 - If men who share such a heritage of freedom, such a heritage of history and conviction cannot agree even upon their common defense against a common enemy, then freedom's cause is sick indeed. The tragedy is that it need not be! I refuse to believe for an instant that the break-up of NATO is inevitable, that the western powers are doomed by forces of history to split and squabble, to be divided and conquered, that the days of western civi1ization are numbered. It is only Communist theory that reads history that way! And those who share the reading in any way have lost their fight at the outset--worse, they have lost their faith! They have lost their faith in the power of freedom to inspire men. They have lost their faith in the use of freedom's strength. They have lost their faith in the simple proposition that men can move history, mold it, and make it. We have, in our own strength and in the strength of the whole free world, the lever to move history. It is not our armed strength alone that gives us that lever. Although, if the day ever comes when we lack that strength and yet are still opposed by an enemy such as Communism, history will move uson to its scrap-pile. The arsenal of our strength, the strength that can oppose, halt, and roll-back Communism is immense. It offers the way to victory without war, to peace without the sacrifice of freedom or justice. Let me inventory some of the strength in that arsenal: First, we have·-· economic strength. The Free World's economy is a colossus compared to the collectivist clap-trap of Communism. If our goal could be to apply that economy as a force against Communism, rather than as a support for Communism, we might see in our own time the collapse of a system that cannot even feed its people and certainly cannot forever fool them. Next, we have the power of our ideas. The Free World's psychological strength is a mighty fortress. That of Communism is a house of cards. If our goal could be to apply our psychological force rather than forever apologizing for it, we might in our time strip away the mask of legitimacy from the fraudulent regime and foolish philosophy of Communism. There is another great strength in our alliances and institutions. The Free World's political strength is gigantic. But its muscles grow flabby from disuse and misuse. They must be exercised. When they are not, Communism's fear-driven machine wins without resistance, and is encouraged to excesses. The list is as endless as the diversity of free men and free institutions. opportunities are as endless as the dedication of free men. Is it reckless to talk this way of winning the cold war? we risk war less through strength than through weakness? The Is it reckless to say that Is it reckless to say that this generation can be the first in a new era of freedom, rather than the next-to-last gasp of a worn-out world no longer ready to work, to strive, to dedicate itself to freedom? The truly reckless leadership in such a world as ours today is the laggard leadership that shrinks from decision, that confuses comfort and conscience, that buys time and votes with the fate of the entire Free World. Our generation, our nation, was not born to sit in easy-chair silence. The umbrella of false security is not the symbol we deserve. The plea ot "aon.'t rock the boat" is not the slogan we deserve. Either we seek the victory of freedom, the peace of freedom or we are not worthy of the name American. Cur choice must not be just between the details of expedient programs. (more) This is a - 5 - real. and grim world in which real and hard decisions, based upon realized goals must be made. I implore all those who are concerned, all those who will listen to ask of the men who propose themselves for the responsibilities of foreign policy formulation--to ask of them a single question: Ask what they think of Communism. Ask what they think of the profound crisis of the soul. which produced it. Ask whether they are prepared to come to terms with it--or whether concretely they would oppose it. Ask and demand an answer to that, for that is the question of war and peace in our time. It will be the question tomorrow. It is the question before November. It will be the question after November. Only a political pitchman would pretend to give the answers in infinite detail. These are national problems for a national solution, involving all of us. It is the direction, the decision, that is important--the first step that is crucial. Either we start the march or we abandon it--as we have been abandoning it, resting on our laurels, hoping for miraculous signs of friendship from a foe that has sworn destruction of our society. I am told that talking this way is unpopular. It is too grim. It is too tough. It is too much trouble to think about. We didn't ask for the responsibility. We don't seek the mission. We want to rest, to relax, call a truce, take a holiday. I didn 1 t get into politics to relax. I wasn't born in this land to follow the leader or abandon my conscience. I won't run that way! I cannot live that way. And I don't think America can either! I don't think freedom is won that way. I don't think freedom can live that way. don't think that peace can be bought that way. It never has. It can't -- and it won't! I If advocating firmness in foreign policy, if seeking peace through strength is poor politics then I gladly risk my political life. It is my country'slife that most deeply concerns me. That is the reason I am here. It is the reason that for the history books. 1964 It is the reason you are here. is more than an election for the record books. It is one This generation must pay its share of freedom's vast responsibility. I say that it cannot pay that share in fear. Frozen in indecision. I say it must be paid by dedication and a new direction. The time has come to let our people go--go toward the fulfillment of the best that is in us. The time has come to let our people go--go forward in individual responsibility. The time has come to let our people go--go forward for freedom. Let our people go in those directions--and this time of ours will be worthy of every age that has prepared us,of every tradition that has enriched us, of every challenge that faces us. ### President N ::. • Committee • W RELEASE NOON FRIDAY April 10, 1964 REMARKS BY SEN. BARRY GOLDWATER AT 12TH ANNUAL REPUBLICAN WOMEN 'S CONFERENCE April 10, 1964 world. This Administration is complacent about the challenges of our modern The only victory it seeks is over these Americans who oppose it. This is a smug and satisfied Administration. Its onlyconscience is Its slogan is "Don't rock the boat.'' a popularity poll. Where would this world be if history had been made by such men? tel l you, the very idea is enough to laugh them out of office! I Suppose Christopher Columbus hadn't vanted to rock the boat? I can just hear him now when. stories about new western islands reached him. "Sure, ·' he mi ght say, "that sounds fine but the merchandising business is pretty good right here in Genoa, and besides, I get seasick." Or what about a committee meeting of the pilgrim fathers before they set s ai l for the New World. 'Now let's be reasonable about this., fellows. I'm a s concerned about religious freedom as the next man but have you seen the size of that boat! ' 1 Or Daniel Boone: "Who,mego into those woods. You must be nuts. They got bears in there. Let the game warden go. He's getting paid to do stuff like t hat! ·' There was an article in U.S. News that suggested a classic along the same lines. It concerns Paul Revere: ''What do you mean -- me ride through every Middlesex village and town? And in the middle of the night yet. Why pick on me? Am I the only man in Boston with a horse?" Well., this isn't a bad game to play. attitude for just what it is. It shows up this administration's What about Commander James Lawrence aboard the Chesapeake in 1813? 'Ordinari ly I don't believe in giving up the ship, but if we use up all this ammunition, the budget bureau is going to have my hide! · And how would Teddy Roosevelt have turned out if his foreign policy advisors had been the men we have today. ''Speak as loud as you want but I don't want to hear about any of our guys carrying sticks.'' Or Winston Churchill: 'Well, if they get to the beaches we '11 just have to move the meeting back to the streets someplace. After all, they're just folks like us and you'll have to admit that the RAF has been getting a little reckless lately! 1 You can go on and on and you end up in the sa1ne place. You end up with t he sort of attitude that forms the slogan of this Administration: "Don't rock the boat." You end up with the lack of determination that makes a joke out of our strength and turns our heritage into an apology. We've got to rock the boat! Freedom has got to have a chance. And I say that freedom. can-win. I say that freedom and free men can . win over tyranny without war But. we cannot win without trying. For· further information. contact: Lee Edwards s Goldwater for President Committee 110-l .. Connecticut Avenue, N. W. Washington , .D.• · C. 20006 · .. . 638-3600 .. . ... . . for • Committee President e : I FOR THURSDAY AM' s RELEASE April 16, 1964 EXCERPTS BY SEN. GOLDWATER, APRIL 15TH LONG BEACH SPORTS ARENA One necessity is to maintain our armed superiority over Communism. We have such superiority today, thanks to programs which were instituted under Dwight Eisenhower. This Administration has not introduced a single new major strategic weapons system. President Eisenhower himself has confirmed this charge in a recent statement. Furthermore, this Administration is pursuing a defense policy which will, in effect, place all of our eggs in the intercontinental ballistic missile basket. I say that this is a dangerous course. that this is a dangerous course. Our most outstanding military leaders say There are two obvious reasons. General Curtis LeMay, our respected Air Force Chief of Staff, has stated one of the reasons in testimony just released this week. He says that complete reliance on missile weaponry in the future will put the U.S. "in a musclebound· position." He says that "you are endangering the defense of the country by depending on this weapons system alone because you have no flexibility." Now, when it comes to weapons and the defense of this nation, I would far rather trust the experienced judgment of a Curtis LeMay than the political decisions and computer exercises of a Robert McNamara. But let's take a look at what McNamara is saying, in the same testimony. He repeats his personal attacks against me. He offers no new facts. He just offers repeated insults. And why? Because I have questioned the reliability of intercontinental ballistic missiles as part of my plea for the maintenance of a proven and flexible U.S. defense force. Mr. McNamara knows, and I know, and the Soviet Union knows that the ultimate reliability of our ICBM's is based upon theory, not upon practice, and not upon testing. Yet, it is upon these weapons systems that this Administration is willing to stake the life of this nation. I say that drawing-board reliability is not enough upon which to stake the life of this nation and the future of freedom! And I am not alone. Nor will all of the personal · attacks that this Administration can launch disprove one word of what I have said or add one bit to the defense of this nation. General. LeMay has testified that he is not as "optimistic" as McNamara about the missile picture. (more) - 2 - General Howell Estes, of the Air Force Systems Command, has stated publicly and recently that"progress in system reliability, though notable in many instances, has simply not been adequate overall. " General Thomas Power, of the Strategic Air Command, has stated that only by a mix of manned and unmanned vehicles can he "get a reliability factor that is acceptable." The Navy has expressed the same concern. Admiral George Anderson, just retired as Chief of Naval Operations, has stated flatly that "I do not have the same confidence in any of our missile systems as do some of the technicians who attest to the performance of the missiles." Just last year, Secretary McNamara himself had to admit before the Senate Armed Services Committee that "None of the weapons systems have passed through that what I call a reliability testing program as yet. They haven't passed through it because of lack of time." He was referring to our missile systems! And I ask him this tonight: when will we have time for a meaningful reliability testing program, not just a computer program, not just a drawing-board program, but a real program of real testing? Under the test ban treaty, as this Administration knows full well, not one of our strategic missiles can be tested as a complete unit including the warhead. They know full well that the missiles cannot be tested under actual combat conditions, including the very conditions for which the missiles are maintained--retaliation after an enemy nuclear attack. The test ban treaty prohibits such tests. It was for such reasons that I and others in the Senate voted against the test ban treaty. It is for such reasons that I remain seriously concerned about the reliability of our ICBM's and, just as importantly, about the necessity of maintaining a balanced, flexible and modern defense force. Unless the defense policies of this Administration are changed, we will move into the l970's with a defense posture which the Chief of Staff of the Air Force rightfully calls "musclebound." We will face a deterrent gap through which the full force of advanced Soviet weapons may be felt. We will face the terrible day when our ability to deter war by the preponderance of our power will be nothing but a paper wall. I say that it should be a prime responsibility of a President of the United States to increase our power so long as we are threatened. I charge t hat this Administration, instead, is letting our power lag and slide. I pledge that the immediate and full restoration of our defenses would be one of my first acts as President of the United States. ### Remarks of Senator Barry Goldwater, Stockton Civic Auditorium April 16, 1964 You don't want to waste your vote by casting it for more or less of the same old thing! Americans should have a choice and freedom should have a chance. I seek the Presidential nomination so that Americans will have a choice not an echo! Let's look at the sort of choices I mean. This Administration is willing to accommodate a world that is half slave and half free. I say that such a world cannot long live •in peace nor can free men preserve their freedom in it. The goal of our foreign policy should be to extend freedom, not to compromise it. This Administration acts as though Communism can be bought off. I say that the full weight of our economic power should be used against Communism, to weaken it and not to strengthen it. This Administration refuses to use the full voice of our psychological strength, to make freedom a rallying cry around the globe. They actually applogize for America and American ideas! I say that we should be proud of this land and that the freedom which so many millions envy should be the voice for all those millions to hear and to heed. This Administration seeks peace through a balance of terror. It even suggests cutting back American power for fear that too much strength might provoke the Communists. I say that the way to peace is through strength. I say that a balance of terror is no way to live but a sure way to risk disaster in a see -saw world. Communism will start no war unless Communism thinks it can win that war. I say that we must remain so strong that Communism knows it can never win a war. Only then will it never start a war. -There is the shield of peace! dom and permit its extension! There is the strength to shield free- This Administration gives lip service to the ideals of the United Nations. (more) - 2 - But it stands by helplessly and silently while the Soviet abuses the charter of' the U. N. It stands dumbf'ounded whil.e the ideals of the U. N are twisted into instruments of political reprisal against the nations of the West. I say that America's membership in the U.N. should be used to fight for freedom's cause and to assure that membership in the U.N. for any nation, new or old, small or large, carries with it responsibilities and not just privileges. But I warn, also, that America's membership in the U.N. cannot be used as a substitute for a clear foreign policy of our own. And I emphasize again that if Red China should shoot her way into the U.N., the great charter of that organization would be a virtual dead letter and this nation would have to seriously re-consider its membership and support. This Administration has watched the NATO alliance come apart at the seams. It has given every member of that alliance real cause to fear that this nation is pulling back into isolationism. It has dealt harshly with our friends in NATO even while it seeks new friendship with the Soviet enemy. It has refused to face the fact that unless our NATO allies can defend themselves with the most modern and appropriate weapons, NATO will become just a shell and a sham. I say that we must enter into a true partnership with our NATO allies. The Soviet threatens Europe with nuclear weapons. Europe must have s imilar weapons for its own self-defense. Europe eventually will have those weapons whether we help or not -- and I say that this is the time to help our friends, not ignore them. This is true also of the peaceful development of nuclear energy. We cannot stop the clock. We cannot turn Europe back from full participation in the most advanced technologies which, today, mean nuclear technologies. We should be helping our friends. We must stop acting as though we trust the Communists more than we trust our own allies. I want to see the free nations standing together, not falling separately -- not withdrawing into isolationism. These are not mere details'of difference. Details are spelled out after a course is set. Details are not what we should be debating. Decisions, real choices are what this election involves. we go and not just how we go is what this election involves. The way It is our vision of the world and the future or our lack of it, that will be shown in this election. Our enemy has such a vision. The question is whether, in the West, and particularly in this nation, we can raise and share a vision that truly will challenge men, truly inspire them, lead them and win freedom's long fight. We have the same challenge of choice in our domestic affairs. This Administration operates on the basic assumption that society has become so complex that individual responsibility is inadequate to core with it. The day of government by computer has dawned in this Administration. I say that the minds of individual men, and the morals of individual men are still the indispens_ble energies of society. (more) - 3 - Government, in my view, is established to serve but not to master To maintain public order but not enforce conformity To perform those clearly limited services which individuals cannot perform for themselves. This Administration reaches immediately for the highest levels of government intervention and power in any circumstance. I say that when a governmental function is involved, we must first clearly determine need and propriety and then,without fail, seek a solution at the most local levels before ascending to any higher level. If the solution can be found in the town, the village, or the city, then let it be there. If it must be at the county or state level, then let us stop there. If it can be met by regional authority, then let it remain there. Only finally, only after all other possibilities have been proven unworkable should federal authority be assumed. I have spoken in this ladder of responsibility of those times when government action is needed. Let me emphasize that even at the outset it is the responsibility of government at every level to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that such action is needed. Citizens in a free society must be presumed to be able to handle their own affairs until proven unable, just as in their courts they are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Always, our first assumption in a free society must be that individual men, or voluntary associations of men, are capable of solving their own problems. This is the great test that freedom must impose on government that it never lightly assume otherwise, that it never use its powers to act otherwise. This does not mean that we would weaken government. It means we would strengthen its proper roles by strengthening the citizenry from whose consent it derives its powers in the first place. This does not mean that we would abolish government actions which meet proven needs which would otherwise be unmet. This means we would be sure, when we took actions, that they were needed. This Administr&tion seeks by every means to increase the power of the Executive Branch of government. It seeks to make the Congress a rubberstamp. It seeks to make the Judiciary merely the gavel of executive power. It seeks to make the states mere wards of Washington. I say that our government must be balanced if our freedoms are to be preserved. I would not seek a Congress that coddles and conforms. I would welcome a Congress that truly represents and firmly stands to be counted. And I would say that the responsibility of the Judiciary is to uphold the Constitution, not re-write it. (more) - 4 - Does this mean standing still in this nation? nation bas moved more than this? Of course not. What What nation holds more promise? But I say that the forward movement and the promise of the future It is the erosion of that system that would blight tomorrow. is rooted in the very system that has brought us where we are. Our Constitution, our balanced government are not dead letters in history. They are the greatest achievements of that history. They are its most brilliant letters, its most hopeful signs. But this Administration ignores those signs. This Administration seeks to fight poverty by distributing wealth. I say that only by an increase of wealth will there b e m for oall r eto share. The Administration's way seeks an equality of poverty. seek limitless opportunity. My way would This Administration sees employment as a problem in public works. I see it as a challenge to initiative and investment. They seek more handouts. I ask more jobs! This Ad.ministration sees taxation as a way to re-distribute income. President Johnson himself has said that "we are going to try to take all of the money that we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the 'haves' and ·.g ive it to the 'have nots' that need it so much. 11 Now that's no fictional statement. That is President Johnson speaking in Washington, D.C., on the 15th of January this year. we hear? Is this the friend of freedom, the friend of enterprise about whom No. It is Lyndon B. Johnson as he is and as he thinks. This Administration turns off the lights in the White House to save some money. But it is headed for a staggering addition to our national debt. I say that in a time of prosperity we should be paying our debts, not piling up new ones. And I pledge that when it comes to taxes, I would first seek a real reform of a system that promotes dishonesty, breeds corruption, and confuses our citizens. I pledge that taxes collected would be used to pay the just costs of government. This Administration sees the income tax as a weapon. I see it as a necessity that must be wisely scaled and prudently controlled lest it kill the very initiative upon which it must feed. This Administration sees the Social Security system as an open door to limitless government control over the needs of our older citizens. I see Social Security as a floor over poverty, a floor which we can preserve only by resisting attempts to bankrupt the system or its contributors a program which can be preserved best by preserving the value of the dollars due every man and woman covered by it. ---I want to see Social Security pay its benefits to our citizens in dollars that are worth something! And I want to see more encouragement given to those voluntary programs which supplement Social Security and which offer our people benefits above and beyond any that are possible under a single government program. something. These are the sorts of choices which mean (more) These are the - 5 - issues which must be faced and debated. Let's not be content in this land with a neon and tinsel election. Let's not be content with public relations images . Let us be concerned with reality. Let us listen to statements that say something and not be lulled by promises which mean nothing, or by nothingness which we mistake for promises . Let the President's pledge to uphold and defend the Constitution be the President 1 s actual way. Let us look to the day when an American President will tell Nikita Khrushchev, or his successor, you were wrong! Our children will not live under Communism. Your children will live under freedom! is the challenge! Let us make the choice! Let us meet the challenge! ### There is the choice! There FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY April 20, 1964 EXCERPTS OF SPEECH BY SENATOR BARRY GOLDWATER INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, April 20, 1964 Indianapolis, Ind. - - This Administration has launched a major attack against me in connection with my crusade on behalf of a strong America . The reasons, I am sure, must be obvious to all Americans . are beginning to come out - - and they bear out my charges . The facts High. ranking military officers are being heard -- and what they say bears out what I have been saying, even through the attempts to censor them. In short, the truth hurts this Administration! And this Administration is trying to slap back, trying to slap me down, or shut me up . It won't work. I will continue so long as my conscience tells me that my nation's future is in danger. I am sure that I can anticipate considerable political trouble as a result of my stand. But this is not a political issue. This is a national issue . not my political life that concerns me. It is my country's life! It is I have charged that this Administration is letting our defenses drop and decline. I repeat that charge. I have charged that this Administration is isolating us behind a wall of untried, inflexible weapons. I repeat that charge. I have charged that this Administration has been lax in the introduction of new weapons and has not, in fact, introduced a single new major strategic weapons system. I repeat that charge. Now what has this Administration done in response to these charges'l This past week has seen a whirlwind of activity at the Department of Defense in this regard. If this Administration was as worried about communism as it is about me, we might really be winning this cold war we are in! The most dramatic attack was released through the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Arthur Sylvester. You may remember him . He's the one who defended the government's right to manage the news . Now, this represents, obviously, the Administration's official defense against criticism of its defense policies. (more) with your forebearance, I'd like to comment on it in some detail. After all, if this Administration can go so far as to set up practically a separate Department of Defense to defend against me the least I can do is help them earn their money! The Administration begins its defense of its defenses by saying that we have 540 strategic bombers maintained constantly on alert. I do not question that figure. I support it and applaud it. I know that this nation has the mightiest air fleet in the world. I know that its capabi1ities make us the most militarily powerful nation on earth. My point is simply this: I want to keep this nation the most powerful. Let's look at the actual picture. A large number of the bombers we now have on alert are B-47 1 s. Every one of them will be phased out of use in the next 36 months -- sooner, if the Administration's bomber bonfire plan goes through. The rest of the bombers are B-52 1 s and a handful of B'58's. And every one of them faces obsolescence over the next several years -- and this Administration refuses to replace them with more advanced manned systems. They are. This is what I mean when I charge that our defenses are being dropped. The facts speak for themselves. The Administration's defense of its defenses then goes on to reveal that we have 750 intercontinental ballistic missiles on launchers. Again, the figure itself is good, and I support it wholeheartedly. I have worked for the development of these missiles right along. I believe they represent a fine and au absolutely vital part of our defense. But I do not feel that these missiles, as great as they are, can be relied upon as our total strategic deterrent force. Yet this Administration is planning to put all of our strategic eggs into the missile basket. But, it is the Administration's revelation of Soviet missile strength that is most highly questionable. The Administration reveals that the Soviets have less than a fourth as many ICBM's as we have. The picture they paint is one in which, presumably, we should simply relax, secure in the vast numerical superiority of our ICBM's. I would have to admit that on the basis of something like 750 to 180, the scales really do seem to be tipped reasonably in our favor. There is only one thing wrong. This Administration has deliberately misled the American people in this connection. It has juggled its figures. It has stacked its deck. It is talking double talk. It is talking dangerous nonsense. Let's look at the facts -- and without having to· divulge any classified information, the way this Administration does so freely when it suits its political purposes. The Soviet force of ICBM's may well be 180, as the Administration has revealed. But the total Soviet missile'force which-menaces the free world is a far different and a far more frightening picture. The Soviet Union has, according to figures which are not highly secret, such as the ones just revealed by the Administration -- the Soviet Union has more than 700 -- let me repeat that -- more than 700 Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles. In terms of the defense of Europe, those missiles must be considered strategic missiles, even though we call them intermediate range missiles. (more) - 3 - The reason is obvious. From Soviet bases in Eastern Europe, you do not need the equivalent of an ICBM to hit vital strategic targets. You o n l y nan eed intermediate range missile. When we speak of comparative strength, w e m include u s t these missiles . Or is this Administration trying to write off the defense of Europe completely! No wonder NATO is coming apart at the seams. First we cancel Skybolt, ·which was Great Britain's great chance to move ahead in nuclear defense. Then we rebuff the French. And now we list Soviet strength without even bothering to mention what is virtually the heart of that strength, the missile force aimed at Europe . This frantic attempt by this frantic Administration, to justify its defense mismanagement, not only misleads· our own people -- it may well appall our allies. And it could easily comfort our enemies. What is our own situation when it comes to these intermediate range missiles, which we so blithely ignore in the Administration's defense of its defenses? Well, we used to have a few in Europe; in Turkey, in Italy, and in England. We have none now. We removed them by an amazing coincidence, during the exact period that the Russians were removing their missiles from Cuba. The truth, of course, is shrouded in official secrecy. But the obvious appearance, for all the world to see was that this nation removed its missiles from Europe in return for the Russian removal of missiles from Cuba. The fact today remains: we do not threaten the Soviet with such missiles today. We have no plans to deploy any in the future. We don't even have plans to build them. This Administration's plans regarding intermediate range missiles have been so half-hearted that funds have not even been appropriated for them. And thi s grim fact remains, despite all the Administration double talk and news management ! In terms of Soviet missiles which strategically threaten the free world, the numbers actually are on the side of the Soviet. Altogether, with their ICBM's and their intermediate range missiles, they command a force that may number as many as 880 missiles, or more than a hundred more than the U.S. force . The balance that keeps the Soviet from war, the great shield of peace in the world is the great mixed force of American nuclear power -- 75% of which, according to Secretary McNamara's own testimony -- is carried in manned bombers! And the action which can tip that balance, and spell disaster for peace and eventual doom for the free world is this Administration's short-sighted defense policy -- its freezing of our arsenal and its intentions to phase out vital weapons. Jusc as this Administration makes a dishonest argument when it talKs of our ICBM's, while omitting mention of the Soviet missiles which threaten Europe -- it is making a possibly fatal mistake by arguing for what amounts to a oneweapon strategic defense system in the years ahead. : Just as t heir attempt to mislead the people is an attempt in depth, so is this a. mistakein depth. It fails to.come to grips, for instance, with the possibility of advanced Soviet nuclear defense techniques that may have developed from the high yield tests which the Soviets have conducted but which we have not. But, before commenting on that phase of the AJministration's merry-goro round attempts to silence criticism of its defense mismanagement, let me emphasize one more point about the Administration's camparison of U.S. and Soviet strength. (more) 4 highly - This represents the second time that this Administration has used classified information to further its political cause Shortly after the missile crisis in Cuba, the Administ ration reported in great detail on the photo interpretation techniques used to nail down evidence of the missile sites . They used this in part to justify their failure to obtain on-site inspection. They used this to justifythe removal of a blockade which, if it had been continued and extended, might have ended the Cuban threat once and for all . But, in the process, this Administration gave to the Soviet invaluable intelligence data. It is safe to say, I am sure, that the Soviets will never again make the same mistakes in camouflage which they learned about from that particular Administration show. And now, once again, we have given the Soviet information which may be of possible use in checking their own intelligence security- -and it has been done for the same reason: to gain political advantage . This, I charge, is really reckless! Now, what about the major charges concerning the nature , not the number of the missiles, on which the Administration has decided to rest our entire strategic defense? The Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Curtis LeMay, one of the truly great military men of our time, bas had to state that he cannot share the Administration's optimism about missiles. He has had to state in effect that he cannot share the Administration's complacency about the reliability of the missiles as they now stand. He has bad to state that he cannot share this Administration's complacency about Soviet testing of nuclear explosions in the 1OO-megaton range--a range many times greater than anything this nation has tested or can test under the test ban treaty . The Administration has offered nothing substantial to refute the charges that General LeMay's sworn testimony suggests . They say that we have tested missiles in conditions that are "very" close to operational conditions . They say we have even tested a single missile, a Polaris, with a nuclear warhead. But even that test, it is admitted, was under certain rather special conditions . It is said that we have tested the Minuteman missile, with simulated warheads. The truth, the unimpeachable truth, remains, however. We have never tested a strategic missile as a complete unit, including warhead explosion, under truly operational conditions such as might be expected during or after a Soviet attack. And what else do we have missiles for? The only reason is to be able to retaliate after a Soviet attack. Only by such power, we say, can we deter them from attacking in the first place . I repeat my charge and I repeat my claim that this Administration has not answered it: We have not adequately tested our missiles . We have not accumulated the sort of data which the Soviets may well have accumulated in their big blast tests . We have not fully tested the hardness of our missile silos . We have not fully tested the effects of nuclear-generated blackout , of gamma pulses , or other blast phenomena. The reliability of these weapons, because of the test gaps, is s imply not great enough. Nor is the weapon itself versatile enough, or flexible enough so that we can afford to put all of our eggs in this single basket . (more) - 5 - Drawing board reliability is not enough for the defense of this nation. I challenge this Administration to stop its figure juggling and double -talking. I challenge this Administration to attend to the defense of this nation with as much zeal as it attends to the defense of its political image. I challenge this Administration to attack the problems of the cold war with as much zeal as they attack political opponents, and our own military commanders. I challenge them, above all, to deal in facts and not fancies when it comes to the defense of this nation and the free world. This, let me remind you, is not war talk. is how we can keep the peace. This is peace talk. This This Administration is moving toward a rigid and weak position. I say this is the way to tempt our enemy to war, the way to tempt him to mistakes, the way to stumble toward war. Peace can be kept through strength. That is what I'm talking about . That is what military leaders like Curtis LeMay are talking about. Let me quote General LeMay's testimony, in the same hearings that have got him into such hot water with this luke-warm Administration. He said: 11 I am trying to defend the country ten years from now ..•• I firmly believe the right answer is to have a mix of weapons systems and not depend on one. . .• "I say to you if you were the President of the United States and only had missiles to fire, when are you going to press that button? I say that you are going to think a long time before you do it. 11 If you have anything else to use to show your will, you are going to use it --- The big use of these manned systems comes before the war ever starts, to snow will to fight. You have flexibility .•. I think this is a very important part of our defense. If we can prevent a war from happening, we will have succeeded in our mission. If the war happens, I think we have failed." Is that warmongering? It is not . right way. ### That is peace mongering. The FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY April 23, 1964 SPEECH BY SENATOR BARRY GOLDWATER AT HARTFORD, CONN. , April 23, 1964 Hartford, Connecticut, - - The balance of poli tical power is shifting in this land, shifting in every way . I've seen it in virtually every section of the country . This Republican Party of ours, across the nation, is no longer a min ority party that has to apologize for its principles or double-talk to squeeze out votes. This party of ours, despite the registration figures, is the majority party when it comes to this nation 1 s real needs, real hopes, and its vital spirit. This is no caretaker party. next-time party . This is a can - do party . This is no sit - it - out - and-wait -for-the - This is a can-win party . This is a will-win party. And I look forward this year to campaigning, and campaigning with every ounce of my strength, for the finest Republican candidates ever to go before the people of this nation - - from the White House to state house, .from Congress to court - house. This is a Republican year - - for a dedicated and united Republican party. America today is ready to throw off the old shackles of regimentation and red-tape. .America today is ready, willing, and more than able to speak up for individual initiative, individual dignity, individual responsibility . Democrats seek to exploit this new mood of .American politics . to represent it . We seek Why should Americans settle for second-hand conservatives? For secondhand fiscal responsibility? For second- harid foreign policy? For second-hand strength in our defenses? No reason at all! Americans can have the real thing . and I say they will have -- real Republicanism! They can have - - I say that 1964 will be a great Republican year . A great year for our Republican principles . A great year for American principles. A great year for freedom! My friends , that is why I have been s aying and why I deeply believe this election is not one for the record books . This election i s one f or the history books! Let's look at history for a moment . How will history remember Nikita Khrushchev? It may remember him as the man who said that our grandchildren will live under Communism • will history remember Lyndon Johnson? lights in the White House! (more) How As the man who turned off -2- Instead, we need a President who will tell Nikita Khrushchev that his children will live under freedom . Instead, we need a President who will turn .Q.E. some lights in the White House. morality . We need a President who will turn on lights of leadership. Lights of conscience. A Lights of Republican President elected in 1964 will turn on those lights . Republican principles will turn on those lights all over the world . Republican leadership will restore pride at home and respect abroad . Republican leadership will end the days of drift and indecision in our foreign policy. Republican leadership will repair the growing cracks in our great alliances, particularly NATO, by looking upon Europe as a true partner in.defense . Republican leadership would trust our allies more than our enemies! And, at home, Republican leadership would find us paying off our debts, in such times as these, rather than piling up new debts. Republican leadership will keep our dollars sound, and our enterprise system healthy. It will tackle the problem of jobs by encouraging investment and providing incentive. Republican leadership understands that the people of this land want a chance to work. They don't want government handouts as a temporary substitute. They want and must have full time jobs in a full time enterprise economy . What does this administartion offer, instead -- weakness abroad and wheeling and dealing at home! Republican leadership will end the decline of morality in public office . If a Republican President found a Bobby Baker in his closet -- he would open the door and air it out, not slam the door and try to hide it . 'Who does Lyndon Johnson think he is? Who is he to tell the American people that they should see no evil, hear no evil, and speak of no evil when the shadow of that evil falls on the White House itself! this I don't care if there is a baker's dozen of sacred cows involved in scandal -- they should be herded out in a roundup of honesty . The very prestige of the Presidency itself will remain under a cloud until this is done. My friends, this whole world will remain under a cloud unless there is a change. There can be no real and lasting peace in this world, no peace with freedom and justice, so long as America I s leadership is too weak to use .. America. 1 s strength to keep the peace. Peace is not won or kept by weakness. by indecision and compromise . Yet where in the world today the sort of strong American leadership they are encouraged to push harder, to take the whole world over the brink of The enemy is not deterred are the enemies of freedom faced with that will discourage them? Instead, push closer to the fatal step that could war. Brinkmanship of the sort practised by John Foster Dulles and Dwight Eisenhower did not encourage the enemy to go to the brink . It discouraged them from doing it. It kept them from doing it by making very clear that we were prepared to face up to them and face them down . (more) - 3To day i t i s Soviet brinkmanship that commands the field. And i t i s Ameri can back-downmanship that is losing the field. Th e r e is only one way for this, the mightiest nation in history , to deter war and keep the peac e. That way is to make sure that the enemy knows he cannot and will not win any war that he might be tempted to start . Our enemy will never know that. Our enemy will never respect that so long as the architects of defeat are in power in Washington. We £§I! have peace through strength in this world but we must have a change first. Freedom can win its victory without war -- but it cannot win it without leadership! We must have the change that permits us to use our vast economic power to defeat communism, rather than feed it. We must have the change that will permit us to use our great psychological power to shout down Communism rather than poor mouthing freedom . We must have the change that permits us to use our political power to bring new life to our alliances rather than forever pressing for new smiles from our enemies. These are the ways to win without war! Where is the leadership in an administration that can set no higher goal for the fighting in Vietnam than bringing the situation "under control" . That's their new, official language. Not a victory!! Just bring it under control. Why in heaven's name isn't it under control? It isn 1 t under control because it remains just what it has been for three years -- an aimless, leaderless war. We are sacrificing the lives of .American soldiers there . should dedicate some .American convictions there! I say we Where is the leadership in an administration that cannot even win a battle of wits with tiny panama! Where is the leadership in an administration that talks of total victory, and chiefs of staff, and battle plans when it comes to domestic spending programs - - but stands like a weak sister when the·American flag is torn down , spat upon, and burned around the world!! Where is the leadership in an administration that stands cross- eyed -with our friends -- wide-eyed with our enemies -- wall- eyed in Berlin -- glassyeyed in southeast Asia, and downright blind in Cuba! That's what happens when the lights of courage, conviction, and clarity are turned off in the White House . And at home, still other lights are turning out . Look around the land and you can see what I mean. Where is the light of law and order? It is flickering out in streets that are running riot with disregard for traditional American standards of decency and the due process of law . (more) -4- We relations. are faced, for instance, with a And where is i t being settled? grave moral question i n our racial. All the £ine talk of settling i t with new laws cannot obscure the brutal fact that i t is being fought out - not settled ! in the streets. In three agonizing years we have come to the point where many of our citizens -- citizens of all races -- accept as normal the use of riots, demonstrations, boycotts, violence , pressure, civil disorder , and disobedience as an approach to serious national problems . I know the long, sad background . I have been active in actions t o correct it . But I cannot in conscience now condone or support the breakdown of civil order that is said by some to be a necessary weapon of redress and correction and by others to be a necessary :eapon to resist that redress and correction. And I believe that you people _of Connecticut share my view . It is not wise leadership that takes its cause on either side of this grave issue into the streets this way . It is not understanding of America or Ameri cans that goads a man to abandon civility in this manner . It is not leadership or understanding that tacitly supports i t, that exploits it for political purposes, that inflames it in hopes of reaping the votes of violence , on either side of the coin. I charge that those who take either side of this cause into the streets in violation of the law dishonor their cause, default their l eadership , and defame this nation. I charge that an administration that stands mut e in the fac e of such violence and disorder is guilty of a cynical default in the exercise of its responsibilities . Justice will not be served, nor justice won in the streets . Decades of progress are being dam.aged . Future decades of hope are being dimmed . Laws cannot heal the wounds that are being inflicted in the violence of action and talk that we now see and hear. The old injustice and the new hope can end and begin only in the hearts of men. And the hearts of many men today are being hardened , not opened by attempts to settle grievances violently in the streets . And where is this violence directed, really? It is directed at affairs that are basically personal, moral, and individual . It is directed on the one hand . at forcing moregovernment intervention and on the other hand at stopping government intervention. But the root cause stands out sharp and clear . Too much government and too little understanding, too much mob and too little individual responsibility. I say this, and I say it with heartsick regret : in the climate created over these past few years, in this default of moral leadership and in thi s lack of understanding, we will see more violence before we s ee l ess; we will see more recourse to the naked force of government before we see less, unless we have a change -- a real change! And who suffers most from the state of things as they are? The very people whose pr blems men of good will north and south , white or Negro , have been hoping to solve in peace! This climate of violence and lisorder i s a storm that i s brewed in a governmental philosophy which too long has ignored individual responsi bilit ies and individual capacities. (more) -5- Its winds blow through. the wreckage o f the family as the b a s i c unit of our society. Government seeks to be parent, teacher, 1eader, doctor and even minister. And its failures are strewn about us in the rubble of rising crime rates , juvenile delinquency, scandal, sel£-seeking and greedy grabs £or power, even in evasi on and dis t ortion of issues in order to create £alse public relations images . Where are the standards of common decency , the traditional virtues of honesty, courage, self-control, truth, and justice? Are they now outmoded and unnecessary? These are not complex matters. These are not virtues that are outdated by campaign oratory or by meally-mouthed references to a society grown so complex that we must have new morals which are, in fact, no morals at all!! These traditional virtues are the very heart of our national spirit and our national honor . They are the very heart of the great choice that we face in this election. These are things which you can understand in your hearts and which no politician can twist away from you with a.smile or a promise. Accuse me, if you will, of trying to simplify issues . I say that any man who stands for office has the responsibility to simplify and clarify! Confidence men use the tricks of complexity and double-talk . Honest men do not . And I repeat, that public morality is an issue and a major one . I repeat that violence in the streets, arrogant power in the government -- I repeat that these are moral issues. And I ask that your conscience guide your political decisions , rather than your emotions, rather than expediency , rather than slick tricks and slick shows . Cur people must not be tied to the flimsy standards of a bureaucracy . We have an older, richer, and truer morality . Let our people go that way . Let them have the choice to go that way. Our people must not be herded into the streets for the redress of their grievances. We have better ways, more lasting and more honest ways. Let our people go that way. l t them have the choice to go that way. Let ur peopleour go -- let them go away from violence and struggle, from citize nship, from declining responsibility and increasing regimentation • people go, instead, ahead together in the great and moral works we have -- in the world. Let our people -- the people of your state, the f all America -- go in courage and in faith, in honesty and in humility! Si m ple! Old -fashioned! Call it what you will ! ! I call it the way we o proudest,strongest moments, in the fullness of our history and it the way to a f uture, under God, without eq ual in the wor:a.. people -- go let our people other way . worthy th· of o that way: the mor a l ou r dreams , or suffi ci to our - C ommittee FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY April 28, 1964 SPEECH BY SENATOR BARRY GOLDWATER BEFORE A REPUBLICAN RALLY, SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, APRIL 28, 1964 Santa Clara, Calif. -- All of us have heard that Lyndon Johnson is a fast man on the highway. A look -at his budget figures tells us that he's a fast man with a buck too-no matter how many lights he turns out in the White House! But now we have another evidence of the haste that makes waste in Washington. Johnson also is a fast man in a helicopter. The other day he took almost a full day out of his busy schedule in the White House rose garden, hopped in a helicopter and went off to solve in a few hours the problem of poverty that has plagued man through the ages. And I charge that Lyndon Johnson's answers to this problem are exactly like his d.riving--reckless and risky. I charge that Lyndon Johnson is playing politics with poverty . Anyone who faces the problem honestly knows that you can't spend your way out of poverty. Anyone who faces the problem honestly knows that you can't talk or wish or visit your way out of poverty• Anyone who faces this problem honestly knows that it takes real work to eliminate poverty. The real enemy is unemployment. There is the target that a responsible President would be aiming his efforts toward. There is the honest approach. But this Administration sees the problem of unemployment only in terms of government handouts. I see the problem in terms of real jobs and real earnings. I do not believe that Americans want to be wards of the government. say that Americans want a chance to work! I I say that if we build that chance, if we build those jobs, we can and we will lick poverty--rea.ll.y lick--U-the only way it ever will be licked! But, let me remind you, jobs and the wealth that they produce cannot be created by government. That was tried in the Depression days--and it failed. That was tried in the days of the New Deal--and it failed. Chained to government make-work policies we stayed mired in Depression longer than most major nations that had been similarly hit. It took a war to get things moving again--and I say that we don't want to have to depend on that kind of economic stimulation ever again! We don't have to! Our enterprise economy can do the job--if we let it. Our people can do the work--if we let them. And the key to it is very simple: let the government mind its own business ••. and free Americans can get on with the job of minding their own business. (more) 2 But how does this Ad.ministration approach it? seem to believe in free collective bargaining any more. Look a t the r ailroad situation. Why, it doesn't even Look at the wheeJ.ing and dealing that is becoming more and more apparent in conne ction with that "sett lement." With one hand the brother hoods are given a plump economic package. With the ot her, manage ment is tempted by hints of a possible tax break . And through it all there is the spectacle of a President of the United States literally begging · union and management representatives to go along with his plans because he is new on the job and doesn't want to rock the boatJ Well, I think Republicans have the answer to that one! We are going to rock the boat! And we are going to rock Lyndon Johnson right out of the White House in 1964! We know it won't be easy . Our job is to win this election before Lyndon Johnson can buy it--with our tax money! His so-called poverty program is an example . It shouldn't even be called a poverty program. It isn't designed to provide jobs. It's designed to provide votes. It envisions the expenditure of a billion dollars to buy votes and time prior to the November election. The points of his program which have been revealed so far demonstrate this clearly . The program proposed specifically for Appalachia is, as could have been predicted, mainly a mish-mash of public works . Some probably would have gone to the drea in the normal course of events- -but now they are tied with a pretty political ribbon and presented overnight as a bold new program. Actually it is a tired, old answer that puts a bandage on poverty at best, while the real problems of the area still await real and long -term answers . Education, ways of life, ways of working all are involved. President Johnson toys with the future of the people there and abuses the good sense of people everywhere by his wave - of-the-wand approach. This same Ad.ministration, three years earlier, also promised to wave a wand for parts of the very same area. They got the votes they wanted in return. But the people who got the promises got very little else. If this Administration's promises haven't produced in three years, why should anyone expect them to produce now--and overnight- - just because there is a new price tag on the package? Among the broader proposals in the President's program is a system of federal schools and camps to provide vocational training. I do not believe for an instant that this will solve anything. Do you? I don't believe that young men between 16 and 21 have to be hauled away to federal camps to train them for jobs or to give them a basic education. I don I t believe that the military draft should be turned into a labor draft. And yet this new system even suggests the use of Selective Service to fill the government's work training camps . Free men in a free society have better ways to do the job. Industrial job training programs already are being developed across the land. They outnumber federa1 plans b y many times . Local school boards are grappling with the problem of vocational training and are contributing greatly to its solution. The 100,000 young men who would be drafted into the federal program comprise just a drop in the bucket compared to what can be accomplished by industries, trade unions, and local educational systems . would Those federal. work camps aren't planned to solve America's problems . They are planned to solve a political problem. The unemployment that Lyndon Johnson is most anxious to fight is the unemployment of L.B. Johnson! (more) - 3 - The Domestic Peace Corps is another example of trying to make a p olitical image--but of making no common sense at all. Americans are not tribal missionaries! natives who need the he1p of Federal Americans need and want real jobs , with real wages --not mor e federal fiddling with their lives . Americans woul.d rather see the numbers on a paycheck than just be numbers on a government chart . But we have to face facts about jobs . pay our bills or end any poverty . Political pie - in-the - sky won't Every new job today requires an investment of about $35,000. We need several million of these jobs each year . New jobs . The federal government ca nnot create them. The federal government cannot, in the long run, feed people . only feed off people . It can But the private enterprise system, if given elbcw room and freed from government pressure , can provide jobs . It has . It can. It will. That is why I say that this Administration is playing politics with poverty . That is why I say that anyone honestly interested in honest work and a decent future will vote Republi can this year. Republican votes are votes of confidence : -- confidence in our ability to solve our own problems, if given a chance. --confidence in the ability of American ingenuity and American enter prise to create jobs . --confidence in the ability of Americans to work for their own futures , their own families. --confidence in the ability of free men, working together, to create more wealth so that there may be more for all to share , rather than trying to cut more and more slices out of the same old pie . To those who cannot work because of handicaps or age, this same confidence has a special meaning. We Americans will never let our less fortunate brothers want while we have the means to help. And this, I'll say, goes for Republicans and Democrats alike. This is the way all Americans think and always have acted. But I say this : our ability to help our neighbors , our ability to assure a life of security and dignity for our senior citizens , our ability to provide needed health services - -all of these things depend in the long run on our ability to keep this nation solvent1 And is there any doubt in anyone's mind about which party has proven it is best equipped to do that job? There shouldn 't be 1 Republicans understand this enterprise system of ours. Republi cans aren't specialists in depres s ions, like the present occupants of the White House . I say this proudly, as a Republican dedicated to the principles of my party- -as a Republican who has voted for the principles of my party, as a Republican who has worked for the candidates of my party : ARepublican President in 1964 will do more to assure real jobs in this country, a real chance to work, a real chance to fight poverty--a Republican President will do more to assure those things than all the Democrat boondoggling that ever has been concieved! (more) - 4 - And let me pledge this to you tonight, as I have pledged time and time again in your state. I mean what I say when I talk about real. Republicanism and I mean what I say when I pledge to support the nominee of this party regardless of who he may be! Any Republican would be better than what we have ! Why I will. support and vote for the Republican nominee even if I have to vote for myself! In all seriousness, I only wish that every man running for office as a. Republican would make a similar resolution. We need unity in this party if we are to win. Only the Democrats gain when we talk of last ditch fights against one another. Disagree? Of course we can disagree. We should. But if we cannot agree to close our ranks afterwards, if we are more interested in defeating fellow Republicans than in defeating this Administration, then we will be beaten at the polls, scattered in our·precincts, and doomed to mutter forever in obscurity. We don't want to be known as the Party that committed suicide! The issues are big enough to bind us together. Our principles are firm enough to bind us together. Our Party's 1962 declaration of principles, for instance, is a statement every Republican should be able to stand on. I know that I do . That is our Party's latest formal declaration of principle, superceding even the 1960 platform. Let's have an end to all of the reckless talk about this kind or that kind of Republicanism. I am not a hypenated Republican. I am not a do-it-my-way-or-I-won't -play Republican! I am a Republican who believes that my Party is big enough to cover all those who believe in its fundamental principles . I vote Republican, I think Republican, I work Republican- -and with your help and the help of millions more around this land who are ready for a change in Washington--I hope to win Republican in 1964! This isn't just Western style confidence which I share with you, my fellow Westerners. This is American confidence. This is, I suggest, confidence in America; confidence in Americans who are ready to vote on the basis of real issues and not on public relations images . And I say that this is a confidence which most Americans share with us! The balance of political power is shifting in this land. You can it all over the country. I know it from the many times I have campaigned for Republican candidates right here in California. And on that score, let me remind you that I never asked these Republican candidates if they agreed with me on every single point of every single piece of legislation. No . It was enough for me that they were Republicans who needed help1 And I remind you, and I remind them, that this is the way we have won what we have in California--and it 1s the way, the only way, we can win in the nation. see This Republican Party of ours is no longer a minority party that has to apologize for its principles or double-talk to squeeze out votes . I know that the registration figures favor the opposition Party by quite a margin. But there's more to this election than Just cold figures . There is a spirit, a warm and rising spirit that you can't miss in this election. There is an excitement in such meetings as this that you cannot mistake and you cannot miss. (more) - Republican 5 - chances are on the rise everywhere--and everyone knows i t whether t hey want to admit it or not. Lyndon Johnson may sit in the dark in the White House, after he's turned out the 1ights , but he must sense it too . Not all the public opinion polls in the world can obscure the fact that this Administration has a shopworn look and that it lacks enthusiasm or the ability to build enthusiasm. The most excitement Lyndon Johnson has been able to create has been by trying to convince people that he's really a conservative! He knows that there is such a mood in America. He seeks to exploit it . The Republican Party seeks to represent it. Why should Americans settle for second-hand conservatives? Why shculd Americans settle for second-hand fiscal responsibility and economy in government? Why should Americans settle for a second-hand foreign policy? Why should Americans settle for second-hand strength in our national security, in our weapons, in our determination to resist communism? There is no reason for Americans to settle for a second- hand government. No reason at all. Americans can have the real thing . They can- -and I say they will have, real Republicanism1 That's why I say that this is no caretaker party. This is no sit - it - out -and-wait - for-the - next-time party. This is no frightened party, afraid of its own reflections, its own candidates, its own principles. This is a can- do party. I say that in This is a can-win party. 1964 this is a will win party. I look forward this year to campaigning, and campaigning with every ounce of my strength, for the finest Republican candidates ever to go before the people of this nation. This is a Republican year from the White House to the state house . This is a Republican year from the Congress to the court house . America is ready and the Republican Party is ready . throw off the old shackles of regimentation and red-tape . We are ready to We are ready to prove that there is more to being an .American than wearing a government serial. number! America today is ready, willing, and more than able to speak up for individual initiative, individual dignity, individual responsibility. America is ready for, and freedom must have - -an American President who will tell Nikita Khrushchev or his successor : You are wrong . Our children will not live under socialism or communism. Your children will live under freedom. America is ready for a rebirth of public morality under a Republican Administration. America is ready to turn on some lights in the White House! Lights of (more) - leadership. 6 - Lights of conscience. And this great Republican Party of our all over this world. is ready to turn on l.igbts Our pledge to man and to history is that we will turn on the light of freedom in this year of our Lord 1964! ### for President e Committee FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY April 29, 1964 SPEECH BY SENATOR BARRY GOLDWATER BEFORE THE AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA APRIL 29, 1964 Los Angeles, Calif. -- Every American has a big stake in the future of this nation and its fiscal dependability. Some members of the business community feel a lot better about that future -- if recent press clippings are to be believed: --because there are promises of new cuts in government spending; --because there are promises, or at least hints, of a new sympathy toward private enterprise in the White House. Sighs of relief can be heard from Wall Street to Market Street. It is my uncomfortable chore to ask you, and to ask any of the American people who feel that way, to look very closely before leaping to such conclusions. It is my chore to ask you to consider the toughest proposition ever faced by believers in the free enterprise system: the need for a frontal attack against Santa Claus -- not the Santa Claus of the holiday season, of course, but the Santa Claus of: --the free lunch; --the government handout; --the Santa Claus of something-for-nothing and something-for-everyone. In short, the Santa Claus promises of the State of the Union message to which we listened this past January. If this sounds as if I am against good works and good goals, let me I am not against good works or all forms of government spending or a true understanding of what really makes , '""" economy tick and how it can enrich the .lives of everyone in this nation. ask your patience while I explain. I am not against those things. I am against: --the double-talk that speaks of economy while acting to spend; --the gestures of free enterprise while planning new contra.ls; --the direction of a government establishment that is prepared to nationalize society while paying for it with the fruits of private industry; --the direction of a government establishment that is prepared to spend and spend so that it can elect and elect; (more) - 2 - --the direction of a government establishment prepared to sacrifice t he li bert i es of the many to cater to the demands of a few; - -the direction of a government estab1ishment that confuses 1oca1 needs with national necessity, trying to buy off today ' s problems with t omorrow's bankruptcy; --the direction of a nation being led to believe that relief programs can end poverty rather than only institutionalize poverty; --the direction of a nation that has built the greatest prosperity ever known, by individual initiative, but which now is tempted to forsake that initiative for the illusory comforts of government guardianship. This nation has a choice to make. It is a choice on which history, not just election year rhetoric, will hinge and turn. If that choice can be bought by promises, by pie - in-the - sky, by smiles at business meetings, then the future of the American enterprise system is bleak indeed. The choice is not one of detail or trimmings, but of basic direction. ' The present administration, as have the Democrat administrations that immediately preceded it, says that the bureaucracy in Washington can solve all problems, end poverty, and create prosperity. The Republican alternative is that men and women working and investing in thousands of . industries, freed from bureaucratic interference, can build the wealth that best fights poverty. The Republican alternative is that men and women in their own homes, communities, and states can best solve their own problems and need pass along to the federal government only those problems that, national or international in nature, clearly call for a single answer. Diversity, of which we hear so much but see so little in the actions of the present administration, can best be achieved by choosing the best tools of diversity -- the initiative and creativity of individual Americans. Certainly there is no evidence that this is in any way, shape, or form the choice of the present administration -- no matter how much lip service they give to it. Is this administration really economy minded? I have been deeply concerned by the number of my friends -- economists, businessmen, bankers, -- who have been taken in by the appearance of economy, by the talk and the publicity. The facts are far different. President Johnson says that he is cutting new obligational authority requests by $4 billion. To be sure, he is cutting "requests" by that much. But he is asking that the Congress raise new obligational authority by more than $2 billion over what Congress actually authorized for the current fiscal year. The same fast shuffle of figures is apparent in his requests for spending in the next fiscal year. He says that he is seeking a half-billion dollars less than was requested last year. But he is asking for $2 billion more than Congress actually authorized for spending in the current fiscal year. -His is not a message of economy It is a message of deliberate confusion of facts and figures . His is not an administration of economy. (more) - 3 - I t is an administration of deliberate deception, of neon and tinsel razz.l.e-d.azz.l.e. And still, some of our most hard-headed businessmen repeat that this is a conservative. That's what they think. Or they have a hunch. Or they've heard someone say it . man But what does the new leader of the o1der deaers say? In December of 1ast year he was quoted as having said that "no matter what you may think, I'm a Roosevelt New Dealer." In an interview with the New York Herald Tribune, he put it this way: "You say I 'm not a liberal. Let me tell you I am more liberal than Eleanor Roosevelt and I will prove it to you. Franklin D. Roosevelt was my hero. He gave me my start." Well, I say that Franklin Roosevelt gave him his programs, his political philosophy, his political compass. This administration is a child of depression-born theories and its current family chieftain is a captive of those theories. The facts are there for anyone to see. This administration is aiming a double -barreled shotgun of federal spending at our heads. We ignore it at the peril of everything we have, hope to have, or believe in. The first barrel: substantially higher levels of spending and new spending authority than are in effect for the current fiscal year. The second barrel: commitments of the nation to a bumper crop of new spending programs whose costs would only start to sprout prior to election day in November. They would come to full, woodlike bloom in later years. Essentially this is the kind of public spending that has made the federal government a senior partner in our economy. All governmental expenditures in the United States, in 1963, were equal to almost a full one -third of the net value of the output of all goods and services produced by the nation's economy. Now, answer these questions: has profligate federal spending really created the jobs upon which men and women can depend; has it created a rise in the standard of living; has it modernized our industrial plant to make it more competitive with overseas producers? Has it? Can it? Can government spending do any of those things? Or must they be done in the market place; by working men and women, by investors willing to risk and with the capita1 to do it, by scientists and engineers building the new tools, techniques, and products? You cannot be on both sides of the questions or the answers. The current administration cannot either. Take its attitude toward the public debt. Is that a sign of its conservatism, of the sort of regard for fiscal responsibility upon which you can count and plan? A reduction in the amount of next year's operating deficit, as promised by the President's budget figures, does not alter the fact that a continuation of at least four-to-five billion dollars worth of irresponsible deficit financing is being advocated--and during a time of high prosperity when the truly frugal would be trying to pay off their debts, not incur new ones. This circumstance itself is a direct contradiction of logic in the President's assertion that "the new budget clearly allows" the passage of the recent tax reduction bill. The budget does not clearly allow any such thing. The Congress may allow it, to try to retrieve at least something from the (more) shambles of the adminisration's fiscal 4 policy. But the budget doesn't allow it. Let me make this clear: I have no disagreement with the statement that our economy demands a tax reduction. It most surely does. My point is that this needed tax reduction should have been earned by the kind of real economizing in federal spending that would be poss i ble if the effort were sincere . I believe in tax relief - - but not in tax relief paid for by borrowed funds1 And that is just what this administration, this supposedly frugal administration is doing. Where are the economies possible? First of all and most important, they are possible by simply not jamming through new federal spending programs, by not seeking to buy, with tax money, control over the affairs of the American people. Many of the new programs with which we are to be faced are said to be part of a "war on poverty. 11 .And who c·an be against that? America, for most of its years, has waged a war on poverty. And wherever it has waged that war in factories, inlaboratories, in shops, over counters, and under the enterprise system, it is winning it, more surely than any nation on earth • And I say that this war on poverty can only be won that way. I say that when we work our way to wealth, we win that war:- I say that when government tries to spend its way to wealth, we lose that war. Santa Claus dreams, or rolled-up sleeves! We have to make a choice! Our overall economic growth already has slowed because of movement in the direction of government regimentation. Under the governmental policies of the Big Government Party in power for most of the past three decades, we have reduced rewards for good work and also reduced the penalties for waste . We have been draining the fuel that fires the engines of progress. We have been quenching the fire and then wondering why the engines don't run faster. If somebody set out deliberately to slow down economic growth he could not do better than to reduce the incentives for enterprise and abolish the consequences of inertia. And that is what the New Deal started in the 1930 's . It is what the Fair Deal continued in the 1940 ' s . It is what the Fast Deal is now proposing to do in the 1960's! We have talked of many aspects of the overall. problem of economic But we are talking basically, about only two principles: enterprise versus regimentation; a society fluid in its opportunity versus a society hardened into a government mold. growth. I stand on the side of individual responsibility and individual choice and creativity. I stand against the gray sameness of growing government , against the conformity of collectivism. Most of our parents came to this land with little or nothing but honest energy and honest ideals . Most came from poverty and to poverty. But they built a great nation. They worked hard at it . They extended helping hands where needed and deserved. They were the greatest builders of history. still have that energy, still have that heart . And we, their descendants, We have only to make the choice: will we use the energy and revitalize the heart, or will we abandon both for false securities? In this choice, we will either .f build tomorrow or write # # our epitaph . President t Committee r FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY WEDNESDAY, April 29, 1964 SPEECH BY SENATOR BARRY GOLDWATER, SAN FERNANDO VALLEY REPUBLICAN RALLY, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29th me San Fernando, Calif. - - Let start with a pledge to every Republican in California. My candidacy is committed to the defeat of the Johnson Administration in 1964. I do no want to stop or hurt any other Republican candidate. I want to stop this Administration from losing the cold war abroad and taking our shirts at home. And I say this: if our Party will work together we will win together in 1964. I say that our motto should be: have in Washington today. any Republican is better than what we We can win in November if we just don't commit suicide before then! I say we will win! Our Party's principles are firm enough to bind us together. heart and soul is sound enough to carry us to victory. Our Party's Let me remind you that the issues on which this election should be decided are important enough to overshadow any personal ambitions or special interests. Freedom cannot go on losing and long survive. Individual initiative, individual responsibility cannot go on declining and long survive. Our most important choices in the cold war must be made in 1964. most important choices in the way we live at home must be made in 1964. The Republican choice is clear: Our restore respect abroad and pride at home. The major issues involving that choice and determining this election are these: l. 2. 3. 4. 5. - - foreign policy the maintenance of superior strength to keep the peace 1 fiscal responsibility - - law and order in the civil rights question - - morality in government As you probably noticed inthe papers last week, this Administration doesn't agree. The President suggests that foreign policy shouldn't be an issue. If people just understood what he's up to, he said, in effect, they wouldn't want to argue about foreign policy. (more) He even invited major Presidential candidates to secret briefings to get the word on why they should drop the subject: I for one rejected that invitation out of hand! And I for one reject the suggestion that foreign policy be dropped from this election yea.r debate . I will not be silenced by offers of secrets . As a senator, I already have access to vital information involved in this area. Foreign policy is a crucial issue. If this Administration's foreign policy is so mysterious that it takes secret briefings to explain it, then I say that foreign policy 1s going to remain a crucial issue right through November. What we need are fewer secrets in our foreign policy and more con:mon understanding . What we need are fewer secret briefings and more public understanding. Even now this Administration says that it is engaged in more secret negotiations with the Soviet . When are Americans, all Americans, going to be let in on some of this? When are the people in America going to be trusted to know as much &bout these matters as the people in the Kremlin? Americans already do know things about our foreign policy that no amount of secrecy ca.n hide. They know that this Administration's foreign policy stands --cross-eyed with our friends --wide-eyes with our enemies --wall-eyed in Berlin --glassy-eyed in Southeast Asia --and downright blind in Cuba! Under the heading of foreign policy, I'd put the question of peace first of all I believe that we can keep the peace through strength. I believe that, on the other hand, this Administration is following a course of planned weakness, in hope that the Soviets can be sweet-talked into abandoning their goal of destroying our society. I do not believe this will work. mistake that could be fatal.. It never has . It's the sort of It would be far safer for this nation to over-estimate the aggressive intentions of the Soviet than to under-estimate them as this Administration is under-estimati ng them- -- We shouldn't forget that the second World War might have been prevented if we hadn 't under-estimated Hitler 's intentions . Now let me repeat this and emphasize it . I do not believe that a strong foreign policy and a strong, diversified defense posture brings us closer to war I feel that the best way to avoid war is to remain strong. (more) fear that I f we follow the phased weakness of this Administration, we may tempt the Communists, either Chinese or Soviet, I very much to s t a r t a war, or that we may stumb.1.e into one by miscalculation -- or we may just slowly decline to the point where they can demand our surrender and we won't be able to do any- thing about it. When it comes to peace I say that the issue is whether we will keep it through strength, or gamble it by planned weakness. Vietnam surely is a key subdivision of the same topic . The policies we have been following there for the past several years have been proven to be inadequate. The overthrow of two governments hasn't justified those policies or made them effective. They failed in the past and, if unchanged, they'll continue to fail. I predict that if these policies do not change we'll be fighting in Vietnam for a decade. And, at best, we'll end up with a draw or a slow defeat . Secretary McNamara has made four trips to Vietnam. This is the third government they're on over there . But our casualties continue. But still the invaders, the Viet Cong, operate from a privileged sanctuary. If, tomorrow afternoon, we ran every guerilla. in South Vietnam back to the North, we still wouldn't have settled anything. They could sneak back in the very next day. Also, under the present policies, the civilian economy and population of South Vietnam is being slowly strangled to death. The whole country is being conscripted, in. effect -- and still there is no policy that sets a goal of victory for all of thisJ Unless we want to bog down in Vietnam for ever and a day, or lose it, we have got to take some action that will actually force the Viet Cong to give up the fight. I've soldiered in that area. The problems really are apparent if we'll just face facts instead of whistling in the dark. The supplies of the communist invaders have got to be shut off. Red China, This means threatening or actually interdicting the supply routes from Laos, and Cambodia. It does not mean bombing Vietnamese, or even bombing Vietnamese cities. It could mean messing up some roads, hitting some depots, and stopping some shipping. Also, the opium crops upon which North Vietnam bases a good part of its foreign exchange, could be destroyed. Again, this doesn't mean launching attacks against North Vietnamese. It just means applying some pressure to a. source of supply for their war effort. The same thing should apply to the North Vietnam rice crops. So long as the communists are going to wage war on their neighbors, and on us, their vital food supplies should not be protected as they are today. We should make this clear to the communists. Perhaps the threat alone would work. If not, it might require only ..very J limited anti-crop-actions to make our point and make it stick. If the guerillas, under this pressure, will withdraw, and if they remain withdrawn, we could even consider using some of our surplus grains to make up for any crops that bad to be destroyed. Of course, there would be the clear understanding that any revival of aggression would bring immediate return of the tougher policies . (more) Now, Vietnamese war in all seriousness, which make any defeat and force the withdrawal Can any plan have there been any proposals sense so long as the object for waging is not actually this to of the communists? be successful if it is confined exclusively t o oside ur of the fighting? I say that any such plan is just like saying that there isn't an enemy. It is certainly the same as saying there cannot be a victory. Our defense policies show a similar failure of will and wit . Here in this very area you know the personal impact of defense policies that have moved so rapidly toward unilateral disarmament that the electronics, aircraft, and even aerospace industries have been seriously and suddenly weakened. I think we must keep our defenses strong -- and make them even stronger. I believe we can afford to do this. do otherwise. I do not believe we can afford to This Administration has not introduced a single new major strategic weapon system. Also, this Administration plans to put all of our eggs in the intercontinental ballistic missile basket despite repeated military warnings that our defense will be imperiled if we abandon our balanced and mixed forces. I have made and continue to make two major charges about ICBM's . First, they are a relatively inflexible weapon system. We absolutely have got to have them, as a deterrent. But they are an "either-or' sort of weapon. Once you push the button, you are fully committed. Manned bombers, on the other hand, can be called back. Also, manned bombers can perform many, many missions which ballistic missiles simply cannot touch. .And then there is the question of reliability. There are several. crucial areas of ICBM testing which, by everyone I s admission, simply cannot be accomplished under tie terms of the test ban treaty. I am fully aware of the fact that the theoretical reliability of the ICBM's is getting better all of the time. But it is only common sense to appreciate that this reliability is only theoretical until we actually can test the things. I do not think that drawing board reliability stake the fate of the nation. is enough upon which to General. LeMay 's testimony regarding testing certainly bears out my position. Secretary McNamara, for all his stat.stical razzle-dazzle about how many weapons we have, s1mpl.y hasn't reall.y come to grips with this problem. And, incidentally, even when it come1 to statistics, I feel that General is far more impressive than Secretary McNamara's so-called rebuttal which, in fact, didn't actually address itself to General LeMay's major charge. LeMay's testimony regarding Russia's big bomb advances I a.lso would like to point out that I do not believe the Russians can possibly derive any comfort from my statements . I'm still the candidate they fear most. I still point out that our power is overwelmingly greater than theirs . (more) - After all, 5 - Also, they know as much about our ICBM testing problems they are the ones who pushed the test ban treaty! No , I hardly think t hat the Soviet can as we do . take any comfort from anyone whose main point i s that we shouJ.d not only retain our strength but increase it! And that is exa.ctly what I mean when I advocate the introduction of new weapons, the maintenance of a powerful mixed force, to meet any contingency, and the research needed to bring our ICBM' s to peak reliabilit ty and to perfect new ones . I hasten to add that so long as so much of the Soviet's scientific research remains under the direction of weapons engineers and technicians - - as it is today -- it is suicidal for this nation to even contemplate disaming itself by seeking some sort of status quo in our defense posture. And what of the other major issues? Let's look at fiscal responsibility. When it comes to fiscal respons_ibility, this administration a record in pure, unadulterated red ink. The more they talk thrift, the more they spend. record rate. is "Writing They're doing it at a When the bills all come in, I am sure that we will have a very dangerous new deficit . I call it dangerous because this should be a time for paying off debts rather than piling up new ones . A Republican, at such a time, would be working toward a balanced budget. 'I·he next issue is civil rights . the most urgent necessity in the civil - rights question is to bring some corr.man sense into the situation. New riots and disturbances, on eithezt side, will do our nation a great disservice. We cannot rely on new laws alone to solve this . We have plenty of old laws that have to be made to work first . Unless we learn to approach this as a problem in human under standing and not as civil war, there will be far more trouble than progress in this field. Finally, we must mention morality in government . Unless the implications of the Bobby Baker case, and any other similar to it, can be cleared up in open and fair hearings, the Presidency itself is going to remain under a cloud. The only way to stop this from being an issue, and an extremely unfortunate one, in the next election is to clear it up now. I hope that it can be cleared up . are far more important questions. I hope it won't be an issue . There As one candidate for the job, therefore, I earnestly call on the present office holder to let this matter be fully aired, to let all the witnesses be called, and to let the appropriate groups in the Congress get this job done . These issues today should form the mainstream of our concern and tha mainstay of our campaign. Republican principles are clear right down the line on these matters. Republican leadership can end the days of drift and indecision in our foreign policy. Republican leadership can repair the growing cracks in our great alliances, particularly NATO, by looking upon Europe as a true partner in defense . Republican leadership-would trust our f r iends more than our enemies ! At home, Republican leadership would find us paying off our debts , in such times as these, rather than piling up new debts . healthy Republican leadership would keep our dollar sound, our enterprise system T.t would tackle the problem of poverty by tackling the problem of - 6 - unempJ.oyment--by encouraging the investment to build the new jobs that we so badly need. Republican leadership understands that the people of this nation want a chance to work and that they want to give our free economy a chance to work! Republican leadership wouldn't boa.st about turning off tte lights in the White House! Republican leadership would turn on lights in the White House -- lights of conscience, dedication, realism, and morality. Republican leadership would turn on lights a.round the world. of freedom! Lights And in that light and in our time, we could see tbe day when an American President would tell Nikita Khrushchev or his successor: You are wrong! Our children or grandchildren will not live under socialism or communism. No, Nikita--your children will live under freedom! ### --- - -· PresidentCommittee FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY May 1, 1964 SPEECH BY BARRY GOLDWATER BEFORE THE COLUMBUS LAWYERS CLUB, CIVIC AUDITORIUM, COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, FRIDAY, MAY 1, 1964 Columbus, Georgia -- Today, in many ways, the government of law that was the meaning of the American revolution, and has been the essence of the American experience stands challenged and even shaken. On the one hand we see redress for grievances being sought in the streets -- being fought out, rather than being thought out. This sort of action symbolizes false solutions through the fiat of violence. Actually, it solves no problems. Its major violence, in fact, is to the very hope of solving problems which go far beyond the letters of laws, into the spirit of laws and--even deeper--into the hearts of men. Beyond that we see violence being done to the very concept of government by which we have built a house of liberty without equal in this world. It is to that concept of government, and the dangers to it, that I wish to address my remarks today. Government is never an end in itself. Every form of public control is but a means toward human purposes. The state is made for and by men. Men are not moulded for the state. The just state derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Its powers are limited so that liberty may live. Its powers are balanced so that justice may prevai1. Its powers are sufficient but they are decentralized so that difference may proceed without disorder. In that concept, which is simpl.y the concept of our own Constitutional order, there is freedom's answer to tyranny• s thrall over the minds of men, their property and their persons. America's government and America's freedom means just this: to be governed. We do not elect to be rul.ed. We consent The process of self-government, however, is profoundly challenged in the worJ.d at large and even in the will of some of our own peop1e. The reason is beyond momentary political aberrations or disturbances. The reason is that the sort of freedom we know is this land is an exception in the long story of mankind. It is a vibrant chapter but not a title or a theme. The reason is that this sort of freedom is strenuously demanding, not comfortably self-sustaining. Men, before, have wearied of such demands and have sought comforts instead. Men, before, have lost patience with freedom's deliberations and have sought instead the forced efficiency of faceless authoritarianism. Impatient men, as well as power-seeking men, may choose such paths. Tyranny wears many masks. In the communist world it wears the mask of an irrational world view (more) - which has declared 2 and wages unalterable - war upon all other views and versions o f man and his world. In the free world it may wear the mask of political efficiency righteously demanding the per fect ion of its progr ams and recklessly spending the freedom of its cit izens to pay for it . Only the shortsighted will make of the tensions in America's own system a purely partisan matter. There is partisanship, to· be sure, but it is of a new order and a new dimension. It is not the partisanship of party against party, at its essence . It is the partisanship of balance against imbalance, of decentralization against centralization, of deliberation against dictation. And it is of only that order of partisanship that I wish to speak tonight . I do it in confidence that the political affiliations we may share, or in which we may differ, still permit a wide degree of agreement on some fundamental problems . If, on the other hand, we disagree, then party labels are not the reason . Philosophies of governmen are. Since the War between the States, the American political system has experienced seismic rumblings at two levels . At one level, the ground has shifted seriously and significantly beneath the structure of state powers. These powers, the fuel for the federal system itself, have been siphoned off into the national government, the central government - - to the capital in Washington and away from the state capitals . The shift is shared both by those who do not jealously guard and wisely use their local power and by those who, from the outside, attack it in the name of central planning. The results are often described most broadly as over-concentration of power in the central authority. But there are other and more subtle effects to which we have, I feel, given too little attention. There is, for instance, a distinct cultural loss . The structure of the feder al system, with its fifty separate state units, has long permitted this nation to nourish local differences, even local cultures . Technological standardi zation may have done more than anything else to level them off but, still, in the structure of state power there has always been the guarantee that some minorities could preserve their dissident voices, in the local forums . And from those dissi dent voices have come the continual enrichment of our national. debates, cur national ways . Or, we might look upon the fifty states as fifty laboratories in which men, in their own and local ways, test and probe the ways of civil government, devel oping new tools and techniques and, above all, developing their own skills. Those that develop well become available to the nation as a whole. Those that fail or are warped in ways that make them unsuitable to the nation as a whole , can be buried in their own backyards. There a.re those who say that the cost of fifty governments is too great to bear in this supposedl.y complex age . And yet, how better to meet complexity than vith a diversity of resource? . And how can we measure the cost of what we gain from our states against any scale of dollars that might be re - channeled and centralized as a result of weakening state responsibilities? The ledger s-heet that the structure of state power.must satisfy is the well-being and the f r eedom of the people who live in those states. Regard for the federal. system, system, is first of all a regard for the of political order . It is a regard also It is confidence in their ability to use their own best ways . a.nd the fifty states that make it a due process· of law asa fundamental for the wisdom of the people themselves . that wisdom to s olve their problems , in -- The federal system, with its base in the states, tolerates ences without, of course, tolerating impairment of nationally agreed It does not demand, in other words , that all citizens adopt a single to any problem -- but it does tend to prevent them from adopting any answer. (more) many differfreedoms . best answer single worst But the decline of state 3 - power i s by no means the only shift in the political ground upon which our freedom has been built. Although i t may not as dramatically burst out in the headlines as does the tension between the central government and state government, the tension, the veritable warfare between the legislative and executive branches of govern• ment presents a major disturbance in the ground of freedom today. Again, the factors involved must be shared between those who would give legislative powers away and those who would take them away. Only recently, a colleague of mine in the United States Senate flatly described the legislatures of America -- all of them, state, local, national•· as the major stumbling block in the democratic process. The charge is fantastic. What it says is that representative government which is the essence of freedom itself •• is the enemy of freedom, And the solution which my colleague offered was as fantastic. He said that an increase in executive power would be the answer•- an increase in the very centralization of power which always has been contrary to broadly based democratic processes. After hearing such a statement as that, I can assure you that I view the teaching of governmental history as an urgent task! The whole history of freedom has been simply the history of resistance to the concentration of power in government. Over three decades, however, our own resistance to such concentration has been less than complete. The growing imbalance between legislative and executive powers attests to that and proves it. The power of Congress to initiate legislation has slowly passed to the executive. It has become increasingly difficult for Congress to say "No" to the major items of a President's legislative agenda. The Congress may represent the people directly, but the executive has found ways to reach them even more effectively, even if indirectly, Into executive agencies, for instance, has flowed a vast power for public relations, for public pronouncements. The pocketbook powers of patronage have flowed to it also, Vast contracts make the executive branch a far-fromsilent partner in many enterprises. Its appeal need no longer be to reason alone. It can appeal also to power. Meantime, the Congress has become inhibited. Men who are elected to represent the people find themselves the targets of abuse when, in representing them, they appose major legislative programs. they are called "do nothing" representatives, Actually, by such resistance they may be doing the very best job they can and may be representing the actual wishes of their constituents perfectly. Today the great debates in Congress rarely concern the truly significant questions of whether a program should be initiated or discontinued, what the general purposes and goals of our foreign policy should be, what major goals we should set for our defense establishment, what principled guidelines we should establish for economic growth and security. When Congress debates such matters, the restless executive whispers and then shouts that times is being wasted. too many people have listened to the criticism without analyzing it. Too many echo it. -- Congress, more and more, simply concerns itself with the question of how much? Foreign aid is a perfect example. Not once have we as a nation paused to debate the great issue of a doctrine to truly and surely guide our programs. There is no such doctrine. There are, instead, flurries of programs. And the flurries of debate that attend them are not on "why" and "whether," but only on "how much" or "how little," The Senate's record in treaty making is no more impressive, It has rejected only two treaties since the end of the first world war. It would be comforting to say that the reason is simply that every treaty has been a good one. It would be far more practical, however, to probe our conscience to see ,.. - 4 - i f the reason has not been a rubber stamp syndrome in which the Senate simply feels it must not, out of some awed deferen ce for the presidency, exercise its full partnership in these grave matters. There can, for instance, be no truly bi-partisan foreign policy at if the Congress is asked to delegate its support after the fact of formula tion but is never asked to participate in the process prior to that. all, There has been a tendency to view the two trends toward centralization of government power - - the erosion of state power and the erosion of legislative power -- as independent of one another. Actually, they are closely related. They are inter-related. The problem and the inter-relationship can be seen this way: The state governments and the Congress,by and large, stand together on one side of the battle-line. They face, across that battle-line, the Executive Branch and, usually, the Judiciary Branch, the Supreme Court. Its decisions have clearly shown that it has no disposition whatsoever to support the states or the Congress against the Executive or to prevent the Congress from abdicating more and·more of its powers despite the delegation of those powers to them by the Constitution itself. The dynamics of the battle are clear in many instances. When the Court acts to subjugate state powers, the President feels obliged to use his powers to implement the decision . On that side of the battle - line there is concerted action. But, on the other side, even where Congress has the power to act in preservation of, or enhancement of state powers it has become reluctant to do so. On that side of the line there is no concerted action - - there is , too often, not even the opportunity for action, so bogged bas Congr ess be come in executive proposals! But, some say, if Congress will not reassert itself, why bother , why not just let the Executive go ahead and carry the ball? Or the question might be, "is there any way in which the imbalance can be redressed?" On that latter, I say there surely are ways. Congress can take posi tive actions to reduce the policy-making authority of the Executive Branch. It can restore to the states authority over policy areas now staked out by the Supreme Court. It can debate and decide fundamental questions of direction as well as details of program. It can, and should, submit legislative budgets on behalf of the nation as a whole and-not rely solely upon the massive, often unarguable budget of the Executive Branch. It can take care that all efforts to reform its procedures be channeled toward strengthening, and not weakening, its ability and responsibility to directly represent the people. But, should it? What, again, is wrong with executive rather than representative government? First there is the danger of arbitrary government . Concentration of power in any single area tends to shrink competing centers of power capable of resisting arbitrary decisions . Should this erosion of balancing powers ever become final, those who would disagree with the Executive, for whatever reason, would not have to be consulted or considered. The politics of humane compromise would give way to the unchecked power of politicians . Decision making would become more and more secret. Al.ready such secrecy has cast shadows on our governmental processes. But an open society demands and must have open decisions, open debate, open dissent , and open ways to illuminate conflicting views. Finally, local self-government would stand no chance of survival in a system of Executive government. Differences in policies, values , and beliefs would be submerged beneath the weight of national majorities which can hardly be expected to have the restraint necessary to allow diversity on important matters of public policy. Evolution of wise policies would be replaced by a series of sharp clashes between embattled local minorities and r ampaging national powers . (more) - 5 - To understand the greatness of America is to understand the greatness sys tem and representative, balanced g overnment. To misunderstand it is to forsake it . Of our federal America is still just a moment , even if a glorious moment, in the long span of history. We have sustained the form of our government, and the fruits of its freedom have sustained us, for nearly two centuries. The burden of responsibility that such freedom places upon people never lessens. There is in no chapter of our freedom a line, sentence, or paragraph that even suggests security from responsibility. We have given ourselves, in our freedom, the liberty of opportunity, not the luxury of letting down. This year, and the years after, do not mark way-stations at which, wearily, we can afford to rest and relinquish these responsibilities. A whole world, much of it unsure of freedom, unsure that it really can work, watches us . Our own history and heritage watch us. We must say "no" to apathy, "no" to convenience - - and "yes" to our conscience. We must say that, "yes, " this free land, this free form of government will endure, that our will to make it work will prevail and that one day, in God's good time , the liberty we love and live wil l be procl aimed throughout the world. ### . - Committee For President FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY May 2, 1964 SPEECH BY SENATOR BARRY GOLDWATER BEFORE GEORGIA STATE CONVENTION, MAY 2, 1964 Atlanta, Georgia -- If anyone wants to know why and how we are going to win the White House in 1964, let them come here and get their answer. We are going to win because we are now truly a national party. We are no longer a party that has to write off one great section of this nat:i.on, the South . The Republican Party can win the South in 1964. The Republican Party can win the nation in 1964. The Repuolican Party will win the election in 1964. Let n:e say that another way just so that one of the most important political facts of lif3 won't be missed by any Republican, anywhere in this land. The Republican Party can win in 1964 only if it can win substantial support in the South. Democrats know this. Let us not forget it. The big city baronies of the Democrats have turned the tide for them time and time again--but only because the weight of their machines could be added to a captive party in the South. This time the South can break free of that c··ptivity. This time, a. Republican South, added to the growing Republican strength in the West and midWest, added to the Republican strength in.the East and the North--this time the southern margin can tip the scales for a Republican victory! The changes which are now finding political expression in the South been go ing on for years . They are attuned to new economic and commercial developments and attitudes . They have their roots in the new industrialization of a part of the country which, from its earliest settlement has existed in an agricultural economy and society. They are related to the growing importance of business activity and conccr11 for the interests of the business community. They are tied in with the steady and growing expansion of urban communities and cities and the declining influence of the rural areas . have And this last point is of particular importance. Republican strength is greatest in the cities - -the urban areas - -of the South. These areas are growing in numbers and in size . recent Supreme Court decision on reapportionment makes it certain that the urban areas of the South will. become increasingly important in statewide elections . The And, as Republicans gain in these elections, so will. the political sinews of the party organization. More and more patronage at the state and local levels will fall into Republican hands and become the framework for enduring political organization at the "grass roots II of the South. I suggest to you here today that it is the South itself that is changing; not the approach of political parties to the South. A new and vigorous (more) - middle class is on commercial developing in the wake 2 of - industrialization and heavier emphasis attitudes . Because of this , it is particularly s ignificant that. Repubii can strength in the South is emer ging in a city envir onment. I t s hows that a new and different conservatism is rising to displace the old, rural traditional -almost hereditary -- conservatism of the Democrats. It is primarily an economic conservatism stemming from the growth in business, the increase in per capita income and the rising confidence of the South in its own ability to expand industrially and ccrunercially. And it is a brand of conser v atism which sees liberal Democratic policies of inflation, unbalanced budgets and deficitfinancing as parts of the old pessimism which once gripped this region. In the Republican Pa.rty, I suggest, the South sees a welcome trend away from centralized control of government and an emphasis en ",tates rights local responsibility and individual freedcm . The Republican Party in the South is based on truly progressive elements . It is manned by young, energetic and imaginative Southerners who are standing up in the nation and looking about them with a kind of pride and optimism and hope which hasn't been seen since before the days of the Reconstruction. These are the new, vigorous Southerners who have adopted the full scale of modern technology without sacrificing respect for and belief in the essential underpinnings of history . And, having adopted this modern technology, they are following through with a realistic political outlook that is unwilling to be taken in by the reactionary devices and mechanisms-of government extravag anza and the other manifold varieties of econcmic fallacy which have become the standard program of the northern liberal Democrats. Consequently, I believe the South has become an area of new opportunity and therefore new challenge for the Republican Party. And it has be come an area which will demand and obts.in an increasingly strong voice in the conduct of Republican Party affairs. What we do with this opportunity can affect the future of the Republican Party and the nation for many years to come . By the sametoken, what we might fail to do -- through some mistaken interpretation of what the growing Republican trend in the South actually means -- could have long and lasting effects. In this, I strongly disagree with some members of my own political party who have evidenced a timidity and a reluctance to take full advantage of the enlightened trend toward Republicanism and economic conserva tism in the South. The Rcpubli can Party I s re cord on civil rights is clear and c annot successfully be challenged. We have not bad to ignore the law to force integration, nor have we deliberately evaded the law in an effort to win votes in the I{orthern cities. It is the liberal Democrats who have been guilty of such acts more times than can be counted. Most sensible southerners -- both Negro and white -- are aware of this. Their increasing support for the Republican Party is based simply upon their preference for honesty and their revulsion at political deceit. I suggest that the majority of the American people today sec more clearly just what differences separate our two major political parties and I believe they will cast their ballots accordingly. That all of this has geographical implications cannot be denied, but the overall national effect is one which r believe augurs well for a healthy, perhaps vital, change of attitude which will be reflected at the polls in 1964. But when it comes to arguments that the GOP should write off the South or refuse to conduct a vigorous campaign in the South, I should like to remind you of the strategy devised by Franklin D. Roosevelt . No matter what else you might think of him, the fact remains that FDR was one of the sharpest and shrewdest politicians the Democrats ever put up . He fully recognized the value of the South in every national election, often pointing out that since (more) that area was solid 3 Democrat in i t s voting, any reasonable the rest of the country could bring election victory. amount of support in This estimation served FDR we11 in his lifetime, but - - like his deficit financing - - future generations of Democrats are going to have to pay for it. It is not at all surprising that a proud section of the country should first become restive and finally become resentful over its classification as an automatic satellite of the Northern liberal Democratic party. scuthern people, generally conservative in nature, resent the gradual takeover of the Democratic Party by liberal and radical forces. They have displayed this resentment graphically and effectively by casting more and more ballots for Republican candidates who represented honesty in office and dedication to American principles. So I say that it would be foolhardy and unrealistic for the Republican Party to adopt a strategy aimed at the northern big cities to the exclusion of the South. I say that our party cannot afford to write off any part of the United States nor any group of potential voters. The Republican Party doesn't have to write off anything or anyplace in a national election. Those days are gone forever - - either they are gone forever or this party is gone foreverl The truth today is that the Republican Party is an all-American Party. It is the Democrats, huddled behind the barricades of their sectional or city machines, who must think about writing off this or that part of the country. is they who must wheel and deal to buy votes. It Republicans are now a national party, Republicans are now a winning party because this country buys our principles - - not because we try to buy the country! That is why we can win in the South. the land. ### That is why we will win across - Comittee President r FOR SUNDAY AM PAPERS May 3, 1964 Speech by Senator. Barry Goldwater before the U:1ited Republicans of California, Civic Auditorium, Bakersfield California, MB.y 2, 1964 Bakersfield, Calif. words in the English Your so far That 's the whole United! we have language organ ization key to success fo:i.· us in this election. I' a say that any Republican today. Republican! in Washington has three of the swee test as I am concerned. would than what be better And California! I'd say that if C alifornia stands up squarely for principles in June, the whole nation will follow suit in November. Republican This C[',j.1 This will be, and I say it will be, a great Republican year here in Ca lifornia. candidacy I is want be a great Republican ye ar across the nation. to pledge to you, as I have to all Californians, that my to the defeat of Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964. committed I a:i not interested in tearing down other. Republicans ested in building my Party and restoring this Republic. play! I am inter- I do not say thatthe Republican Party must do . it -:izy way or I won't I want to find ways that we can work together--as a team! I am not interested in defeating any Republ icans in 1 964. say it again: I am interested in defeating Lyndon Baines Johnson! Let me I'm not afraid of what any Republican would do to this country. one particular Democrat is doing to it: I am afraid of what increase --by double-talking about in the nat ional debt. economy even a as he loads - - by wheeling and dealing in c res for solve the real problem, which is unemployment. --by backing enemies, and by filling These who can't see and filling our are targets allies in foreign with fears for Republicans it, who would rather fight is doing nothing more or less than pinch toward a huge poverty while negl.ecting to pol.icy; by backing down from our and doubts. -- to shoot at. And any Republican fellow Republicans then fight Democrats hitting for Lyndon Johnson. ( mor e I - 2 - what I'm talking about. I have campaigned for Republicans, all Republicans, virtually every state of this union. I've made about 500 speeches on behalf Republicans right here in California. in of I was working for Party unity and for Party victory then--and I'm working for Party unity and victory now. I 1m not afraid of my shadow or their shadow. I think that the heart of this Party is sound. I think that the principles of this Party are sound • I trust Californians. I trust Republicans. . I have voted for those principles--I have worked for those principles--I have lived by those principles. Disagree? that point . Of course we Republicans are bound to disagree on this or But when it comes to basic principles we can and must unite. And right here and now I'd like to suggest that there is a way to · do just that, to clear up the virus of divisiveness that is attacking the bloodstream of our Party. Our Party's only really current statement of principle is the 1962 Declaration prepared by a joint committee of Senate and House members. These were not men who were trying to make personal points. These were not men trying to read fellow Republicans out of the Party. These were men such as Thruston Morton, John Tower, Ken Keating, Bourke Hickenlooper, Wallace Bennett and George Aiken in the Senate. Your own Congressman, Glen Lipscomb, was one of the distinguished members on the House side. This was a group that showed the real strength and broad appeal of our great Party. Here was a group to unite the Party, not split and twist it. And I say this with every ounce of my conviction: I subscribe to that Declaration cla.ration of Principle. And I say this with every ounce of hope I can muster: stand up and be counted on their Party's principles, right now! repeatedly. I will continue to do it. let all Republicans I have done it Let us hear from the others! Here is a way to constructive action. Here is a path to unity. I say it's a path that's broad enough and straight enough for all of us to travel. This is where I stand. No Democrat is going to crowd me off. can assure you ten times over--no Republican is going to do it either! Our Republican., principles are clear. And I They are based upon five funda- mentals. We believe in the individual. We believe that men can govern themselves, set their own goals, find their own solutions--without the restraints of dictatorship or paternalism. Do I subscribe to that? Why, I've spent the past eleven years of my life talking about and working for nothing else but that! We Republicans believe that the dignity and the freedom of the individual comes from God--not from government! We believe that government is created to maintain order, to secure the national defense - -to do only those things for the people which they cannot do for themselves. (more) ---- 3 - No man has worked harder for the concrete actions to implement that statement than I have. And I pledge you this: no President would work harder for the same principle than I would if my Party and my fellow citizens select me for the job. We Republicans want to see the power of government returned to the people--that's where it started and that's where it should stay. Again, I don't give just lip service to that principle. I believe that there are sound courses which a President can and should follow to implement the principle. Every .legislative proposal should be subjected to these rigid tests: 1. Is the proposal actually responsive to a demonstrated need, or is it responsive mainly to political pressure or political advantage. 2. If there is real need, can it be met by community action, or· individual action? If it can, it should be encouraged in that way. If not, can the need be met at the local level, or the state level, or through regional arrangements? Only when the answer is clearly no, should the Federal government intrude. A President, more interested in freedom than in executive power, could restore balance in our governn:ent, return power to the people--and get the needed jobs of this nation done without regimenting our people or ruining our Federal system. That Federal system is based upon the responsibility and the Constitutional independence of our 50 great states. An Administration that attempts to tear down the Constitutional role of the states is tearing down the very structure of our freedom. And I charge that this Adminiotration is doing just that. that it reaches recklessly for new power at every opportunity. I charge Let this Administration continue in power and we may well live to see the day that the 50 states of this nation become just 50 pigeonholes in a new Washington bureau. Let a Republican President, following Republican principles, be elected and the balance of power that has kept us free could be restored. I can suggest several concrete approaches to assure this. Immediate and serious studies should be made to determine every area in which the administration of Federal programs can to any degree be turned over to state or local governments without injury to the program. This would not mean abandoning these programs. It would mean assuring their effective administration as close as p9ssible to the people actually affected as close as possible to the people actually paying the bills. Parallel studies should be carried out to bring order out of the increasing chaos of competition for tax dollars between state, local, and Federal governments. Wherever possible we should reject the bureaucratically expensive system of taking money from the states, passing it through a Washington bureau, and then returning what is left right back where it came from. Our goal should be to retain tax moneys as close as possible to their point of origin. (more) - Our states mu.st once again 4 - be x"uJ.l. partners in the Federal s y s t e m morally, financially, and legally If we cannot stand together in our diversity of region, in our diversity of ways of life, in the diversity of ourstates and cities-if we cannot stand together in that diversity, ourfreedom surely shall fall. , I've heard Democrats telling the world that we are prepared to co-exist with a diversity of communism, tyranny, and aggression. I'd much rather have tolerance for diversity, like cbarity, start at home! We Republicans have spelled out another principle. We believe that must act to help establish conditions of equal opportunity for all people and to help assure that no one is denied the requisites for a life of dignity. "government Now that is word for word from our Declaration of Principle. Under Republicans, under any other Party! more has been done to implement that belief than ' But there is a vast difference between the Republican way and the way of this present Administration. leaders. Real progress was made, under Republican principles and Republican It on either was made without violence, without t a k matters in into gtt¢ streets side! Republicans passed laws with which the people of this land could live and through which, in patience, and in understanding, they could seek the meeting of minds and the opening of hearts which are the only ultimate solutions. Republicans want to see government, as ourDeclaration says, helping of equal oppo rtunity. They do not want to :,ee government as the cheerleader for a frightful game of violence, destruction, and disobedience. the cause of getting things level beforecalling out the Federal programs--or the Federal And once again, I point to the Republican principle done at the local troops. Where are the states which today are witnessingthe most violence? sadly remind you that they are the very states where there is the most talk about brotherhood and the very least opportunity for achieving it. I I sadly remind you that we are seeing violence today in those very states which are proving that new laws alone are not the answer. There are too many ot the old laws which aren' 't even working. And there is this above all, tbe oldest law of all: You cannot pass a law that will make me like you--or you like me. This is something that can only happen in our hearts, The right to vote; of course! The right to an education; of course! There are laws to secure those rights. But until we ha.ve an Administration that will .COQJ. the fir.es and the tempers of violence we simply cannot solve the rest of t h e pinrany ob lasting lem sense. And I say this to you with the deepest possible sense of tragedy and regret--unless we do get such an Administration we are going to see more violence in our streets before we see less. -I pray to God that every American, (more) regardless ot bis race or creed will - 5 - come to his s e nses in time to restore some common sense and c ommon decency to this situation . It badly needs both. The final point of the five basic principles spelled out in our Party's declaration evolves from a fact that every American should recognize : the Republican Party is the party of payrolls and production. It is our opponents who are the party of debts, depression, and doles . The Republican Party understands good times and how to keep them. It understands that if we Americans can't live within our means, we are going to be reduced to living without means . Our fifth principle states very clearly that government must prudently weigh needs against resources, put first things first, rigorously tailor means to ends, and understand the difference between words and deeds. The practical application of this should be very clear. A Republican President--at least this Republican President--would be working for a balanced budget in times such"a°sthese rather than digging us deeper into the red.· I say that this is the time to be paying off our debts, not piling up new ones. Now those principles cover our Party's approach to the essential dignity of man as an individual, not a zip number on a government chart! Those principles cover our approach to limited government, to local responsibility, to the prudent rather than reckless use of taxes, and to the civilized resolution of civic problems. I say that those principles are worth fighting for! I say they are what we should be fighting about - -with Lyndon Johnson! And one other thing. I've spoken so far about the application of Republican principles to pressing domestic needs . How about foreign policy! wants to forget about! How about the issue that Lyndon Johnson How about a foreign policy so mysterious and so hard to understand that Lyndon Johnson has had to offer us secret briefings to explain it! Yes. How about that! I turned those briefings down the minute I heard about them. United States Senators have secret information. They just don't throw it around for political advantage the way this Administration does . I say we need less secrecy in our foreign policy, not more . If anybody needs a briefing, it's the whole American public2 briefing full of secrets--but a briefing full of facts. Not a Facts about Cuba--facts about South Vietnam--facts about Soviet nuclear testing and advances--facts about how far we are willing to go to appease communism--and facts about the strength of our deterrent forces over the next ten years. I have spoken at length on all of those topics . ley' position is clear. And I say that, in root and base, it is as simple as this: way we can keep the peace is to keep our strength. the only It is the foreign policy of Dwight Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles that kept the peace. I want to restore that policy. It is the confusion and (more) - evasion of Lyndon Johnson 6 that is gambling - the peace. And what does our Republican Declaration of principle have to say about this? Is it muddJ.ed or unclear? Shou.ld any Republican be in doubt about it? Not at all Just listen: "In .foreign policy, the overriding national goal must be victory over communism, through the establishment of a world in which men can live in freedom, security, and national independence. There can be no real peace short of it." Now I want and I need the support of all Republicans. And I rest my case on this great point. "In foreign policy the overriding national goal must be victory over communism••• " That i s oRepublican ur declaration. I ask only this: serve that declaration. let your support go to the man you feel can best And then, let us work together, united and dedicated, so that an American President can tell Nikita Khrushchev. You are wrong. Our children will not live under communism. Your children will live under freedom. ### ..,,. , for . President 0 Committee :E> FOR RELEASE MONDAY PM's May 11, 1964 SPEECH BY SENATOR BARRY GOLDWATER AT THE CIVIC AUDITORIUM, OMAHA, NEBRASKA, MAY 11 Omaha, Nebraska -- It's good to return to Nebraska. I have always enjoyed my visits here. My Mother's family and my Mother lived out in Alliance. I feel that when I am out where the West begins, I am nearer home -- and also close to the heart of America. I enjoy seeing your growing cities, your growing corn, your alfalfa, your wheat fields, and your cattle on the range and in the feed lots. I know that this great city leads the world in meat packing. I want you to know, by the way, that I have joined with your Nebraska delegation in the efforts to curb excessive imports of meat. World trade should be a two-way street and fair consideration must be given to our domestic producers. Let me say that a well-run national government is one which, among other things, encourages an economic atmosphere that makes it possible for business to make a profit, workers to receive decent wages, and farmers to receive good prices for their products. These economic objectives will continue to be my concern -- they will continue to be my concern in the Senate or, with your help, in the White House. Tonight, however, I want to tal.k to you_ about other objectives to which I am pledged: the peace of the world and the defense of this nation. In my book, the two go hand in band. It is the destiny and the responsibility of this nation to keep the peace. And there is no other way to do it than to remain, as we are today, the strongest nation on earth -- in all ways, spiritually, morally, economically and militarily. Those of us who live away from the coasts of this country are often accused of being isolationists -- of wanting to close our eyes to the rest of the world. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We are not isolationists. The rea..l isolationists are the men in this Administration who can't see beyond the ballot box, who talk and talk, but fear to act, who can only mumble when the American flag is torn down, trampled on, and spat upon. Let no one make such a charge about the people of Nebraska. You people, living near the home of the Strategic Air Command, know that this nation does have a mighty responsibility in the world. You believe, with the heroes of SAC, that "Peace Is Our Profession" -- and our dedication! You want this nation to fulfill that responsibility. nation to be worthy of the role placed before it. (more) You want this - 2 - And I say, from what I know of you and of what you think, tha.t you are sick and tired of an Administrati on tha.t simply c annot or will not speak up for America. in this t r oub1ed worl.d. I think that you, as are most Americans, are sick and tired of an Administration that promises something for everybody at home but ignor es the problems of peace and the fate of freedom around the world. Maybe Lyndon Johnson thinks that he can pick Communism up by the ears and make it yell -- the way he handles his beagles. Well, he can't. as he does the other. He seems to know as little about handling the one And maybe Lyndon Johnson thinks that he can inspire the world by turning out the lights in the White House. Well, he can't. We need an American President who will turn on some lights . We need more light at the White House, not less. We need more light around the world. The light of .American leadership. The light of freedom. Those are the lights that I want to turn on in 1964. lights the Republican Party will turn on by winning in 1964. Those are the Under this Administration a deepening shadow is being cast across our ability to keep the peace and sustain freedom. Our strength is draining away in two vital areas. First, the will to stand up and be counted for freedom. This Administration shrugs off the responsibilities of world leadership. It watches our free world alliances crumble, as is the case with NATO . It watches our free world problems fester, as with Cuba, Berlin, the fighting in Vietnam, and the rantings of the dictatorship in Indonesia.. All the world can see what is happening in those areas. All Americans can understand it. And I feel that most Americans want to change it. It is the second area where it is sometimes hard to see beneath the surface , beneath the managed news, to the truth. That area is the state of our military defenses; the defenses upon which the peace of this nation and the security of every man, woman, and child in the free world basically rests . earth. Today, as I repeatedly have said, we are the strongest nation on And that is why we have what peace there is in the world. peace. It has been that way throughout history. The strong have kept the The weak have lost it. It has been tha.t way throughout our own time. Remember if you will tha.t it was an Administration similar to this one that was so tied up in domestic spending programs that it armed our soldiers with wooden guns and cardboard tanks. It was under such an Administration that we zig-zagged into the Second World War when, with sufficient strength ahead of time, we might never have had to fight that tragic war! Remember that under the crusading leadership of Dwight Eisenhower and the foreign policy of John Foster Dulles we used our might to stop threats to the peace. When we moved resolutely in the Formosa Straights we did not come closer to war -- we moved closer to peace; peace through strength. When Dwight Eisenhower sent our Marines to Lebanon we moved closer to peace. This action was not called warmongering or reckless . It was not warmongering. It was not reckless . (more) - 3 - It was peace-mongering of the onJ.y effective kind. It was responsibJ.e and it did not risk war. Why? Because this nation was strong. Its leadership was strong. it! Its will was strong -- and the enemies of peace and freedom knew What do they know today? They know that this Administration doesn't even feel that foreign policy is important enough to be debated in this campaign. It's all cut and dried, they say. And they even offer secret briefings to try to explain it. Well, I rejected those briefings out of hand. I say that every United States citizen should now be demanding that we have less secrecy in our foreign policy -- not more secrecy. The same thing is true of our defense policy. We want less figure juggling, less double-entry bookkeeping, less news management. We must have plain talk, honest figures, and frank discussion. I' 11 speak plainly about these matters. This Administration is diserming this nation. duced a single new major strategic weapons system. They have not intro- This means that America stands still while the Soviet is free to advance. This Administration has deliberately prevented the development of defenses against a future threat or even attack from weapons orbiting in nearby space. This Administration tries to turn back the clock, to pretend that science doesn't exist and that technologies don't advance. But we know that the Soviet is looking ahead. We know that one of the Soviet's most distinguished weapons engineers has been elevated to the rank of Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers . Was that for peaceful work? Of course not. We know that even the new President of the Soviet Academy of Sciences is an cutstanding figure in the development of missile and space technology. We know, in short, that the Soviet has its military eyes fixed very firmly on the possibilities of using space as a future threat to the free world._ And we know that this Administration is doing nothing in a substantial way to head them off. That it is doing nothing to protect this nation and the free world against this future threat. Look at the situation right in your own backyard -- actually, in a world made so small by modern science we should say it's everyone's backyard. The Strategic Air Command, headquartered right here, is the single most important peace-keeping organization in the free world. When you cut away all of the talk, all of the diplomatic maneuvering, the rock bottom fact remains that if there were no Strategic Air Command there would be no wall against communism, except paper walls. I would say this: without SAC we could well have been at war years ago. My fear, for my four children and for your children, is that if SAC is dismantled -- as this Administration plans to dismantle it -- we will once again face the dreadful specter of a war that would be begun by an enemy given new confidence of his ability to win. Today, more than 90 percent of the nuclear deterrent power of the entire free world rides in the bomb bays of the Strategic Air Command. As we (more) - 4 - go into the 1970's, however, this Administration plans to leave us a Strategic Air Command with no new bombers, with a vanished force of old ones, and with just a tattered remnant of the strength with which it has been able to keep the peace so far. I say that the free world deserves better planning than that . I say that the men who man this great command for peace deserve a better chance than that! I say your children deserve a better chance -- a chance to live at peace and in freedom and not under the terrible cloud of a war that we cannot prevent and could not win. The first order of business, in this field, for a new American President should be to guarantee that our military force has the best weapons to give us the best chance to deter war and keep the peace. I say that this could be done without hurting our domestic economy. I say that it could be done without provoking the Soviet. It is weakness that encourages the Soviet. It is strength that discourages them. It is strength that holds the only hope of finally convincing them that their goals of world conquest must be dropped, that the aspirations of free men must be respected, and that no political fanaticism can be permitted in this century to build and maintain a wall of tyranny around the citizens of 17 nations. l., Where has weakness brought this world? Until the election of Dwight Eisenhower and since the end of the Second World War, twelve nations fell to Communism, 800 million people were dragged behind the Iron Curtain. ----- - - - --------The Eisenhower years saw freedom holding firm. But since then, under this Administration -- Laos has been abandoned, Indonesia has been set afire, Africa has been plunged into bloody turmoil, Latin America has been terrorized, I and South Vietnam has been soaked with American blood while being sacrificed to / 1 this Administration s indecision. --__ And much of the blame can be placed squarely in the laps of those twin commanders of chaos: Lyndon B. Johnson and Robert S. McNamara. Johnson apparently regards McNamara as the smartest man he knows. considering the crowd around the White House these days, I must sadly admit that this could easily be the case. And, My opinion of Mr. Johnson's favorite cabinet officer -- and possibly Mr. Johnson's running mate in 1964 -- is slightly different. I say that Robert McNamara has done more to tear down the morale of our military establishment. than any Secretary we ever have had. I charge that Robert McNamara has done more to tear down the future of our defenses than any Secretary we ever have had • I do not believe that all the questionable claims of saving money can balance for a moment the inescapable fact that he has failed in his first responsibility -- which is the security of this nation, not only today but tomorrow. It is the tomorrow of your children and mine that the Johnsons and the McNamaras deliberately are mortgaging in order to make political advantages for themselves today. Look at the TFX contract! Why did Secretary McNamara, arbitrarily and over the heads of all of our military advisers -- why did he award this billion dollar contract to the highest bidder! Why did he choose.the design with the second-best performance! Why aren't we getting the best weapon for the least money! Some people don't even call it the TFX anymore -- they call it the For here, as in the Bobby Baker case, the shadow of political wheeling and dealing falls across the White House itself. LBJ! There is another set of interesting letters and numbers that spell another deception in our defense policy. President Johnson, to make a political (more) - point, suddenly announced plane, the A-J..l. some months ago 5 - this that had nation First of all, been just about perfect the revelation of the plane breached until that moment. The Theu se of secret poli tica.l advantage become a standard has procedure for a brand a secrecy new super- which had d information for this Administration. The plane, as you probably recall, was to be a high and fast flying substitute for the U-2 spy plane. And that is al l it is · It is :;:.ot .:-..,1 interceptor. It was not designed to carry weap ons But what do we hear now, from the magic bookkeeper in the Pentagon? Mr. McNamara has permitted the pl:uie to be · designated sd an interceptor. With a stroke of the pen he appears to have added something new to our defenses. This is a deliberate hoax on the Americ designed for our defense forces. It was designed But that Administration. is the sort of double-talk we an people. The for the CIA! have come to A-11 wasn' 't even expect from this Look at their talk of nissiles. Their speak of reliability at time they admit that the missiles haven 't been and can 't be fully tested the same of missiles They speak of how far ahead we are of the Soviet in numbers but they deliberately do not tell the American people about the more than 700 Soviet missiles aimed at Europe! This Administration doesn't seem to think that Europe is even important. Now who is an isolationist? And finally, they speak hardly at all of the miserable war in Vietnam. They don't even call it a war And they certainly show :r..o determination to win it. Robert McNamara, even now, is on his way to Vietnam for the fifth time! Yo-yo McNamara. we call him. Ba.ck and forth to Vietnam -·· with no visible resu.lts. We have watched political murder in Vietnam. We have watched military failures. We have watched governments change. We have watched our own finest soldiers and airmen being killed. But this near-sighted, political, wheeling and dealing, ward-heeling Administration has yet to have the courage to tell the American people the facts and ask their support in bringing an end to the fighting. I ask that all Americans demand an accounting of ourpolicy I ask that aLl. Americans demand the positive actions fighting there. in Vietnam. which can end the A Republican President could and would bring peace to Southeast Asia. A Republican President would not send Americans to die in the jungle or the skies with second-class weapons and a second-class foreign policy. Many of you have read, in U. S. News and now in Life magazine, the agonizing letters of Captain Edwin Shank written from Vietnam -- wr itten from the heart of a soldier who was sickened by the neglect of his government. Captain Shank was killed in Vietna.m. He was not killed offering technical advice to the Vietnamese. He was killed fighting for freedom in Vietnam. But Captain Shank, in painful. detail, tells of the ancient aircraft with which he and his fellow pilots were forced to fight and in which they died, and still die! Is it our military leaders who have sent our flyers into battle with such old and inadequate equipment? No. The politicians of this Administration have done it. Let me quote to you from a letter that is, in its way, every bit as shocking as any written by Captain Shank. It was written by who Assistant Secretary (more ) \ •· I - 6 of State., Frederick D.·.rt:ton., to a colleague - of mine in the Co n gress . Just listen to this: "We bel.ieve the equipment currently being used by American personnel and provided to the Vietnamese is safe and adequate for the job . " Now listen to Captain Shank: . "We are getting beat. and undergunned." We are undermanned Listen to Captain Shank again! "We 're using equipment and bombs from World War II and it's not too reliable ••• the Air Force hasn't used any of this equipment since Korea • •• Lost two guys today • •• the only guess is, the airplane just came apart. 11 And what was that airplane? It was a B-26, a relic of the Second World. War! Now whose judgment do you respect in this? country--or a State Department spokesman! A hero who died for his Officially, this Administration says that we are using obsolete equipment in Vietnam because of the Geneva conventions which were supposed to bring peace to that area! What peace! And what respect has the enemy shown to those conventions ? Again, Robert McNamara's bookkeeping comes to the rescue. Stories have been released of new airplanes that are to be supplied. But what are they actually--nothing but modified versions of the same old obsolete planes, modified versions of, for instance, the B-26, a plane so weary that major air force commands won't even permit its use! When will this Administration tell the truth? When will this Administration move to end this secret bargain basement war of theirs. When will this, the mightiest nation on earth, stop sacrificing the lives of its men to the whims of its politicians. I charge that the death of men like Captain Shank, sent to die in obsolete planes, must lie heavily upon the conscience of this Administration and particularly upon the conscience of the defense and foreign policy planners who have directed the failure in Vietnam so far. How many more Captain Shanks will have to die before we call a. halt to this Administration's policy of failure and defeat? How much more will freedom around the world have to suffer before we call a halt to this Administration's retreat from reality and responsibility in foreign policy? How much more will war be risked by this Administration's pell-mell rush to disarmament and its failure to provide new defenses? When will America turn again to the sort of leadership, the sort of Republican leadership that has always kept the peace in the past? I say that America is ready for that change today - - and that in November we will know it! And on that very day, if we have that change, we will move closer to the greatest day of all - - the day an American President tells Nikita Khrushchev or his successor: You are wrong. Our children will not live under socialism or communism. Your children will live under freedom. ### Committee For • FOR RELEASE 9:00 PM EDT May 12, 1964 MADISON SQUARE GARDEN New York~ N. Y. -- When a Westerner gets this kind of reception in New York City, the message should be loud and clear even in Washington, D.C. Why, it should even be loud enough to get past the barking of the beagles at Lyndon's White Dog Rouse . Who said that the twain never shall meet? I think it has! I think tha.t meetings such as this show that East and West can meet, can agree, can get together , can work together--and can win together. I think we can meet and agree that for the future of every section of this great land, there is going to have to be a Republican President elected in 1964. I think we can meet and agree that, no matter where you are from, any Republican would be better than what we have in Washington today. I want to pledge to you, as I have to people across this nation, that my candidacy is committed to the defeat of Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964. I am not interested in tearing down other Republicans. in building my Party and restoring this Republic. play! I am interested I do not say that the Republican Party must do it my way or I won't I want to find ways that we can work together--as a team! it again: I am not interested in defeating any Republican in 1964. I am interested in defeating Lyndon Baines Johnson! Let me say I'm not afraid of what any Republican would do to this country. afraid of what one particular Democrat is doing to it: I am -- by double-talking about economy even as he heads toward a huge increase in the national debt. -- by wheeling and dealing in cures for poverty while neglecting to solve the real problem, which is unemployment. -- by backing and filling in foreign policy; by backing down from our enemies, and by filling our allies with fears and doubts . -These are targets for Republicans to shoot at. And any Republican who can't see it, who would rather fight fellow Republicans than fight Democrats is doing nothing more or less than pinch hitting for Lyndon Johnson. And let me remind you that when I talk about party unity, I know what I'm talking about. I have campaigned for Republicans, all Republicans, in virtually every state of this union. I've made speech after speech on behalf of Republicans right here in New York. I was working for Party unity and for Party victory then- -and I'm working for Party unity and victory now. (more) -2- principles I think t h a t the heart of of this Party are sound. this Party i s sound. I think that the I have voted for those principles --I have worked £or those principles by those principles. I have lived Disagree? that point . Of course we Republicans are bound to disagree on this or But when it comes to basic principles we can and must unite . And right here and now I'd like to suggest that there is a way to do just that, to clear up the virus of divisiveness that is attacking the bloodstream of our Party. Our Party's only really current statement of principle is the 1962 Declaration prepared by a joint committee of Senate and House members. These were not men who were trying to make personal points. These were not men trying to read fellow Republicans out of the Party. These were men such as Thruston Morton, John Tower, Bourke Hickenlooper, Wallace Bennett, George Aiken, and your own Ken Keating in the Senate. Your Congressman, Charles Goodell, was one of the distinguished members on the House side. This was a group that showed the real strength and broad appeal of our great Party. Here was a group to unite the Party, not split and twist it. And I say thi s with every ounce of my conviction: Declaration of Principle. 1 I subscribe to that And I say this with every ounce of hope I can muster: let all Republicans stand up and be counted on their Party 1 s principles, right now! I have done it repeatedly. I will continue to do it. Let us hear from the others! I am sick to death of the rule-or-ruin talk that demands loyalty to a faction above loyalty to the party and its national responsibilities. And let's remember that this is a national party now -- E.Q! a regional one! The Declaration of our Party is clear. I stand on it. Most Republica..'tls stand on it. Now let those few who remain on the sidelines stand up and be counted so that we can get on with the job of winning this election. Here is a way to constructive action. Here is a path to unity. I say it 1 s a path that's broad enough and straight enough for all of us to travel. can This is where I stand. No Democrat is going to crowd me off. And I assure you ten times over -- no Republican is going to do it either! Our Republican principles are clear. They are based upon five funda- mentals. We believe in the individual •. We believe that men can govern themselves, set their own goals, find their own solutions -- without the restraints of dictatorship or paternalism. Do I subscribe to that? Why, I 1ve spent the past eleven years of my life talking about and working for nothing else but that! We Republicans believe that the dignity and the freedom of the individual comes from God -- not from government! We believe that government is created to maintain order, to secure the national defense to do only those things for the people which they cannot do for themselves. (more) R - 3 - No man has worked harder for the concrete actions to implement that statement than I have. And I pledge you this: no President wouJ.d work harder for the same principle than I wouJ.d if my Party and my fellow citizens se1ect me for the job. We Republicans want to see the power of government returned to the people--that's where it started and that's where it should stay. Again, I don't give Just lip service to that principle. I believe that there are sound courses which a President can and should follow to implement the principle. Every legislative proposal should be subjected to these rigid tests: l. Is the proposal actually responsive to a demonstrated need, or is it responsive mainly to political pressure or political advantage. 2. If there is real need, can it be met by community action, or . individual action? If it can, it .should be encouraged in that way. If not, can the need be met at the local level, or the state level, or through regional arrangements? Only when the answer is clearly no, should the Federal government intrude. A President, more interested in freedom than in executive power, could restore balance in our government, return power to the people--and get the needed jobs of this nation done without regimenting ourpeople or ruining our Federal system. That Federal system is based upon the responsibility and the Constitutional independence of our 50 great states. An Administration that attempts to tear down the Constitutional role of the states is tearing down the very structure or our freedom. And I charge that this Adminiotration is doing just that. that it reaches recklessly for new power at every opportunity. I charge Let this Administration continue in power and we may well live to see the day that the 50 states of this nation become just 50 pigeonholes in a new Washington bureau. Let a Republican President, following Republican principles, be elected and the balance of power that has kept us free could be restored. I can suggest several concrete approaches to assure this. Immediate and serious studies should be made to determine every area in which the administration of Federal programs can to any degree be turned over to state or local governments without injury to the program. This would not mean abandoning these programs. It would mean assuring their effective administration as close as possible to the people actually affected, as close as possible to the people actually paying the bills. Parallel studies should be carried out to bring order out of the increasing chaos of competition for tax dollars between state, local, and Federal governments. Wherever possible we should reject the bureaucratically expensive system of taking money from the states, passing it through a Washington bureau, and then returning what is left right back where it came from. Our goal should be to retain tax moneys as cl.ose as possible to their point of origin. (more) - Our states must once again and legally. 4 - be full partners in the Federal system, morally, financially, If we cannot stand together in our diversity of region, in our diversity of ways of life, in the diversity of our states and cities--if we cannot stand together in that diversity, our freedom surely shall fall I've heard Democrats telling the world that we are prepared to co-exist with a diversity of communism, tyranny, and aggression. I'd much rather have tolerance for diversity, like charity, start at home! . We Republicans have spelled out another principle. We believe that "government must act to help establish conditions of equal opportunity for all people and to help assure that no one is denied the requisites for a life of dignity." Now that is word for word from our Declaration of Principle. Under Republicans, more has been done to implement that belief than under any other Party! But there is a vast difference between the Republican way and the way of this present Ad.ministration. Real progress was made, under Republican principles and Republican leaders. It was made without violence, without taking matters into the streets-on either side! Republicans passed laws with which the people of this land could live and through which, in patience, and in understanding, they could seek the meeting of minds and the opening of hearts which are the only ultimate solutions. Republicans want to see government, as our Declaration says, helping the cause of equal opportunity. They do not want to see government as the cheerleader for a frightful game of violence, destruction, and disobedience. And once again, I point to the Republican principle of getting things done at the local. level before calling out the Federal programs--or the Federal troops Where are the states which today are witnessing the most violence? sadly remind you that they are the very states where there is the most talk about brotherhood and the very least opportunity for achieving it. -- I I sadly remind you that we are seeing violence today in those very states which are proving that new laws alone are not the answer. There are too many of the old laws which aren't even working. And there is this above all, the oldest law of all: You cannot pass a me. This is something that can only happen in our hearts. law that will make me like you--or you like The right to vote; of course! The right to an education; of course! There are laws to secure those rights. But until we have an Administration that will cool the fires and the tempers of violence we simply cannot solve the rest of the problem in any lasting sense. And I say this to you with the deepest possible sense of tragedy and regret--unless we do get such an Administration we are going to see more v1o1ence in our streets before we see less. I pray to God that every American, regardless of his race or creed will (more) - 5 - come to his senses in time to restore some common sense and common decency to this situation. It badly needs both. The final point of the five basic principles spelled out in our Party's declaration evolves from a fact that every American should recognize: the Republican Party is the party of payrolls and production. It is our opponents who are the party of debts, depression, and doles. The Republican Party understands good times and how to keep them. It understands that if we Americans can't live within our means, we are going to be reduced to living without means. Our fifth principle states very clearly that government must prudently weigh needs against resources, put first things first, rigorously tailor means to ends, and understand the difference between words and deeds. The practical application of this should be very clear. A Republican President--at least this Republican President--would be working for a balanced budget in times such as these rather than digging us deeper into the red •. I say that this is the time to be paying off our debts, not piling up new ones. Now those principles cover our Party's approach to the essential dignity of man as an individual, not a zip number on a government chart! Those principles cover our approach to limited government to local responsibility, to the prudent rather than reckless use of taxes, and to the civilized resolution of civic problems. I say that those. principles are worth fighting for! I say they are what we should be fighting about--with Lyndon Johnson! And one other thing. I've spoken so far about the application of Republican principles to pressing domestic needs. How about foreign policy! wants to forget about! How about the issue that Lyndon Johnson How about a foreign policy so mysterious and so hard to understand that Lyndon Johnson has had to offer us secret briefings to explain it! Yes. How about that! I turned those briefings down the minute I heard about them. United States Senators have secret information. They just don't throw it around for political. advantage the way this Administration does. I say we need less secrecy in our foreign policy, not more. If anybody needs a briefing, it's the whole American public! briefing full of secrets--but a briefing full of facts. Not a Fa.eta a.bout Cuba--facts about South Vietnam--facts about Soviet nuclear testing and advances--fa.cts about how far we are willing to go to appease communism--and facts about the strength of our deterrent forces over the next ten years. I have spoken at length on all of those topics. 1-zy' position is clear. And I say that, in root and base, it is as simple as this: way we can keep the peace is to keep our strength. the only It is the foreign policy of Dwight Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles that kept the peace. I want to restore that policy. It is the confusion and (more) - evasion of Lyndon Johnson that is 6 - gambling And what does our Republican about this? Is it muddled or unclear? about :f. t ? Not at all. Just l.:f.sten: the peace. Declaration of principle Shoul.d any Republican have to say be in doubt "In foreign pol.icy, the overriding national. goal must be victory over communism, through the establishment of a world in which men can live in freedom, security, and national independence. There can be no real peace short of it." Now I want and I need the support of all Republicans. And I rest my case on this great point. "In foreign policy the overriding national goal must be victory over communism••• " That is our Republican declaration. I ask only this: serve that declaration. let your support go to the man you feel can best And then, let us work together, •united and dedicated, so that an .American President can tell Nikita Khrushchev. You are wrong. Our children will not live under communism. Your children will live under freedom. ### or • President . FOR RELEASE THURSDAY AM' s May 14, 1964 Excerpts from remarks by Sen. Barry Goldwater on "MEET BARRY GOLDWATER" TV show, May 13, 1964 Washington, D.C. -- At its root, politics has to go a lot deeper than campaigning, deeper even than the detailed issues of the day. It must go to the heart of your beliefs want and the way you see man's place in that world. to the sort of world you There. are very few chances for a candidate to talk about these things. They don't go too well on a platform or in a crowd. They aren't as dramatic as topical issues are likely to be. That's why I want and welcome these few minutes in which I may speak directly with you - - past the news stories, past the headlines, and past the crowds. One of the wisest things I can recall being said in any recent political campaign was that we shouldn't ask what religious faith a candidate has. But we have every right to know if he has any at. all. Maybe religion and politics don't mix at most levels. But right at the root they certainly do. For me, it's where politics actually begins. To men who believe in God, man's freedom is divinely conferred. not a privilege granted by the state. · It's I think this is the most important political difference of all.. If you see man as having this spiritual nature, you also can see governments like ours, and Constitutions like ours. In fact, I don't know how else you could conceive of such governments. -On the other hand, what happens when you see man as just a high order of animal, just a sort of complex machine on legs? It's easy to go from that view of man to governments that operate like a machine, rolling over people and grinding out power. I happen to feel that people not only can handle most of their own private affairs. I think they should. I don't think that any government ever created is so all-wise that it can run your life, or your family, better than you can. I don't think that it can run the businesses and industries that provide our jobs. There 's proof of this all over the world. Wherever individual men can dream, plan, compete, and work right up to the hilt of their ability you find prosperity and growth. Wherever government takes over all the planning and all the production -- you find a downhill slide. (more) .. .... - But where and how 2 - can we do the best .Job? I just don 't happen to think we should play politics with human misery. Our solutions should remain as close to the people-to-people level as possible, as local as possible. We ought to keep this as far away from distant bureaucracy and as close to our hearts as possible Now, I know that this isn''t a.lways possible There are certain programs that, because we 've agreed on a national standard, are going to be carried ou: at the Federal level, such as our Social Security system And here it seems to me that the Feder al government has several perfectly clear responsibilities. First, it ought to seek the sort of climate in which as many people as possible can help themselves. In short, it ought to let this amazing enterprise system of ours go forward in the way it has proven it can - - go forward to create more and better j obs If we create more wealth, there's going to be more for us to share, through our individual energies. There 's another responsibility that government owns to every wageearner -- and particularly to retired people, to social security recipients, or all older people who have to make do with a fixed income. That responsibility is simply to keep our dollar s ound, make it worth the same tomorrow as it is today. Government can help thls along very powerfully by keeping its own house in order, by not spending more than it can take in, and by not trying to take in so much that our own individual planning and work is seriously penalized andeven stunted. Unfortunately, the value of our dollar is slipping as the cost of living goes up. Its real purchasing power today is less than half what it was 3O-odd years ago. Our government isn't as concerned abou·:; inflation as I 'd like to see. Even the recent tax cut is going to be wiped out by this rise in costs if the situation rernains as it is. Here, then, is the kernel of the economic choice you have to make: Do you want the trend to be toward better paychecks and more paychecks, with government cutting down its spending to match its income, or do you want us to head toward a staggering new debt in OU!' national budget -- maybe ten or so billion dollars this year alone -- rising living costs, and the absolutely sure next step which will be controls, controls, and more controls. My thought is to get away from government controls and debt at the same time, and get back to the job we know we can do in this country -- building up this enterprise system by building up its opportunities. Let me just remind you of one thing more. We already have spent billions and billions of dollars over the past thirty years on government programs piled on top of government programs -- and we've still got a cerious problem of unempl.oyment. Those government programs just aren't the whole answer. The real answer is jobs, and the real way to get jobs is to let the government mind its own business while we, as individuals, get on with minding our jobs and our-businesses. What does all this mean, right at the base, in terms of domestic pol.icy? It means that I'm age.inst a Big Brother type of government. I want to see you hold the power in government. I want to see honest government with honest programs . I want someone to think about saving yet-:=- dollars as much as they think about taking your vo7-es. I want to see our tax system overhauled from top to bottom so that all of us can pay our fair share of government without getting ourselves hog-tied in red tape. As it is today, we have to work until about 2 o'clock on Tuesday afternoon justto pay the tax collector before we can get down to the job of earning our own living. I want to see the sort of balance restored that really gives meaning to our Federal Union. I want to see the executive branch administering the programs we agree en, rather than trying to run every other part of our l.1Yes as well. And, particularly I want to see our representatives in Congress and the Sene.te really representing us and not just rubber-stamping the political proposals of the executive branch, no matter who is in the White House. - 3 - I think that the States have got to come back into full partnership in this federal system. I want to see state and local governments with the ability and the resources to get jobs done close to the peop1e and without being run from Washington. On another count, I don't think that we have to settle our problems in the streets or with violence. And when these problems are basically problems of the heart, I don't think that new laws alone are going to solve anything. Men will come to good will in their relationships only when they've had time to think and feel their way along.. And an atmosphere of violence just tends to harden our hearts, not open them up. Common sense, common decency, and common honesty •. Those are the ingredients for getting along with each other, just as they are the ingredients for getting along with the job of governing ourselves. I'll just say one more thing about my philosophy of government. I respect with every fibre of my being the fact that in this nation, we consent to be governed -- we do not elect to be ruled. Now, what about foreign policy? Here's one of the most clear responsibilities of the President. The Constitution lays this one squarely on his desk. A President isn't called on to of the nation's life -- but he certainly foreign policy -- no ifs, ands, or buts. then we just miss the whole point of our run around running every little part is called upon to tackle the problem of I f this isn't an issue for a President, system. I Once again, common sense helps. If you have a fellow who says he's going to bury you -- you don't hand him a shovel. And if you have a fellow who's been disturbing the peace for a good forty years, you certainly don't phone him up and tell him that you're scrapping your defense in hopes that he'll all of a sudden calm down and start behaving. I'm ready, as any American President has to be, to sit down and talk about the problems of peace with responsible leaders anywhere in the world, including the leaders of the Soviet Union. But until we just t hink it would be as well as anyone that don't think we need to can agree on some mutual terms of trust and sincerity, I out-and-out suicide to let our defenses decay. I know today we are the ·most powerful nation on earth. And I apologize for it. We really ought to be proud of it. 1'ty concern in politics and as a private citizen who has seen what happens when you trust your enemy and let your guard down -- my concern is what our defenses will be like when our children are getting ready to take their place in the world, say in the 197Os. I don't want to see the future of this country mortgaged to a shortsighted policy that would risk everything on the slim hope that the enemy is going to give up, mellow, or what have you. Frankly, I think we've got to help him along that road by applying every single-pressure we can to make him give up the Communist plan for world conquest. I think we can do it, and I know we can do it without endangering the peace. How? In the only way anyone ever has kept the peace -- by remaining strong. weak. We have fought three wars in our time because we let ourselves get We're fighting one in Viet Nam right now because of indecision and weakness. I say this: we can prevent war now and in the years ahead if we remain strong. And I say this also: we can and we should end the fighting in Viet Nam by taking the strong, affirmative action that would do just that. (more) - 4 - I don't want to see our peaceful. world nibbled to death by a n enemy that is never sure of just where we sta.nd or where we're heading . I don't want to see another way through weakness in in the lifetime of my four children or your children. my lifetime or But, so help me, I do not see a single way in the world to guarantee peace or even to hope for it if we let our defenses drop before we have any real assurance that the Communist goal of destroying our society has been abandoned. It's one thing to say that we cen live in this world, and at peace, with any number of different sorts of political theories and political organizations . We can.But it's an altogether different thing to say that you can get along with a political theory whose principal point is that your whole way of life has got to be swept away. And freedom has been swept away for more than a billion victims of communism. No. We've got to change the communist plan. I think we have every tool needed. Look at our economic power. And then look at communism. What a mess they are in today! Now, that's not our fault. It's the fault of the way they do things . Frankly, I don't think we should bail them out unless we get substantial concessions in return. And all of these concessions should be leading toward a single goal: making them give up their hope of conquering the world. There are political pressures we could apply, too. Take our alliance system. Unfortunately, it's falling apart at the seams today. It's got to be stitched back together. All our allies agree. It would just take some American leadership and some common sense agreement that the purpose of these alliances is to put a damper on communism's aggressive plans. I think most Americans can understand why our allies are shying away today. Look at the many times we've gone right over their heads to negotiate with the communists -- as though we trusted them more than we do our friends. I don't want to see us ever have to go it alone in this world or ever reach the point where the onl.y thing we can fall back on for our security is dickering with the communists. I think the free world, through such alliances as NATO -- which is the greatest peace-keeping force ever put together, in my view -- can pretty much call the turn, to freedom's tune for a change. In fact, I think we ought to use every peaceful means available for calling freedom's tune -- including more effective use of an improved United Nations. I think we must act right now to make sure we do not again stumble into a war through being weak, indecisive, and friendless. I think we can afford to keep our defenses strong and flexible. I think we'll stay at peace that way. I think we can even end the fighting that is going on, that way. In fact, I think that's a President's first job -- making sure that Americans don't have to die to make up for false economies and faulty poJ.icies. I think that we can win this cold war we are in without ever 1etting the enemy get to the point where a hot war becomes a possibility -- or so close that it takes a hot line to cool it off. If we stay strong enough -- if we are determined enough - - if we are dedicated enough, along with our allies; we'll win this struggJ.e in the world and we'll keep the peace at the same time. We'll set the stage for a world in which all nations can disarm in mutual trust - - in a world of open societies . I would like, above all, to think that one day soon there would be an (more) - 5 - American Presidency that history woul.d record this way: This was the time in which an American President said to Nikita Khrushchev, You are wrong. Our grandchildren will not live under communism. No, Mr. Khrushchev -- your children will live under freedom. ### President t Co Committee ,. FOR RELEASE SATURDAY PM's May 16, 1964 ROSE FESTIVAL, SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA Saturday, May 16, 1964 Santa Rosa, California - - Curious thing, but it seems that no matter what I do or say these days, there's always someone who puts a political interpretation on it. Today, on this purely non-political occasion, I make no apology if politics of a sort does enter into my remarks. I do not mean purely partisan politics. I mean the politics of freedom. Whether we like it or not, the great issues of our day are political. choices are political. Our decisive The great issue of whether we will let our enterprise economy work, whether we will encourage our people to work, or whether we will move backward in the direction of more and more bureaucratic economic controls - - that issue is political. Whether we are to have a resolute foreign policy that means something to friend and foe alike, or whether we will continue to improvise our unpredictable way from crisis to crisis that issue is political. Whether we are to have a government of balanced powers, or a new political royalty of centralized power -- that issue is certainly political. Whether we are to live by law, or whether we are to make our laws in the streets -- that issue is political. The very issue of whether we can assure the security of this nation, and effect- ively bolster the security of the entire free world -- that grave issue is clearly political, too. It goes, indeed, to the ultimate destiny of this nation, and to the best hopes of every American. It goes to the life or death of freedom. Because of this, I ask you to consider, in your conscience and in your heart, that Election Day 1964 will also be D-Day 1964 -- decision day, as to the future course of this mutual enterprise that we call the American way of life. All these great issues are political, and the crucial choices are yours to make, because of the American way. You are in the catbird seat so to speak -- you, and no one elsebecause the American heritage is a heritage of freedom and of responsible self-government. And if ever the day comes when you no longer have the last word on the issues and choices that matter most -- on that day, freedom will truly have failed, and the American dream will be shattered. You have that fateful choice in your hands, too -- you and no one else. There can be no substitutes, no stand-ins for free men and women running their own lives. You can delegate some of your power and authority, but you dare not abdicate your responsibility. Do that, and we will end up with the show of democratic government but none of its substance. -2- Let this ultimate responsibility of yours be stolen from you, or simply let it slide default, and the American heritage will become one minor chapter in the book of Man's destiny. The American experience will be a mere footnote in the record of Man's never-ending effort to build a commonwealth of freedom, here on God's good earth. by That is where the American heritage begins, of course, and that is where we must· begin, if we are to understand its true nature and what is needed to preserve it and extend it. The .American heritage -- like politics, and like Man's freedom -- begins with God. Maybe religion and politics don't mix at most levels, but right at the root they certainly do. They must. To those who believe in God, Man's freedom is divinely conferred. be protected by the State, but it is not a privilege granted by the State. It may and must This is the crucial political difference. It is the watershed that divides the free and the Communist world. It is the issue, still unresolved, that is at the root of·world conflict. If you see Man as having this spiritual nature, then governments like oursand Constitutions like ours are not only possible: they are essential. Without this central idea, in fact, I don't see how you could conceive of such governments. They would lack the one bond of unity that makes it possible for Americans to disagree, to debate, to divide over particular issues -- and yet, in the end, to reconcile their differences and go forward in harmony. I am not suggesting that this process of. reconciliation is easy or automatic. It never can be, so long as Americans are diverse in their backgrounds and their beliefs. But the overwhelming majority of us are a t oin ne our essential faith. On that foundation, and that alone, has the American Constitutional system been built. Undermine it by moral irresponsibility, all up and down the line, or by failure of moral leadership in positions of public trust, and this system of ordered freedom will crumble. It is, at this very moment, perilously close to the brink. But on this foundation, of faith and of individual responsibility, we have in fact built a political system truly unparalleled in human history. We have done it in the face of the dire prophesies of learned men, that freedom and order can never be combined in one great and diverse nation. And we have done it in the face of every tangible challenge by men, by nations, by alien ideologies -- by all who would solve the problem of freedom and order by destroying the one and imposing the other. We have built this house of liberty, and a Constitutional system combining freedom and order, on the fundamental conviction that government is never an end in itself. Every form of public control is but a means toward human purposes. The State is made for and by men, and a just State derives its just powers from one source and one only: the consent of the governed. Its powers are limited so that liberty may live. Its powers are balanced so that justice may prevail. Its powers are sufficient but they are decentralized -- so that difference may proceed without disorder. And there you have freedom's answer to every form of tyranny over the minds of men, their propoerty, and their persons. America's heritage of freedom means just this: we consent to be governed. not elect to be ruled. We do But this process of self-government is now under profound challenge. We know our enemy in the world at large. Here at home, the challenge is no less great, but it is core insidious. The reason is that freedom is never comfortably self-sustaining: it is constantly and strenuously demanding It is never secure. Men, before, have wearied of such demands and sought comforts instead. They have lost patience with freedom's deliberations and have sought instead the seeming ease of rigid authoritarianism. -3pat h s. Complacent men, impatient men -- as well as power-seeking men -- may choose many .But all of them lead in one direction: toward tyranny. h erit age . These are the tensions that now threaten to undermine the American Constitutional And this is no narrowly partisan matter. !t reach es to an altogether new dimension of partisanship . Not of party against party, but of balance against imbalance, decentralization against centralization, deliberation against dictation. That is the only sense in which my remarks today are partisan. I am, and proudly, a thor ough-goingpartisan of American freedom. Over the last hundred years, tension within the American political-system has bean building on two levels. At one level, the ground has beBn shifting beneath the structure of State powers . These powers, the fuel for the Federal system itself, have been siphoned off into the central government to the capital in Washington , a n d afrom way the State capitals. Who has been responsible? Nearly all of us -- both those who do not jealously guard and wisely use their local power and those who, from the outside, attack it in the name of central planning . authority. attention. The results have often been described as over-concentration of power in the central But there are other and more subtle effects to which we have given too little There is, for instance, a distinct cultural loss. The Federal system, with its fifty separate units, has always permitted this nation to nourish local differences, and local cultures. Even in the on-rush of standarnization, of modern technology, the structure of State power has left open the chance at least that some minorities might preserve their dissident voices. And from these dissident voices has come a continual enrichment of our national debates, our national ways. Or, we might look upon the fifty States as fifty laboratories in which men can test and probe the ways of self-government developing new tools and techniques and, above all, developing their own skills. Those that develop well, become available to the nation as a whole . Those that fail -- as some experiments with freedom must always fail -- can be buried in their own backyards, without disrupting the nation 1 s life. There are those who say that the cost of fifty governments is too great to bear in this complex age. And yet, how better to meet complexity than with a diversity of resources and skills? And how can we measure the cost, in dollars alone? The ledger-sheet that our traditional Federal system must satisfy is the well-being and the freedom of the American people -- in their own States and local communities. Regard for the Federal system comes down, in the end, to this: it is a regard also for the wisdom of the people themselves. It represents confidence in their ability t o u s e that wisdom to solve their problems, in their own best ways. But the decline in State power is only one shift in the political ground upon whicho ur freedom has been built. It may not be as dramatic, but the tension, the veritable warfare between tae legislative and executive branches of government is no less important 'no leso menacing to the preservation of the American heritage. Again, responsibility must be shared between those who would take legislative . . powersaway, and those who would give them away. Recently, a colleague of mine in the United States w s Senate flatly wrote off the legislatures of America -- all of them, local, State, na tional -- as major stumbling-blocks to the democratic process. The charge is fantastic. 'What it says is that representative government which is itself -- that the people's direct voice in government is the enemy of g freedom and his solution was just as fantastic. He said that an increase in executive power wo uld b e n answer -- an increase in the very centralization of power that has always been a th re t to popular democratic processes. the s esse nce of freedom -4- The charge, again, is fantastic. And it is wrong, dead wrong. The whole history of freedom has been the history of resistance to the concentration of government power . Over three decades, however, our own resistance has gone soft. The growing imbalance between legislative and executive power attests to it. The power of Congress to initiate legislation has slowly passed to the executive. Congress either cannot or will not say 11 no 11 to the major items on a President's legislative agenda: The Congress may and does represent the people directly. But the executive has found ways to reach them even more effectively. Into executive agencies, for instance, has flowed a vast power for public relations, for public pronouncements. The pocketbook powers of patronage have flowed to it also. Vast contracts make the executive branch a far-from-silent partner in many enterprises. Its appeal need no longer be to reason alone. It can and it does appeal also to naked power. And Congress, meantime, has become inhibited. Men who are elected to represent the people find themselves targets of abuse when, in representing their enduring interests, they oppose major legislative programs. They are maligned as "do nothing" representatives. I submit that by their resistance -- and make no miitake about it, the pressures and the arm-twisting are tremendous -- they may be doing the greatest of their jobs: the preservation and the extension of American freedom. Congress, more and more, concerns itself not with the great questions of public policy -- questions of how and when and in the direction of what principled guidelines. It confines itself simply to the question how much. In the end, it usually gives in. Its freedom, and America 1 s freedom, is constantly dimished as a result. But, some say, if Congress wull not assert itself, why bother? Why not just let the executive go ahead and carry the ball? What, after all, is wrong with executive rather than representative government? I say that everything is wrong with it -- everything, that is, that· matters most where freedom is at stake. First, there is the danger of arbitrary government, the direct and inevitable consequence of over-concentration of power. Inevitably, too, any centers of power capable of competing with the executive establishment would wither away. Decision-making would become more and more secret -- insulated from close and continuous public scrutiny. Already the shadow of secrecy has been cast on our governmental processes. But an open society, and a free one, demands open decisions, open debate, open dissent, and open ways to illuminate conflicting views. Finally, local self-government could not survive in a system of executive government. Differences in policies, values, and beliefs would be submerged beneath the weight of national majorities -- majorities composed of special-interest blocs, held together by the promise of a cut in the executive porkbarrel. Evolution of wise policies would be replaced by a series of sharp clashes between embattled local minorities and rampaging national powers. And the American heritage of ordered freedom would, again, be the inevitable victim. To understand the greatness of America is to understand the greatness of our Federal system and of representative, balanced government. To misunderstand it is to forsake it. America's heritage of freedom is still just an episode, even if a glorious episode, in the long span of history. We have sustained the form of our government, and the fruits of its freedoms have sustained us,for nearly two centuries. But the burden of responsibility that such a heritage places upon the American people never lessens. There is nowhere in the record of our freedom a line, a sentence, or a paragraph that even suggests security from this endless responsibility. We have given ourselves, in our freedom, the liberty of opportunity -- never the luxury of letting down. -5This year, and the years to come, do not mark way-stations at which we can a££ord to rest and relinquish these responsibilities. A whole world, much of it unsure of freedom, unsure that it really can work, watches us. Our own history and our own heritage watch us. We must say "no" to apathy, "no" to mere convenience -- and "yes" to the dictates of our conscience. We must say, yes, this free land, this free fom of government will endure, Our will -- the will of a free people -- to make it work will prevail, And one day, in God's good time, the liberty we love and live will be proclaimed throughout the world. ### for President Committee FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY Speech by Sen. Barry Goldwater, Ventura County High School, Ventura, Calif., Sunday, May 17, 1964 Let me begin by repeating a pledge that I have made before, here in California: My candidacy for the Republican nomination is dedicated to the defeat of Lyndon Johnson in 1964! I am not in California to split the Republican Party. do what I can to unite it. I am here to And this I pledge to you also: I will spend every ounce of my devotion in the months ahead to seeking a Republican victory--no matter whom the conventi0n nominates in July. --- It's November that interests me -- a November in which Republican principles can go before the .American people and win their support. Those principles are more important than any personal ambitions! It's those principles that can win in 1964! I have not come to California for any other reason than to support those principles and offer myself as a candidate on their behalf. I am not here as a stalking horse for any other candidate. I am not here to stop anybody. I am not here to tell Californians how to lose an election. to do what I can to help Californians win an election! I'm here I am here because I trust the good sense and the good judgement of Californians. I am not here to ask you to sign a factional loyalty oath. I am here to ask you to sign a victory pledgeJ I hope that all Republicans and all those Jeffersonian and Wilsonian Democrats who believe as we do--that all of us will unite behind our principles and go forward together rather than going down in divisiveness, defeatism, and discord. I agree wholeheartedly with former President Dwight Eisenhower who, just the other day, said that he regarded "stop movements" in our campaign as "a silly kind of thing." Actually it's worse than silly. It could be suicidal. President Eisenhower has said that he will support the Party's nominee. I pledge the same. Responsible Republican leaders across the nation can be expected to follow suit. Let us hear from those who have been hanging back! Let us hear from those who have said do-it-my-way or I-won't-play! Let us, for the sake of the (more) -2- challenge we face and the opportunity we dare not abandon--let us for the sake of those things in which we all believe--let us hear some new tunes. Let us hear less of the discord in our Party and more of the harmony. Let us hear Republicans talking about Republican principles and not talking against fellow Republicans. We already have a Declaration of Principle in our Party. We can stand together on that • And l know that when the convention is over we will have a platform on which we can stand as well--and a candidate whom we may back and will back. I challenge every Republican who has not stood up to be counted for his Party to do so now, so that California Republicans will know clearly and loudly whether they are being asked to vote for the best interests of their Party or just a faction or a person in that Party. We have heard it said, publicly and frankly, that the objective of some Republicans is not the victory of their Party but simply the control of their Party. There are even the faint hearted who say ttat Lyndon Johnson can't be beaten anyway--so that all we should fight about is who picks up the pieces on our side. · I reject that sort of talk out of hand. and moral bankruptcy. That is political cowardice Lyndon Johnson can be beaten. I say he will be beaten--by the man that the Republican Party selects to oppose him in 1964! Lyndon's laughter and Lyndon's light-bulb saving can't obscure Lyndon I s losses. The Southern states which have been virtual slaves to the Democrat Party have had enough. There are two parties in the South today. There is no reason in the world why the Republican Party should write off the South. There is every reason why it shoul.d win it. And if Lyndon loses there, what does he have left? The big cities of the North? Of course! The Democrat bosses have bought those, lock, stock, and barrel long ago. Not even the richest Republican is rich enough to buy them back! But let me say this: there are signs of disillusion in the North as well. Violence stalks their streets. So does unemployment. And all they get from Lyndon are lessons in beagle handling! Now look at the rest of the country. Republican strength is growing and surging in the West, and in the Mid-West. It is surging in the booming suburbs. It is surging in the farm.lands where the dead-hand of government hac failed to solve any problems but has simply created new ones. But those reasons are minor compared to the ma.jor challenges on which I base my conviction that we must have and will have a Republican victory this year. First of all, I simply do not believe that Lyndon Johnson and his wheeler Dealer version of the New Deal can forever fool the common-sense voters of this nation. Someone is going to get out the pencil and paper and start adding up bis score. (more) - 3 - They are going to add up the fact that the Johnson tax out, which was not accompanied by equivalent cuts in government spending, is going to be wiped out by the Johnson increases in the cost of living. They are going to add up the fact that the Johnson talk of overall government economy is hot air and that the cold fact is that we are heading for a year in which we will end up as much as ten billion dollars in the hole! They are going to add up the fact that the Johnson poverty program doesn't end poverty--it just spreads it a little more equally. They are going to add up the fact that the Johnson economic programs are designed to buy votes and not to help Americans earn a living. And when the American voters add it all up, I say that they will want some Republican performance rather than another debt-ridden round of Johnson promises. They will want a Republican President who, in times such as these, would be trying to pay off our debts rather than piling up new ones. They will want a Republican President who would be letting our enterprise economy get on with the business of creating new jobs rather than being hamstrung by a wartime tax system, tied down by red tape and tied up by the ever-present threat of government intervention. There is a mood of false security in many quarters of the economy today. Things · just don't seem bad enough to get excited about. And, after all, didn't Lyndon leave 'em laughing at the Chamber of Commerce! It might be said of American business, someday, that they died laughing at Lyndon! Just stop and think about it! Where can this Administration go when its debts keep rising in a time of relative prosperity? Where can it go to dig its way out of the red? with the wave of a wand. Not even Lyndon can do that. The future is ominously clear. It can't create wealth Government controls. I fear that the future, if unchanged, will see the inevitable necessity of controlling prices, wages, and, in one form or another, production generally. A government that will not curb or control its own spending must eventually control yours! I believe that .Americans will look past this Administration's promises of today and see clearly the price that we will have to pay tomorrow if we do not get a change. I believe that Americans can, in time to do something about it, see the fundamental difference between this Administration and a Republican Administration. This Administration operates on the assumption that you want Washington to spend most of your money, plan most of your life, even tell you when and if to pray! A Republican Administration would operate on the assumption tha.t the individual. is the best guardian of his own interests and well-being unless proven otherwise. A Republican Administration would examine every proposal for a ..government program to make absolutely sure: 1. That we really need it and that it isn't just a political. plum. (more) - regularly 4 - 2. That we can afford it. 3. That there is no other program more urgent1y needed. 4. That there is built into the program a firm demand that it be reviewed so that when it has done its job, it can be phased out • . 5. That even if a need is proven, there also must be proof' that it can be done only at the Federal level rather than at the state or local level which, to a Republican, would be preferable if possible. There are vast differences there between Republican principles and this Administration's government first, people last---Federal-first, states-last philosophy. There are differences vast enough to vote upon, deep enough to decide upon, challenging enough to make this election one for the history books and not just one for the record books. In the area of foreign policy the differences are as great and as challenging to the course of freedom here and now, and around the world for years to come. Let me make one point clear at the outset. I know that the question of war deeply troubles most Americans. And I know that the first measure most Americans apply to a President or a candidate is whether or not he would be likely to get us into a war. I am willing that this measure be applied to my candidacy or to the candidacy of any Republican. The Republican Party has kept this nation out of war. It has been Democrats who, by weakness of will and weakness of defense, have plunged this nation into war, And I charge that it is the policies of this Ad.ministration which today risk war: -- by letting our defenses drop before obtaining any believable evidence that the threat from an armed and aggressive Communism has diminished. by seeming to trust our enemies more than our allies. by serving as the warehouse from which Communism may make up for its failures, rather than serving as the arsenal of democracy. -- by halting the development of new weapons while the enemy is free to advance. -- by instituting a defense policy in which, within just a few years, there will be no choice, no flexibility for this nation short of all-out war or all-in surrender. -- by encouraging our enemies to make new and bolder moves rather than clearly stating where we stand and where they must stop! Let me remind all those who ask themselves the all-important question of who is most likely to let this nation drift or fall into war--let me remind all those who, as I do, are concerned about the future of their children--let me remind you that history's most consistent lesson has been that strong nations are the ones best able to keep the peace and that weak nations are the ones most likely to feel the fire of war. I pledge from the depth of my heart and conscience that as President of this nation I would consider it my foremost duty to keep the peace and to keep freedom at the same time! (more) - I wouJ.d keep this 5 - nation free and I woul.d keep it strong. And I all nations coul.d disarm in mutual wouJ.d seek a worJ.d in which, eventually, trust and security. But I p1edge this also. I would never 1et the guard of this nation drop so l.ong as tyrants prevent, or subversion threatens a worl.d of truly open societies. War? I see this nation risking war the way it is going. It not only risks but has a war in Vietnam--and with no plan to end the fighting. Secretary McNamara--the man who may be Lyndon Johnson's running mate-the man Lyndon likes best of all his Cabinet members--Yo Yo McNamara has just completed his fifth trip to Vietnam. Back and forth. Up and down. But no word on when the fighting will end! Just McNamara 's weary repeated promise that it will go on for a long, long time. I say that it will go on for exactly as long as this Administration remains in power. It will go on for exactly as long as the recommendations of our military men are ignored in regard to getting the job done there. It will go on for exactly as long as this Administration is willing to send its men into battle, into the skies with obsolete, even dangerous equipment. It wil go on for as long as this Administration prefers to spend American lives rather than using the other resources available to it. The fighting in Vietnam will end when this Administration is replaced by one that is willing to take the strong, affirmative actions needed to do the job. These actions, as I have spelled out ti.me and time again, would not risk lives nearly as much or nearly as long as the half-hearted course being followed today. These actions would include the interdiction of the enemy supply lines and supplies by modern, well-protected, and efficient planes and naval craft. As importantly, I would seek to end the fighting in Vietnam, as well as threats to the peace elsewhere by the most rigorous application of the many peaceful pressures available to us. Communism today depends upon the productive power of the free worl.d for its very economic survival. I say that every assistance given to Communist nations should be accompanied by concessions from Communism--concessions to safeguard the peace, to encourage freedom, to ease and eventually remove the tyranny in the captive nations and even in the Soviet itself! In this crucial, ultimate question of war and peace, ask yourself when in our time peace bas seemed most secure, the future most hopeful. Was it during the years that America rushed to disarm after the Second World War? Don't forget that Eastern Europe was gobbled up by Communists during those years! Was it during the years when we said to Communism that if you stay on your side of the line, we'll stay on ours and everything will be fine! During such a time as that the Korean war started--in an area we had said was outside our zone of vital interest. Or was peacemost secure, and the future most hopeful during the Republican years--when Communism was brought to a halt; when every single one (more) - 6 - of our present most advanced and major strategic weapons systems were being produced. The answer is clear. It was the Republican years. I want to restore to America the direction and the dedication that alone can keep the peace and encourage freedom. I want to end tbe risk of war through weakness, through miscalculation, through indecision. depend. I want to seek the only sort of peace upon which we can really The peace in which an American President may say, and mean it: You a.re wrong Mr. Khrushchev. Our grandchildren will not live under Comnunism. No, Mr. Khrushchev. Your children will live under freedom. ### for President Comittee FOR RELEASE MONDAY PM's May 18, 1964 Speech by Senator Darry Goldwater at Los Angeles, Calif. (Biltmore Bowl), Monday, May 18, 1964 Los Angeles, Calif. -- The UNITED NATIONS: an Instrument of Peace and Freedom The United Nations provides us with an opportunity -- not a solution. It can become, if we make bold and effective use of it, one instrument toward peace in the world. But it alone can never guarantee peace. Our own membership in the United Nations can guarantee only this: one more chance to achieve the goal to which the American people are prepared to dedicate all their resources. That goal is peace -- peace with justice, and peace in order that free men and free nations can live and prosper and shape their own destinies. Together, the free nations of the world command overwhelming resources -- great econcmic and military power, and the matchless power of right principle. But the U.S. seems immobilized. We are in a state of moral and political disarmament -- our leadership faltering, frozen by indecision. We have at our command every necessary resource to lead the forces of freedom. We lack only the will to use our resources in the service of clear and coherent purpose. And because the U.S. is immobilized, so too is the free world -- which lacks the resolute leadership that only the U.S. can provide. Its potential unity, based on shared principle, is not now being translated into a unity of will and action. These same shortcomings also undermine the United Nations, as an instrument of peace and even as a forum for meaningful debate. The reason is the same. The U.N. is an all too accurate reflection of its members -- a mirror-image of all. their qual.ities and all their faults. . It can and does reflect the conflict which is tearing cannot itself resolve this conflict. the world apart. But the U.N. It can and does reflect an appalling leadership gap. can it fill this gap. But never, in and of itself, The reason is that the United Nations is Just an association, an assemblage, of sovereign nations. It is not a unified community. It does not command enduring loyalties, nor a readiness to put aside partial and immediate interests in behalf of overriding values and to s sharedgoals • But the United States can and does command such loyalties -- and so does the U.S. at the head of a free world alliance with a purpose to match its vast power. Such a purpose must be made clear, once and for all. And, in my view, that purpose should be to keep the free world free, and to promote freedom, everywhere in the world. (more) - 2 - If we speak with that mighty voice in the councils of the world -- if we 1ead in the name of freedom -- then the United Nations may begin to fulfill the high purpose that went into its creation. It may yet become an effective instrument of a just peace, in a world made safe for freedcm. · We have come a long way since President Truman proclaimed, back in 1945, that the U. N. ushered in "the rule of reason" in relations among the nations of the world. We have ccme a long way -- and a hard way. The harsh experience of nineteen years should have taught us by now the facts of life, in a world torn by conflict • And the facts are these: -- The conflict between the United States and communism is utterly different in kind, not just in degree, from the traditional disputes that have always marked international relations. Cur differences reach beyond the usual rivalries between sovereign nations and extend to our very definitions of peace and freedom and justice. They extend, indeed, to our basic conceptions of the nature and destiny of man. -- The process of debate.and discussion itself -- the "rule of' reason" to which President Truman so hopefully referred -- is for the communists a battle-tactic, a key weapon in the conflict between freedcm and communist imperialism. Negotiations are used by our adversaries only to prod what they regard as "historical inevitability," the triumph of their cause. -- There is, for the communists, one goal and one only: total victory, over the forces of freedcm, and over the lives of free men and the independence of free nations. Whatever tensions may now exist within the communist world, this ultimate goal has never been repudiated. The timetable and the arsenal of weapons are flexible. The goal is not flexible. -- The most eloquent fact of life, in this real world, is the most obvious: since 1945, more than one billion people have fallen victim to communist conquest and live now in submission behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains. These are the realities of a world torn by conflict. And their meaning -- as former British Prime Minister MacMillan has pointed out -- is simply this: "the whole foundation on which the U.N. was built has been undermined. This is not the fault of the organization. It is the facts of life. " Cne indispensable ingredient is lacking: there is, in the world today, no agreement on basic premises and essential values. There are no agreed ground-rules governing the reconciliation of minor disputes and differences. Indeed, where the major powers are concerned, there are no minor disputes at all: only minor skirmishes in one encompassing conflict. There is another basic change that has overtaken the world in the years since 1945. The United Nations was created by 51 nations -- which had in common at least a wartime association, and thus a habit of working in concert. Today, in the U.N. General Assembly, there are 113 nations. two-third's majority in the Assembly can now be mustered by nations representing barely 10 : rcent of the world's population, and contributing only 5 percent of the U.N's annual budget -- even assuming that everyone pays his bills. The gulf between rights and responsibilities, between privileges and obligations, has become alarming. It can no longer be papered-over by the uncritical extension of the "one -man one -vote" principle to the entire world. The U.N. itself has contributed greatly to creating this gulf, and to steadily widening it. Consider, for example, this so.lemn Resolution of December 1960 -- incredible in its premises, and appalling in its consequences: '.u!:mediate steps shall be taken • • • in all . . . territories which have not yet attained independence __ endence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of these territories without any conditions whatever. Inadequacy of political, econcmic, social or educational preparedness - 3 - shall never serve as a pretext for delaying independence. This Resolution, masquerading under the pious label of "anti-colonialism," was overwhelmingly adopted by the General Assembly -- with enthusiastic Communist Bloc support. This is not to say that every new nation is necessarily unfitted for U.N. membership and unwilling to assume all the burdens of membership. It is to say that most of these new nations have not yet served their basic apprenticeship as responsible entities -- have not even begun to prove themselves capable of maintaining domestic order, much less of participating in a body dedicated to world order. The case of The Congo is but the most dramatic. granted independence -- and U.N. membership -- it became a special forces called in to provide essential policing and order. There is a grim but poetic justice in this: it was instrumental in creating this nation in the first place. Less than a month after it was raging battleground, with U.N. the bare necessities of civilized the U.N. itself that had been The toll of human life has been terrible. The steady financial drain has driven the U.N. to the edge of bankruptcy. In the name and under the banner of the U.N., depredations have been committed against an innocent population. But even beyond these considerations, the cost to the original idea of the U. N., as an assembly of mature nations, has been the highest of all. Three years ago, Senator Fulbright put his finger on the basic problem besetting the General Assembly. And although I do not often find myself in agreement with the Junior Senator from Arkansas, on this he is dead right: • • . it is a most unwieldy body and one which bears no relat.ionship to the realities of world power. A body in which Guatemala or Bulgaria exercises the same voting power as the United States or the Soviet Union can scarcely be expected to serve as a reliable instrument of peace enforcement, or even of consultation. The problem of the General Assembly is, in essence, the problem of the U.N. as a whole. It has attempted to reach beyond its inherent capabilities. And it has, for this reason, dcne damage to its own future potentialities as an instrument of peace and order. The U.N., and particularly the General Assembly, has forgotten its own basic limitation: it is, at best, a transient majority of separate nations. It may pass resolutions. It may even set in motion a course of action. But more often than not, this majority does not outlive the action it generates -- less often still, the consequences of its actions, or the costs. So long as we treat the U.N. as a sacred cow, immutable and untouchable, it will continue to fall short of its goals. It is time to take stock, to measure performance against promise, and to consider effective remedies. Cne of these is to restore some semblance of meaning to the U.N. Charter itself. For nineteen years, the Communists have held in contempt the basic pr nciples on which the U.N. was founded: an association of "peace-loving" nations, foreswearing aggression, and affirming a mutual tolerance and respect for the national independence of all. During the nineteen years of its existence, these noble declarations of principle have been reduced to pious frauds. And not only the Communists have been guilty of contempt. In their case, we have at least been forewarned -- by every item of the public record, and by every chapter of their books of sacred doctrine. Far worse is the contempt of nations with some pretension to membership in the free -world. (more) - 4 - India, Indonesia, the United Arab Republic, and now those Federated African States that have declared open war on the Portuguese territories of Angola and Mozambique -- a11 these "peace-loving" nations have committed open and unprovoked aggression against their neighbors, sometimes with the implicit acquiescence of the United Nations, sometimes with its explicit endorsement. The United States has shamed itself' by its own acquiesence, its "going along with the tca.jority," its abstentions, its silence. We must never stay silent in such circumstances: our clear duty, to ourselves and to the cause of freedom, demands that we use the forum of the U.N. to denounce all forms of aggression -- Ccn:munist and non-Communist, whether committed by great nations or small. Most particularly, we must never let the occasion pass, whenever another in the endless series of "anti-colonialist" resolutions is before the U.N., to brand the Communists for what they truly are: the most flagrant, the most brazon colonialists the world has ever known. We must remind the world, if indeed the U.N. in some sense represents "world opinion," of the grim roster of nations and people whose freedom and independence have been destroyed by Communist aggression. It may well be too late to draw the line on U.N. membership for the Communist regimes of Europe. But should the Red Chinese now attempt, in effect, to shoot their way in -- while still in open defiance of the U.N's own resolution of February 1951, condemning their aggression in Korea -- then we should be forced to reconsider our continuing commitments to the U.N. Our first commitment, always, must be to the cause of freedom -- and thus to the enduring interests of the American people. The Charter also clearly states that the privileges of voting membership shal.l be suspended, so long as any nation is in arrears in meeting its full U.N. assessments, both regular and special. Just as we should recall all U.N. members to their moral and political obligations, we should also demand full adherence to financial obligations -- and be prepared to apply the penal.ties called for in the Charter against delinquents. These are steps we can and should take at once -- by the stroke of a Presidential pen -- in the form of marching orders to the U.S. delegation. If our enemies insist on using the U.N. as a cold-war skirmish-line, we must do the same. But -- we shall be armed, as they are not, with the truth. And even as they hold the U.N. Charter in contempt, it is up to us to defend and enforce it. There are other steps we might also consider -- long-range steps, toward the basic improvement of the U.N. structure. One of these is a re-evaluation of the power balance between the Security Council and the General Assembly. The Assembly, with Gabon and Zanzibar exerting an authoritty equal to Canada and Brazil -- just to cite one set of examples -- has increasingly assumed the right to commit the U.N. to undertake burdens beyond its capacities. To be sure, the Security Council veto -- which the Communists have used more than a hundred times -- can immobilize the U.N. completely. But in cases involving the vital interests of the major powers, this may be a valuable self-enforcing governor. Perhaps the U.N. should not intervene, should not become involved in situations in which it, as an organization, cannot possibly act effectively -- and may also act irresponsibly. Another basic step is a serious consideration of some new voting formula in the General Assembly, possibly weighte in terms of population, contributions to U.N. costs, or other relevant factors. This in itself might help give pause to the General Assembly before it assumes (more) - 5 - responsibilities beyond its capabilities, by bringing c1oser in line each member' s voting authority and tbe burdens it may be called on to assume. A third long-range consideration has to do with the six non-permanent seats in the Security Council. The present informal arrangement, which more or less distributes these seats according to world ''blocs," is both imprecise and outdated. We mi ght well assume the lead in devising a new formula that t akes fuller account of world r ealities and gives a voice on the Security Council for every major area of world population. All these are possible structural reforms -- valuable and important. They are wort h sober consideration. But let us not be misled: mere tinkering is not enough. It stops far short of the essence of the problem. The problem, in very briefest form, is this: the United Nations, in scme situations, can mediate disputes; it can often provide a useful forum for the airing of differences. But it cannot make policy-- enforceable policy, backed with the moral authority of legitimate sovereignty and backed with the power that is the monopoly of nation-states. There can be either in the U. N. or in the councils of the free world, no substitute for U.S. l eadership. If the U.S. fails to speak out -- and to act - - in behalf of freedom, then the voice of the free world is silent, and its power is immobilized. If the U.S. refuses to use the world forum which the U.N. provides -- to brand every Communist trick, every Communist lie, every Communist crime for exactly what it is if we will not be the resolute advocates of freedom and justice, then the U.N. Charter itself is a dead letter. Its original promise will go by the board. We will have relinquished the field to the enemies -- the self-avowed enemies -- of freedom. And one other important point: United States. The United Nations cannot make policy for the It can only reflect the policy, and the leadership, that we bring to it. It can compel no loyalties, can affirm no values -- except those that we, and our allies by our example and our advocacy, instill in its member-nations and lend its deliberations. We end as we began: the U.N. provides us with an opportunity. The pr oblem of the U.N. is, in essence, the problem of U.S. policy, U.S. will, and U.S. l eadership. , then be If' we and our allies use the forum of the U.N. to proclaim freedom throughout the the mandate of the U.N. Charter will have been well served. And its promise may ### SUNDAY, ISSUES GUEST: AND MAY 24, 1964 ANSWERS Senator Barry Goldwater Republican of Arizona INTERVIEWED BY: MR. Howard. K. Smith, ABC News Commentator SMITH: This is Howard K. Smith in Washington. The nation has followed Senator Goldwater's political fortunes from so close up that it is r emarkable now to draw back and see how drastically those fortunes have swung back and forth in a relatively short time. About a year ago the Senator was a not-close second to Rockefeller in national opinion polls. Rockefeller's remarriage and some other events then shot Goldwater way out in front so far he seemed uncatchable. Then the primaries began and a rather spotty record in them pulled Goldwater back again. But just a few weeks ago his opponents woke up to the fact that nonetheless he had been quietly gathering up delegate votes at a rate that could hand him the nomination in July. There is a feeling now that California is going to be the place to seize the pendulum of Goldwater fortunes and freeze it at success or failure . Before he goes into that climax, Senator Goldwater has agreed to come here and sit down and update some basic questions. (Announcement) THE ANNOUNCER: For the answers to the issues, a frontrunner in the race for the Republican Presidential nomination, Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican of Arizona. To interview Senator Goldwater, ABC News Commentator, Howard K. Smith. MR. SMITH: Senator Goldwater, after the New Hampshire primary you said "I goofed up somewhere." Have you found ou.t where it was, and how are you going to correct it in California? SENATOR GOLDWATER: Whenever you lose an election, you have to assume that you goofed someplace. I think up there, frankly, it was an over-exposure, not to the peopl e, but to the press. I am not being critical of the press. But i t was the first time I had ever engaged in a campaign of this stature and I just didn't know how to cope with it. We had too many press conferences. We were too available and so forth, and so on. And the only changes we have made in California have been in that direction. We have cut down on the press conferences to practically zero, and we do more and more television and radio. your SMITH: Now in Oregon, you did just the opposite, you stopped campaign completely. Do you think that was a mistake? SENATOR GOLDWATER: Well, I think 1 t was a mistake, but it was a mistake I coul dn't help making. You see I think in Oregon more than any other state I had worked harder. I had raised over half a million dollars for the candidates up there over the last ten years. I had spoken time and time and time · In fact, the Lincoln Day dinner in February was the biggest Linco ln Day dinner in the history of Lincoln Day dinners in the country, and I was confronted with the problem of so many days, so much money, would I spend it in Oregon or in California, and I said "Well, if I don't have Oregon made now, I don't another visit or two up there will do it," so I took the chance and ·ent to California • MR. SMITH: Well, now the Lodge organization has said it is going to throw its support or try to, to Governor Rockefeller. Is that going to diminish your ch ances appreciably? {more) -2- SENATOR GOLDWATER: Well, I think i t is a little early to say, because we can't find any so-called Lodge blocks out there, any large groups of people who would be for Lodge. Now there are always in politics, as there are in this politi cal campaign , people who are not going to vote for me, and people who are not goi ng to vo te for Rocke£e l l er in California. They might have voted for Lodge . That is a factor we don' t know. Would those people now vote for Rockefeller because he represents Lodge, or will they just stay home? We don't know, frankly, what this will do . I am concerned a.bout it , but I am not concerned to the point that I am worried about it. MR. SMITH: Well, now a long time ago you said "California is the state to watch in these primary elections." Let me ask you about the only two possible outcomes of the California primary. If you were to lose to Rockefeller there, would you consider that you had lost the nomination - - would you give up? SENATOR GOLDWATER: No. No. We still have I think 15 or 16 state conventions to go until the convention in July, and many of those states, I feel, will go for me, regardless. We must expect, though, if we lose in California, that there will be a deterioration of the delegates we already have, but not to the point that my delegate strength would cease to be a factor . It would remain a factor . In fact, we expect to win California . I am not thinking of losing it , but you asked the question "if" and that would be my reaction. We would still be a force, be.cause, you see, if Rockefeller wins it, and assuming he can take his own delegates, he still has less than 200 delegates, where I have now well over 300 . MR . SMITH: Three hundred and what , can you tell me? SENATOR GOLDWATER : Well, I can ' t, because every day I hear about something else. I think it is around 312. I hear we pi cked up four in Vermont, but I have been pretty busy trying to get my Senate work caught up and I haven't had a chance to check on results . MR. SMITH: Well, let me ask you then about the opposite possibility . If you win in California, wil you consider that you've got it made , that the nomination is yours? SENATOR GOLDWATER: No, I won't, because it would still leave me short and where I have to pick up the delegates, that is rather tough country. I am thinking of Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts , even Ohio, to some extent, and Michigan to some extent . In other words, we will have cultivated our fields about as thoroughly as we could do it and we would then have to look to other pastures. MR. SMITH: The Goldwater paradox, Senator, that everybody is talking about and commenting on now, is that you are way, way ahead in convention delegates, that you are far a.head of anybody else, and at the same time, some primaries · which have been contested in the national polls show that you don't have a majority of popular support. Does that make you uncomfortable? Would you be uncomfortable accepting a nomination if that turned out to be the case? SENATOR GOLDWATER: Well, I don't think anybody would ever be uncomfortable accepting a nomination, but this isn't exactly true. I totaled up the votes the other day. Now where you vote for delegates, I received more votes than all the other candidates put together. Not by just a little bit, but it comes pret ty close to being two to one . And while the figures are not immense, I think the total Republican vote so far probably is close to three million and I have more by far than all of the other candidates put together . So it just isn't true that the popular vote isn't there. These delegates didn't get elected by people who didn't want to see me nominated. • .. SMITH: How about the states, though, where there has been a contest between organizations and you, there you haven't gained a majority. . • GOLDWATER: Well, that's true , but on the other hand in some state s where there could have been contests, like Illinois, Indiana, Texas , the opponents have just stayed out, with the exception or Stassen in Indiana and Margaret Chase Smith in Illinois, where she did a very fine job. (more) 3 . history In Nebraska, o f their there were write-ins, write-in patterns there. but t h e y held In f a c t , a MR. SMITH: p r e t t y much t o study of in the Republican Party this year, voting, is typical of over the years that I have been in politics. the the whole trend the trends we have had Well, Senator, one of the conspicuous developments lately has been that some of the Republican Party's best vote getters in the off-year elections of 1962, Senator Javits in New York, Senator Kuchel in California and some others, have indicated they would have a hard time supporting you if you were the nominee. What is your comment on the thought that you would split the party if you got the nomination? SENATOR GOLDWATER: Well, if the party is split because of my receiving the nomination, it will not be because of me or the conservative Republicans. It will be because of the radical Republicans who have already announced that they will not support me. But I'd like to set one thing clear about Senator Javits being a great vote getter. He is. But Margaret Chase Smith in plurality and this is what you measure, because Javits lives in the biggest state, when he wins he should win big -- pluralitywise, I think he was fifth on the list and I think Kuchel was well down the list, also. I don't downgrade their victories, they have won good victories. I am frankly disturbed that this element of the party would take this attitude when I have taken completely the opposite attitude, starting with the 1960 convention, where I urged people to work for Nixon even though they might not agree with him completely. And I'll back the choice of our party, and I will work for him. Just as I have raised money for Javits, just as I have raised money for Kuchel and gone into his state and worked to help Kuchel, I will continue to do that regardless of the barbs they throw at me. It is a little surprising, frankly, to have this happen, but c'est la guerre. :tfil. SMITH: Senator, you and Governor Rockefeller have been the hottest competitors. Now in 1960, a great many people, including me -- I think most of the nation -- were surprised that the Democratic struggle for the nomination for the Presidency ended with the two hottest competitors forming a ticket, Kennedy-Johnson. Do you think there is any possibility of a Goldwater-Rockefeller, or Rockefeller-Goldwater ticket? SENATOR GOLDWATER: No, there is not a possibility of me running for the Vice President with anybody. I just won't do it. If I am not nominated, I want to return to the United States Senate, and I am already laying plans, just in case we don't make it. My petitions are out in my state and they will be filed at the proper time and one of the nice things about this is that our primary isn't until well after the July convention of the Republican Party, so I am safeguarded in that respect. MR. SMITH: You have often talked of Mr. Nixon as being the logical man if you don't get it. You wouldn't be willing to be his Vice Presidential nominee? SENATOR GOLDWATER: No, with no desrespect cast on anybody, I just feel that I could do a better job for the country and for my state and for the West in the Senate than I could as Vice President. MR. SMITH: Well, for now, Senator, thank you, and we will be back in just a moment with more issues. (announcement) MR. SMITH: Senator, the news from South Vietnam, and indeed from all of Southeast Asia gets worse and worse with each passing day. I notice the Gallup Poll d that 75 percent of Americans were pleased with the way President Johnson has carried out policies. Do you think the South Vietnam situation menaces his position? SE NATOR GOLDWATER: I don't think as of right now it menaces his t I would say that Southeast Asia and Cuba are the two blackest o over · hoavering over his future. South Vietnam, in my opinion, lacks decision iecision has to be made sooner or later, or we are not going to win th ere clouds (more) -4- MR. SMITH: And what kind of a decision would you suggest? SENATOR GOLDWATER: I think the first decision is one that we are going to win. In other words, we are not just down there as advisers, we are down there with our boys, now, and the boys are getting shot. They are getting killed and we are losing equipment. I think the most reassuring thing to the men over there would be to put the United States government strongly behind what they are doing. And then I don't think you can ever win a defensive war and that is what we are fighting down there. If you look at the battlefield areas, they have been the same for several years, and mainly because the Red Chinese have access to unlimited supplies, plus those they take from our own troops, our own forces. I would strongly advise that we interdict supply routes wherever they be, either by sea, or most importantly through North Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia, and I believe this could be done in a way that would not endanger life and I believe it could be done in a way, after having consulted with the leading Red Chinese in North Vietnam, to the effect that we are stronger. We don't want to occupy any part of Southeast Asia. All we want to do is get this little war over with, and get our boys home and have peace over there and tell them that we are going to bomb_ the bridges, the roads and so forth and unless they acceed to stopping strategic deliveries over thoseroads and railroads, that we can step it up. I think those people understand what we would be getting at, and we should be doing it. MR. SMITH: Now a lot of supply lines seem to run in on the Laotian border, in any case, through jungles and along trails. How could you interdict those, with no good - SENATOR GOLDWATER: Well, it is not as easy as it sounds, because these are not trails that are out in the open. I have been in these rain forests of Burma and South China. You are perfectly safe wandering through them as far as any enemy hurting you. There have been several suggestions made. I don 1 t think we would use any of them. But defoliation of the forests by low yield atomic weapons could well be done. When you remove the foliage, you remove the cover. The major supply lines though I think would have to be interdicted where they leave Red China, which is the Red River Valley above North Vietnam and there, according to my studies of the geography, it would not be a difficult task to destroy those basic routes. MR. SMITH: Would you have to take action within Red China, on the Red Chinese side of the border? SENATOR GOLDWATER: You might have to, but we are confronted with that decision. Either that or we have a war dragged out and dragged out. A defensive war is never won. You fight a defensive war when your backs are to the wall and that is about what we face down there. If we decide to go into this war in a full-scale way, certainly we would have to make the decision on strategic supplies for the enemy at the same time. It is the way we won over Germany. We denied her oil, we denied her the fundamentals of strategic war and we won. MR. SMITH: Now you mentioned Cuba a moment ago as the Administration's other weak point in policy. Some time ago -- you have suggested in fact several times that we have an economic blockade of Cuba and let the refugees go free to attack Cuba. Now in a sense both of those things have begun. There is an embargo on Cuba, though it is not working 100 percent efficiently and the refugees have begun to attack. Are you satisfied with that? SENATOR GOLDWATER: I am very pleased with it. I think there is one other step though that we have to encourage and that would be the formation and recognition of one Cuban government in exile. You can't do business with four or five and having them form one government satisfactory to them and to us, give them our recognition, then go ahead with the plans that started under General Eisenhower, and that were carried forward under President Kennedy -and I hope and feel in my political bones, although I couldn 1 t give you any definite reasoning £or it, that President Johnson is also carrying these forward. MR. SMITH: Let me ask you about your policies in general. (more) The first SENATOR GOLDWATER: No, not completely, but I must agree with him on states rights and unfortunately too many members of the Senate and the House and too many Americans equate states rights with civil rights and there is no connection at all. In £act, there is only one civil right mentioned in the Constitution and that is the right to vote, and we have an amendment to take care of that, we have numerous laws to take care of that. But let's forget that . Before the state has turned over a power to the fedaral government, the state retains that prerogative. For example, on this Public Accommodations Bill, the states can enact those. I think we have 32 of them out of the 50 states, but they have never turned over to the federal government the power to do this, and the Congress in a very wrong approach in my opinion is using the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution to accomplish this. If this is correct, then the federal government doesn't have to ask the states about anything. They can just take the powers over and we become a centralized government. The same thing applies to Fair Emptoyment Practices Commission. This is a prerogative of a state and I would like to see the states do this. It is their right and the federal government should not take it. I mentioned earlier that I had changed my opinion on the states retaining the right to control elementary education, even in the face ofacourt order. I believe that an edict from a federal court could end these situations wherever they exist, but this Administration has been very reiuctant to try and do this. They want more law and I don't know what other law we can give them. MR. SMITH: Senator, there are so many things I want to ask you I am going to hurry on to the subject of poverty about which a great deal has been said. The last full statement heard from you on poverty was early this year before the Economic Club of New York in which you said "Most people who have no skill have no education for the same reason. They have low intelligence and low ambition." Now does that fit Appalachia where industries have died and left people out on a limb or some cities where Negroes distinctly do now have equal opportunities? SENATOR GOLDWATER: Well, you will notice I used the word "most." I believe that every unemployed man -- most unemployed men would rather be working than receiving a dole. Now we don't know why they are unemployed. The approach that I would like to use in this, as much as I resist federal studies, is a combination federal and academic study of why is it that a man doesn't want to work. I have one friend, for example, who is a Phi Beta Kappa, who absolutely will not work. Oh, he will go pick cotton, he will do menial jobs to get enough to get a few cans of beer, and live, but here is a brilliant man who will not work. On the other hand think of the men that you know and I know that didn't finish high school or didn't go to high school who are heads of big corporations. Now there has to be a difference in the motivation there, and I don't believe that a general federal approach to this without knowing why or what we are doing is going to result in anything. Poverty to me is a comparative situation. If the average annual income went to $100,000 a year, we would still have people who couldn't make 10,000. Now what are we driving at? We have laws on the book that can educate adults, very good laws. They have been working since 1916. But we still have poverty. There has to be a reason behind it and that is what I would like to find out. And there is a difference. A man who is not educated, a man who has no skill, with non-skilled jobs disappearing he is pretty hard put today. I'd like to help him by getting him to go to a vocational training school, but what about the man who says "I'm not going to do it." MR. SMITH: Senator, excuse me. Thank you for now just once more and in just a moment we will be back with more ISSUES AND ANSWERS. (Announcement) MR. SMITH: Senator, if you win the nomination, no matter what happens in the election you will be able to remold as leader of the Republican Party. What changes would you like to make in the party? Well, you have asked the $94 question. Briefly I don't believe it is wise in primary elections for the Republicans to be attacking Republicans. We should all be attacking the New Frontier at the present time . This is expected (more) SENATOR GOLDWATER: I would insist on the party being a party of unity. -7- of a minority party. We are more articulate opposition. opposition spelling the party of opposition. Therefore I would want Not just opposition for opposition's sake, but out the mistakes and what we would do instead. Then I would return responsibility to the party itself, by building up the strength again of the National Committee. This has deteriorated a lot through the years. I think the Republican Party, even though it is a minority party, has a definite place on the American political scene and I would like to devote the remaining years of my life to seeing what I can do about putting the party where I feel it should be for the best interests of our country. MR. SMITH: Well, that is a very well-phrased answer in a very brief time. Thank you very much, Senator Goldwater, for being here with us on ISSUES AND ANSWERS. THE ANNOUNCER: Our guest has been Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican of Arizona, a frontrunner in the Republican Presidential sweepstakes. Senator Goldwater was interviewed by ABC News Commentator Howard K. Smith. Next week at this same time ISSUES AND ANSWERS will bring you the Senator who had urged United States support.of the rebellion by Cuban exiles, Senator Thomas J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut. We hope you will be with us. for President Committee Committee FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 23, 1964 Statement by Senator Barry Goldwater, Los Angeles, California, May 23, 1964 Many friends and many advisors have asked that I devote the remaining days of this California primary campaign to direct attacks against the many misrepresentations, the smears, and even the 'hate' literature that has been circulated in the campaign. Even more odorous attacks, we are told, will come. These efforts to turn California into a political butcher shop have now become so pressing that I feel compelled to review my long-standing position on the matter and to remind my friends of it. Some in this primary election campaign have chosen to seek California votes from the gutter. I will continue to seek my support at the grass roots. I must caution, however, that some of the henchmen and hatchetmen in this "stop Goldwater" movement--many of whom are in no way associated with the Republican Party of this or any other state--have moved dangerously close to the absolute outer limits of public taste and responsibility. Meantime, I trust completely the standards of fair play and the common sense and common decency of the people of California. Most importantly, I hope that by thoughtfully and truthfully sticking to the issues in this campaign I can direct the attention and the energies of responsib1e Republicans toward our major mutual goal which is nothing less than the victory of our Party at the polls in 1964. Both former President Eisenhower and your own Richard Nixon have patiently born the brunt of the S8.ffie sort of attacks from the same sources in the past. I came to California committed to a cJ.ean fight and I intend to leave it the same way--win, l.ose, or draw. RecentJ.y, I had the opportunity personally to restate this intention to President Eisenhower and to promise that I would honor absolutely his good advice to all in the Party that the Party not be divided by fratricidal assassination attempts against the character of fellow Republicans. It is on the basis of my original committment of conscience, my promise to President Eisenhower, and my abiding and unalterable personal. distaste for the sort of wretched spectacJ.e we are seeing in California that I feel it necessary now to make this statement. ### for PresidentCommitt ee FOR RELEASE MONDAY PM's May 25, 1964 Excerpts of remarks by Senator Goldwater at Redding, California, Monday, May 25th Redding, Calif. -- I need your help. Fellow Republicans, I ask your help! I need and ask the help of every Republican in California who agrees with me on one simple point: that Lyndon Eaines Johnson can be beaten in 1964! I need the help and I ask the help of every Republican in California who wants to keep our party in one piece -- ready to beat Lyndon Johnson after our convention picks a candidate in July. All I can offer California is the chance to do that. My candidacy is not dedicated to defeating Republicans, it is not dedicated to poor-mouthing our Republican principles, it is not dedicated to back-biting our Republican candidates. My candidacy is dedicated to beating Lyndon Johnson. I think he can be beaten. I think he must be beaten. And I think he will be beaten. My candidacy is dedicated to restoring the pride of Americans at home and restoring respect for America abroad. All. I can offer Californians is a choice and a chance! The choice to fight our political opponents rather than among ourselves! The chance to win the election in 1964! The chance to win not only the White House, but the state house--not only the Congress, but the courthouse! Those are the things that a united Republican Party can do. Those are the things that a Republican Party with a national base--not just a factional base--can do. Those are the things that the Republican Party can do with a candidacy that is based on principles that can be heard and will be 1istened to North, East, West- -and South! Let me say it again. All I can offer Californians is a choice! I won't try to buy your votes. I won't resor1; to personal smears to scare your votes. I won't mis1ead and misquote to muddle your votes. I won't gang up with other candidates to swap your votes back and forth. I think that your California votes are worth more respect than just becoming political trading stamps. And I will not offer you a cry-baby candidacy that says do it my way or I won't play. If this election has got to be fought out smear against smear, and dollar against dollar then the .Republican Party will lose it, and Republican principles will lose it. If this election has to be fought out in the gutter, the worst thing of all is what you Californians will have lost: you will have lost the whole heritage of political decency. I can't appeal to you through a three million dollar political sideshow. {more) - 2 - All I can appeal to is the common sense of Californians, Californians, the sense of fair play among Californians. All I can offer 1s a choice. ### the common decency of for President Committ ee FOR RELEASE TUESDAY AM's May 26, 1964 Excerpts of remarks by Senator Earry Goldwater, Oakland Auditorium, May 25, 1964 Cakland, Calif.--I offer you the choice and the chance to reject the New Deal, Fair Deal -- call it what kind of deal you will -- the wheeler-dealer principles of red-tape and regimentation. I offer you, instead, and pledge to you instead, Republican principles of individual responsibility, individual initiative, and individual dignity. I offer the •. choice and the chance to reject the economic failures, fallacies, foolishness, and even fraud of the New Frontier. I offer the choice and the chance to reject the billions of dollars in new debt being planned by this Administration -- the billions of dollars of new spending for which eventually you will have to pay and pay and pay. I offer instead the choice of Republican principles of sound business, honest jobs, and dollars that are worth more than the 45 cent dollar of this Administration. I offer the Republican choice of turning on some lights at the White House -- lights of leadership, lights of conscience, lights of honesty and common sense. This I pledge you. I have undertaken this candidacy without commitments to any faction of party, to any vested interest of region, race, personal enrichment or riches, any class, or family. My only commitment is to my conscience. As President this would also be true -- where there is dishonesty, I would demand and get exposure and correction. Where there is deceit, I would demand and get straight talk and facts. Where there is unwarranted secrecy, white-wash, or cover-up, I would demand and get open disclosures. I trust the American people! I honor their standards of honesty and frankness and I would expect to see exactly the same standards in government even if it meant opening the closets of the White House itself and shaking out every political skeleton hiding there. And this I pledge you also. In the conduct of all affairs of government -- and particularly in its foreign affairs -- I would honor absolutely the principle of open covenants, openly arrived at. These are the things we should be discussing in this election. These are the things that matter. These are the things that mean the difference in our future and the future of our children. And in this respect, again. smear and spend. None of that. All I can offer is a choice. Not neon and tinsel, not - 2 - All I can offer is the choice and the chance to reject the wheel and deal, spend no-principle, no-win, and no-peace policies that have kept us in debt, war, and virtual government bondage almost steadily since the depression days of the 1930's. and elect, All I can offer is the Republican choice of peace through strength, the Republican choice of prosperity through work, investment, and incentive, and above all, the Republican dedication to freedom! ### for President:Commi ttee FOR RELEASE WEDNESDAY AM' s May 27, 1964 Excerpts of remarks by Senator Goldwater at Republican Workers Dinner, San Diego, Calif., May 26 San Diego, Calif. -- As President I would immediately seek to restore civil order so that our discussion ·. of civil rights could proceed with open hearts and minds. Today much of this discussion is being slammed shut by the violence which today substitutes for real progress. The street is no place for Americans to seek redress for their grievances. street is no place to oppose that redress either. The Nor can we honestly believe that laws alone will solve this problem. We must first make existing laws work. Years of real progress are at stake. haste. There could be tragic waste in misguided The tension we see between races is a matter of the heart. And that is where it must be solved. That is the only place it ever truly can be solved! And I say this: those who condone by their silence or openly encourage violence on either side, do a bitter disservice to their cause, bitterly delay real solutions, anddefame this nation. There is violence of a different sort that is done when politicians set any segment of the nation against any other: employees against employers, consumers against producers, the less fortunate against the more fortunate. The answer to progress in this land is an enlargement of opportunity for all. I reject, and Republicans always have rejected, executive actions which seek to provide opportunity for some by restricting or eliminating opportunity for others. We can and must grow and prosper together--not in compartments of political favor. In these areas, as in the others I have mentioned, all I can offer is a choice. The choice between special interests and the general interest. I say that the Republican Party is a party for all the people--without fear of or favors to any narrow interests who would sacrifice the general welfare to their special wants. ### •• t - or President Committee FOR RELEASE WEDNESDAY AM's May 27, 1964 Excerpts of remarks by Senator Barry Goldwater at Workers' Luncheon, Monterey, Calif., Tuesday, May 26th Monterey, Calif. -- I do not seek to divide either this party, this nation, or this world. In the world, I hold that we cannot forever remain half slave and half free. Freedoms strength of mind, materials, and morality must be used to spread freedom's word and cause, just as freedom's arms must be used to deter war. Freedom's victory can be ours in peace . In truth there can be no real and lasting peace without that victory. Let me remind all those who ask themselves the all-important question of who is most likely to let this nation drift or fall into war--let me remind all those who, as I do, are concerned about the future of their cbildren--let me remind you that history's most consistent lesson has been that strong nations are the ones best able to keep the peace and that weak nations are the ones most likely to feel the fire of war. I pledge frcm the depth of my heart and conscience that as President of this nation I would consider it my foremost duty to keep the peace and to keep freedom at the same time! I would keep this nation free and I would keep it strong. And I would seek a world in which, eventually, all nations could disarm in mutual trust and security. But I pledge this also. I would never let the guard of this nation drop so long as tyrants prevent, or subversion threatens a world of truly open societies. In the party, I have always worked for unity, always worked for the candidates of the party, always supported the principles of the party. I am ready and I am able, in my heart and in my conscience, to support my party fully and wholeheartedly now. let all who seek the Republican Party's support also pledge to support the Republican Party. ### for PresidentCommitt ee FOR RELEASE SUNDAY AM'S May 31, 1964 I SPEECH BY SENATOR BARRY GOLDWATER AT MEMORIAL DAY RALLY, KNOTT S BERRY FARM Saturday, May 30, 1964 Los Angeles, Calif. -- As are all Americans who have been touched by war in the past, you are deeply concerned now by the problems of peace. I have been in a war, too, and I am now deeply concerned by the problems of peace. One of the gravest elements of the problem is to even define or recognize peace in a world of long conflict and continuing crisis. The old criteria no longer apply is peace. We cannot say, as our ancestors did, that when the cannon Such silence gives only the illusion of peace. is silent there Today the weapons of war sound differently. The scratch of a pen at a treaty table may be of more significance than the roar of artillery massed hub to hub. The pounding of freighters on the high seas, engaged in economic warfare, may be of more significance than the roaring attack of a flotilla at flank speed. The silent subversion of a shaky government may be a greater defeat than the fall of a walled city. And, though the cannon is silent today, these other sounds of other warfare are clearly heard even though not fully recognized, I think, by the policies of this government at this time. We face today the very real possibility that the illusion of peace, the silence of the guns, will be mistaken for real peace. We have been tempted that way before. We have become complacent that way before. In the euphoria that followed the end of the Second World War we became complacent. After the tumult of the battlefield, the seeming calm led us to disband our armies, and prematurely begin beating our swords into plowshares. Rude awakenings followed. Those who had warned that the enemy was there all along were proven correct and a long build-up of our strength began again. Today, though the enemy has not changed, though his goals have not changed, though the peril has not changed, we face again the slow erosion of purpose, alertness, and preparedness that has so nearly proven ruinous in the past. We are beginning again to mistake the sounds of peace for the reality of peace. We are beginning to heed the lures of comfort rather than hear the voices of national need. We are beginning to chase will-o-the-wisp hopes while avoiding the real truths, in the real world, which we know in our hearts but try to avoid with our eyes. In the fashion of the day, with its emphasis on sweet dreams of an eternal status quo, we might be said co be forgetting the Alamo, and forgetting also the Maine, the Marne, the beaches of Normandy, and Okinawa, and Inchon. We are forgetting that peace, real peace, has always been held with resolution and strength and lost by indecision and unpreparedness. Wars are waged when weakness tempts an aggressor, not when he is confronted by power and purpose • •. - 2 - We can keep the peace in this world only so long as we k e e p o power, ur keep our purposes high, dedicated, and unmistakable. We risk the peace at every turn when the power declines, when the purpose deteriorates. when the enemy can mistake what we say and what we do. I cannot speak of these matters as simply academic exercises. They are too close to my heart and too close to the heart of my country. I cannot see what I regard as wrong things in high places and refrain from speaking. Such politeness would be a betrayal of conscience. I cannot divorce, for the sake of such politeness, the policies that I view as wrong from the men whom I view as wrong. I must ask your forebearance if I speak now in full and frank identification of what I regard as grave areas of mistaken policy and misplaced purpose. I charge that today this nation is following the most disastrous foreign policy in its history. What has this foreign policy achieved over all? It has been said that it has kept the peace. I say it has endangered the peace and that only the great strength built up under previous policy has, actually, kept the peace. Should that strengh wane, as some seem to be willing to see it wane, then a combination of weakness at home, and weakness abroad would invite ultimate disaster for this nation and for the hopes of freedom everywhere in the world. In my in hand. It is And there is no nation on earth book, the peace of the world and the defense of this nation go hand the destiny and the responsibility of this nation tokeep the peace. other way to do it than to remain as we today, are the strongest - in all ways, spirituallv , morally., economically and militarily. Those of us who live away from the coasts of this country are often accused of being isolationists - of wanting to close our eyes to the rest of the world. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We are not isolationists. The real isolationists are the men who can't see beyond the ballot box, who talk and .talk, but fear to act, who can only mumble when the American flag is torn down, trampled on., and spat upon. You and I want to hear someone speak up f or America in this troubled world. We know that the world cannot be inspired by turning out the lights in the White House. We know that the real need is to turn £!l some lights. We need more light at the White House., not less. We need more light around the world. The light of American leadership. The light of freedom. Now, however, a deepening shadow is being cast across our ability to keep the peace and sustain freedom. Our free world alliances are crumbling, as is the case with NATO. Our free world problems fester., as with Cuba, Berlin, the fighting in Vietnam, and the rantings of the dictatorship in Indonesia. All the world can see what is happening in those areas. All Americans can understand it. And I feel that most Americans want to change it. There is another area where it is sometimes hard to see beneath the surface, beneath the managed news, to the truth. That area is the state of our military defenses; the defenses upon which the peace of this nation and the security of every man, woman and child in the free world basically rests. Today, as I repeatedly have said, we are the strongest nation on earth. And that is why w e hwhat ave peace there is in the world. It has been that way throughout history. The strong have kept the peace. The weak have lost it. It has been that way throughout our own time. Remember if you will that it was in a time similar to this one that we were so tiea up in domestic spending programs that we armed our soldiers with wooden guns and cardboard tanks. it was in such a time that we zig-zagged into the Second World War when., with sufficient strength ahead of time, we might never had h!£ to fight that tragic war! ha - 3 - Remember that under a different leadership we used our might to stop threats to the peace. When we moved resolutely in the Formosa Straights we did not come c loser to war - we moved closer to peace; peace t hrough strength . . When we sent our Marines to Lebanon we moved closer to peace. This acti on was not called warmongering or reckless. It was not war mongering. It was ,!!il reckless. It was peace-mongering of the only effective kind. It was responsible and it did not risk war. Why? Because this nation was strong. Its leadership was strong. Its will was strong - and the enemies of peace and freedom knew it! What do they know today? They know that some Americans don ' t even feel that foreign policy is important enough to be debated. It 1 s all cut and dried, they say. And they even offer secret briefings to try to explain it. Well, I rejected those briefings out of hand. I say that every United States citizen should now be demanding that we have less secrecy in our foreign policy not more secrecy. The same thing is true of our defense policy. We want less figure juggling, less double-entry bookkeeping, less news management. We must have plain talk, honest figures, and frank discussion. I'll speak plainly about these matters. This nation today is being disarmed. Not a single new major s trategic weapons system has been introduced in the past three years. This means that America stands still while the Soviet is free to advance. We are being kept from the development of defenses against a future threat or even attack from weapons orbiting in nearby space. But we know that the Soviet is looking ahead. We know that one of the Soviet's most distinguished weapons engineers has been elevated to the rank of Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers. Was that for peaceful work? Of course not. We know that even the new President of the Soviet Academy of Sciences is an outstanding figure in the development of missile and space technology. We know, in short, that the Soviet has its military eyes fixed very firmly on the possibilities of using space as a future threat to the free world. And yet we do nothing in a substantial way to head them off. to protect this nation and the free world against this future threat. We do nothing Today, more than 90 percent of the nuclear deterrent power of the entire free world rides in the bomb bays of America's Strategic Air Command. As we go into the 1970's however, there are plans to leave us a Strategic Air Command with no new bombers, with a vanished force of old ones, and with just a tattered remnant of the strength with which it has been able to keep the peace so far. I say that the free world deserves better planning than that. I say that the men who man this great command for peace deserve a better chance than that! I say your children deserve a better chance - a chance to live at peace and in freedom and not under the terrible cloud of a war that we cannot prevent and could not win. The first order of business, in this field, for a new American President should be to guarantee that our military force has the best weapons to give us the best chance to deter war and keep the peace. - 4 - I say that this could be done without hurting our domestic economy. I say that is could be done without provoking the Soviet. It is weakness that encourages the Soviet. It is strength that discourages them. It is strength that holds the only hope of finally convincing them that their goals of world conquest must be dropped, that the aspirations of free men must be respected, and that no political fanaticism can be permitted in this century to build and maintain a wall of tyranny around the citizens of 17 nations. Where has weakness brought this world? Since the end of the Second World War, twelve nations have fallen to Communism, 800 million people have been dragged behind the Iron Curtain. The years immediately after the Korean War saw freedom holding firm. But since then, in the past three years alone - Laos has been torn apart, Indonesia has been set afire, Africa has been plunged into bloddy turmoil, Latin America has been terrorized, and South Vietnam has been soaked with American blood while being sacrificed to indecision. Many of you have read, in U.S. News and now i n L magazine, ife the agonizing letters of Captain Edwin Shank, written from Vietnam - written from the heart of a soldier who was sickened by the neglect of his govemment. Captain Shank was killed in Vietnam. He was not killed offering technical advice to the Vietnamese. He was killed fighting for freedom in Vietnam. This Memorial Day must be dedicated to men such as Captain Shank as well as to those who fei°l before. Captain Shank, in painful detail, tells of the ancient aircraft with which he and his fellow pilots were forced to fight and in which they died, and still die! Is it our military leaders who have sent our flyers into battle with such old and inadequate equipment? No. The politicians have done it. Let me quote to you from a letter that is, in its way, every bit as shocking as any written by Captain Shank. It was written by the Assistant Secretary of State, Frederick Dutton, to a colleague of mine in the Congress. Just listen to this: "We believe the equipment currently being used by American personnel and provided to the Vietnamese is safe and adequate for the job." Now listen to Captain Shank: and undergunned." "We are getting beat. We are undermanned Listen to Captain Shank again: "We're using equipment and bombs from World War II and it's not too reliable ... the Air Force hasn't used any of this equipment since Korea •.•. Lost two guys today ••. the only guess is, the airplane just came apart." And what was that airplane? It was a B-26, a relic of the Second World War! Now whose judgment do you respect in this? A hero who died for his country or a State Department spokesman! Officially, they say that we are using obsolete equipment in Vietnam because of the Geneva conventions which were supposed to bring peace to that area! What peace! And what respect has the enemy shown to those conventions? When will this, the mightiest nation on earth, stop sacrificing the lives of its men to the whims of its politicians. I charge that the death of men like Captain Shank, sent to die in obsolete planes, must lie heavily upon the conscience of the defense and foreign policy planners who have directed the failure in Vietnam so far. - s How many more Captain Shanks will have to die before we call a halt to the policies of failure and defeat? How much more will freedom around the world have to suffer before we call a halt to retreat from reality and responsibility in foreign policy? How much more will war be risked in a pell-mell rush to disarm and in failure to provide new defenses? When will America turn to the sort of leadership that has always kept the peace in the past? I say that America is ready for that change today! And if we have that change, we will move closer to the greatest day of all the day an American President tells Nikita Khrushchev or his successor: You are wrong. Our children will not live under socialism or communism. Your children will live under freedom. for PresidentCommitteee I ::. FOR RELEASE SUNDAY 12 PM June 7, 1964 COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS BY SENATOR BARRY GOLDWATER PENNSYLVANIA MILITARY COLLEGE, CHESTER, PA. Sunday, June 7, 1964 Chester, Pa. -- In our struggle against Communist Imperialism, in this world torn by conflict, what do we Americans really champion? What do we really believe? What do we truly stand for? Is the rest of the world, friends and enemies alike, getting a true picture of our·. national character, our national purposes? I don't think there is a single person here today who doubts that there is throughout the world a deep-lying misunderstanding about the fundamental aims-the fundamental philosophy--of the American people. Our own leadership, our own publi cists and self-styled spokesmen, have done their worst to spread a false and distorted image. They have misread our national history and misrepresented the character of our people. They have glorified our great material achievements--and make no mistake about it, we have every right for real pride in our material abundance--but they have overlooked that which has made it possible The story of America and of our material accomplishments is the story of men with deep spiritual motivations. It is the record of men who sought freedom to pursue their own ideals, to live their own lives, as the children of God. Some historians, blinded by materialistic considerations, have written about my own State of Arizona and the whole West as though this vast area was opened only as a result of men driven by a desire for gain. They have ignored the real story -- the story of pioneers with the spiritual and moral backbone to overcome impossible material obstacles and thus to carve a new civilization out of the wilderness. I think, for example, of the Mormons whose spiritual strength brought a whole desert into bloom. I think, indeed, of my own grandfather and men and women of his generation who struggled to create a new life and a new opportunity for themselves in the American West. And I keep reminding myself that it is not possible to live forever off their accomplishments: it is up to us t o replenish the stock of moral and spiritual capital. It is up to us to renew their dedication to the promise of freeedom. Yet, around the world, a mail-order catalog is represented as the essence of the American Dream--a sort of materialist substitute for the Bible. Somehow the idea has gotten abroad that the way to share the American ideal is to become bigger and fatter and more luxurious. People are beginning to believe that to be American is simply to have more food and more complex gadgets. Presented with such misrepresentations, is it any wonder --in Asia and Africa, even in Latin America and Europe--are asking "what, after all, is the difference between the Communists and the both tell us that the meF-ning of life can be summed up in material military superiority. What realchoice do we have?" .' - that many people themselves, Americans? They prosperity and -2- I submit that we Americans have been our own worst apologists. Are we really nothing better than the world's most successful mat- erialists? Do we genuninely believe that the test of a nation's v rtue and greatness is its Gross National Product? Are wall-to-wall carpets and advanced weapons systems the be-all and end-all of American civilization? Do we, in short, truly believe in anything beyond the material aims of the Communists? If not, why bother to oppose them? Why not join them? But these are, I deeply believe, gross and utter misrepresentations. I cannot agree that material prosperity and armed might are the benchmarks of personal and national greatness. No "standard of living," in and of itself, is worth fighting for and dying for. Goodness and truth are not determined by the size of our nuclear arsenal-- even though this arsenal•is essential· to their preservation. I submit that we Americans, and our Judaeo-Christian and Western civilization, stand for ·nobler truths and for more -enduring values. We have in the past. And we must once more. I say to you, if you must choose, it is better to be poor and free than to be snug and a slave. It is better to live in peril, but with justice, than to . live unjustly on a summit of unchallenged material power. It is better to stand up as a man, troubled with doubts and beset by dangers, than to lie low as a satisfied animal. And I say that it is time for us to tell our allies, and our enemies, and ourselves, just what we Americans are ready to sacrifice and fight for. This nation does not live for the sake of butter nor for the sake of guns. The United States of America has for its moral object the dignity of man. And for its political aim, it affirms ordered freedom -- liberty under God and under the law -- with justice for all. I think it is impossible to maintain freedom and order and justice without religious and moral sanctions. And surely it is not possible for man to enjoy true dignity without a model that is more than human and a hope that is more than earthly. Man is made for eternity. Every human being is an individual person, made in the image of God. And thus every man enjoys certain natural rights, just as he must bear the burdens of responsible choice. We seem, these days, ashamed to confess these beliefs and this faith. We seek to conceal our moral and cultural heritage as something old-fashioned and irrational. We have made the wall of separation between church and state so high and so rigid as to threaten the spiritual foundations of the American nation and the cause of freedom. And we have come perilously close to reducing the American Dream to a pale carbon-copy of the Communist world view. We must, once more, draw sharp and clear our fundamental difference from the Communists. The great gulf between the American Republic and the Soviet Union is a moral and spiritual Grand Canyon. The Communists say that man is a machine, who exists to have his belly filled, who . be manipulated and altered and, if need be, liquidated for the sake of efficiency. Man in this image does not need or want freedom. He wants only creature comforts and the security of imposed authority. But to the American who has faith in his national traditions and the wisdom of his ancestors, who denies that our civilization is morally or intellectually bankrupt, man is something altogether different. Man was made to know God and to love Him, and to live in His image. And freedom, ordered liberty, is the birthright of every creature of God. Without freedom, man could not choose between good and evil. He could not become fully and truly human. And no wordly power is morally entitled to treat man as an animal, as a pawn in some social chess-game. -3This, I submit, is the stone-wall of demarcation between us -- between the Communists and all who respect and cherish freedom. The material conception of man and the spiritual conception of man cannot finally be reconciled. Between Communists and those who believe in a transcendent spiritual order there can be no enduring compromise. More than a century ago, Abraham Lincoln declared that this nation could not endure half free and half slave. Today, that solemn truth embraces the whole world. The competition between the Communists and the Free World is not being decided by living-standards or even by superiority in weapons. Not by these things alone. The issue will finally be determined -by the power of conviction: the conviction of men who acknowledge their dependence on God, or the conviction of materialists who detest anything higher than themselves. And if our faith and our culture are to prevail-- if our nation is to be secure -- we must take our stand forthrightly on certain moral truths and ancient ways. First, we must stand for the brotherhood of man, whose only enduring basis is common assent to the fatherhood of God. Second, we must stand for individual freedom, whose essence is the right and the duty of moral choice. Third, we must stand for our traditional principle of justice, which assures to every man the things that are his own by nature and by right. Fourth, we must stand for charity, which is the source of a true sense of mutual toleration and interdependence. Fifth, we must stand for the wisdom of our ancestors, for sound authority and experience -- what Edmund Burke once called "the bank and capital of the ages." Sixth, we must stand for variety and diversity, which includes the right of men and of nations to differ, within one encompassing framework of shared values. And finally, we must stand for honor and for the dignity of every human person. This brief catalog by no means exhausts the roster of our duties and our first essential principles. But it does suggest the guide-lines -- for your generation as for mine, and for all Americans who would understand the foundations of this Republic and would thus preserve it. It suggests the broad approach and the viewpoint that I would commend to you -- a conservative position in this present crises of our beliefs and our very fate. And I do not exaggerate when I say that our freedom, our nation, and our civilization are at stake. It is their essence that is now under attack -that which gives value and meaning to our lives and future hopes. This is not a conservatism of suspicion, or selfishness, or smug complacency. I speak of the constructive, the responsible conservatism, in our own best tradition, of Washington, Adams, and Lincoln. It is founded upon belief in a God who has given us our nature, our rights, and our duties. It is founded upon belief in a freedom which is moral in origin, and which looks to our full development as individual persons, with each man and woman living according to his own free choice. This is more than an ocean and continent apart -- it is a universe apart from the deadening slave-equality of Marx and Lenin and Nikita Khrushchev. And yet, the real dividing line in the modern world is not between -called liberals on the one hand and totalitarians on the other. It is not between all Americans and !!:ll captive-citizens of the Communist World. (more) - 4 - Instead, i t is between all those on the one hand who believe in a transcendent order and an enduring human nature and, on the other, all those who would treat man as an anima1, as a creature of appetite -- to be dealt with according to the rigid blue-prints of the social planners. The division runs deeper than political boundaries. It cuts straight across the lines of the Iron and Bamboo Curtains themselves. What, then, do we stand for? What must we stand for? If we are true to our heritage and to ourselves, we stand for order and freedom and justice, founded upon religious conviction. Our prosperous economy, our technoligical achievements, our military establishment -- all these are by- products, at bottom, of religious convictions and of belief in the dignity of man. These material things are instruments of our faith. If we fail to stand by these deep enduring principles -- then our enemies will indeed bury us. And we will deserve to be buried. But if we are strong in our faith and correspondingly strong in our preparations, if we have the courage to defend our convictions, then nothing and no one will deter us. The Communists, as we know from long and bitter experience, respect just one thing: power. And the power of spirit and of belief is greater even than the power of weapons. The two together -- the one held in check and at the ready service of the other -- are all but invincible. If we remain strong and resolute, demanding freedom from the Communists rather than yielding timidly before their incessant pressure, we can win without war -- without devastation and without the final holocaust. And the victory of which I speak is the victory of freedom; everywhere in the world, and for all men and all nations. It is victory for the sort of world in which nations like ours can live and prosper. I firmly believe that the nature of things is on our side. The Communists are operating upon false principles, upon lies concerning the nature of man and the good society. And anyone who lives by false principles must ultimately betray himself. Men and women are not the mere animals and puppets that the Communists would have them be. And even under the most mercilous tyranny, human nature cannot forever be denied. If America stands resolute -- if we stand prepared -- we can help the oppressed to move toward a decent social order. We can expand and extend the frontiers of freedom. Within the core of the Communist World itself -- within the Soviet Union andChina -- the more energetic and talented natures cannot be suppressed forever. If we continue, by our strength and our determination, to prevent the leaders of Communist Imperialism from establishing world dominion, these better natures will ultimately work their way toward order and freedom and justice. With our help and encouragement, and with our example to spur them, I deeply believe that the captive peoples everywhere in the world can ultimately be restored to self-determination and to freedom. But if we are beguiled by the illusions of co-existence and of peaceful accommodation, if we falter in our resolution and our strength -- then we will have failed these people. We will have failed the cause of freedom. And we will have been false to ourselves. I am convinced that the American people do not intend to fail. What, then, can any of us do? Perhaps you are asking, "what can I do?" There are many tasks, and many sacrifices, that you must make if we areto win our ultimate victory over the powers that would destroy and enslave us. You will be called on for sacrifices of time and money and comfort. But the first and essential order of business is to grasp clearly the principles that govern the moral and spiritual order -- and then stand to ]2l, them. (more) This task probably will make you neither rich nor powerful. I t will almost surely mean a harder and more challenging life than if you were content to live as cowards or as slaves. But the ultimate reward is great: the consciousness that you have fulfilled yourselves as human persons, in the casue of truth and justice and of man as God meant him to be. And then we will have moved closer to the greatest reward of all -the day when the whole American people, speaking through the resolute leadership they deserve, will tell Nikita Khrushchev or his successor: You are wrong -- you and your kind. Our children will not live under Communism. Your children will live under freedom. ### for PresidentC ommit tee FOR RELEASE TUESDAY PM's June 16, 1964 SPEECH BY SENATOR BARRY GOLDWATER, TEXAS STATE CONVENTION, DALLAS, TEXAS. If anyone wants to know why and how we are going to win in 1964, let him come here and get his answer. We are going to win. because we are now truly a national Party. We are no longer a Party that has to write off one great section of this nation, the South. From the Courthouse to the Congress, we are going to concede nothing. Here in the South this year, for the first time in .American history, Republican candidates are going to contest more than 70 Congressional Districts that have always before gone by default -- and the Democrats will know they have been in the fight of their lives! can and The Republican Party can win the South win in 1964. win the nation in 1964 fil1l The Republican Party Let me put that another way just so that one of the most important political facts of life won't be missed by any Republican -- anywhere in this land: The Republican Party can win in 1964 only if it wins substantial support in the South. The Democrats know this. Let us n ever forget it. I, for one, do not intend to.forget it. And whatever the dopesters and pollsters say -- whatever we hear from the doom-shouters i n bparties o t h -I intend to lead .2:ll_ the candidates of our Party to victory, North and South, East and West in November. I intend to lead a united Party on a platform of principle -- the the sa principle m e in every part of this nation. same platform and I mean principles of leadership -- principles which will preserve our Federal Republic -- principles of respect for Constitutional government, for law and order. I mean the principles that look upon violence in the streets, anywhere in this land, as the wrong way to resolve great moral questions -- the way that will d e s liberties t r of o ally our people. the I come before you today to make no sectional appeals. The issues now confronting our nation go beyond any one section or any special interest. They go right to the heart of America's destiny as a free and Constitutional Republic. And they involve the hopes of freedom, everywhere in the world. In my book, the peace of the world and the defense of this nation go hand in hand. It is the destiny and the responsibility of this nation to keep tne peace . And there is no other way to do it than to remain as we are today -the strongest nation on earth, spiritually and,morally, economically and militarily. (more) - 2 - Those of us who l.ive away from the coasts of this country are often accused of being iso1ationists -- of wanting to close our eyes to the rest of the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are n,Q,!, isolationists. The real isolationists are the men who can't see beyond the ballot box, who talk and talk, but fear to act, who can only mumble when the American flag is torn down, trampled one, and spat upon. You and I want to hear someone speak up for America in this troubled world. We know that the world cannot be inspired by turning in the White House . out the lights We know that the real need is to turn .Q.!l some lights. We need more light at the White House, not less. We need more light around the world. The light of American leadership. The light of freedom. Today, as I have said repeatedly, we are the strongest nation on earth. And that is why w e hwhat ave peace there is in the world. peace. It has been that way throughout history. The strong have kept the The weak have lost it. It has been that way throughout our own time. Remember if you will that it was in a time similar to this one that we were so tied up in domestic spending programs that we armed our soldiers with wooden guns and cardboard tanks. It was in such a time that we zig-zagged into the Second World War when, with sufficient strength ahead of time, we might never have had to fight that tragic war! Remember that under a different leadership we used our might to stop threats to the peace. When we moved resolutely in the Formosa Straits, we did not come closer to war -- we moved closer to peace, peace through strength. When we sent our Marines to Lebanon we moved closer to peace. This action was not called war-mongering or reckless. It was nQi war-mongering. It was not reckless. It was peace-mongering of the only effective kind. It was responsible and it did not risk war. Why? Because this nation was strong. Its leadership was strong. Its will was strong - and the enemies of peace and freedom knew it! I'll speak plainly about these matters. This nation today is being disarmed. Not a single new major strategic weapons system has been introduced in the past three years. This means that .America stand:J still while the Soviet is free to advance. We are being kept from the development of defenses against a future threat from weapons orbiting in nearby space. But we know that the Soviet is looking ahead. We know that one of the Soviet's most distinguished weapons engineers has been elevated to the rank of Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers. Was that for peaceful work? Weknow that even the new President of the Soviet Academy of Sciences is an outstanding figure in the development of missile and space technology. We know, in short, that the Soviet has its military eyes fixed very firmly on the possibilities of using space as a future threat to the free world. And yet we do nothing in a substantial way to head them off. We do nothing to protect this nation and the free world against this future threat. (more) Today. entire more fr world e e rides than 90 percent in the bom b of bays the nuclear d e t e r r e n t power of the of America ' s Strategic Air Command. As we go into the 1970's, however , t here a r e plans Co mmand with ll2. new bomb e rs, · with a vanished force tattered remnant so far. of to leave us a Strategic Air old o nes , and with just a of the strength with which i t has been able to keep the peace I say that the free world deserves better planning than that . I say that the men who man this great command for peace deserve a better chance than that! I say your children deserve a better chance -- a chance to live at peace and in freedom and not under the terrible cloud of a war that we cannot prevent and could not win. The first order of business, in this field, for a new American President shoula be to guarantee that our military force has t h e bweapons est to give us the best chance to deter war and keep the peace. I say that this could be done without hurting our domestic economy. It is weakness that encourages the Soviet. It is strength that discourages them. I say that it could be done without provoking the Soviet. It is strength that holds the only hope of finally convincing them. that their goals of world conquest must be dropped, that the aspirations of free men must be respected, and that no political fanaticism can be permitted in this century to build and maintain a wall of tyranny around the citizens of 17 nations. Where has weakness brought this world? Since the end of the Second World War, twelve nations have fallen to Communism, 800 million peole have been dragged behind the Iron Curtain. The years immediately after the Korean War saw freedom hold firm. But since then -- in the past three years alone -- Laos has been torn apart, Indonesia has been set afire , Africa has been plunged into bloody turmoil, Latin America has been terrorized, and South Vietnam has been soaked with American blood while being sacrificed to indecision. Many of you have read, in U.S. News and now i f L magazine i f e, the agonizing letters of Captain Edwin Shank, written from Vietnam -- written from the heart of a soldier who was sickened by the neglect of his government. Captain Shank was killed in Vietnam . He was not killed offering technical advice to the Vietnamese. He was killed fighting for freedom in Vietnam. Captain Shank, in painful detail, tells of the ancient aircraft with which he and his fellow pilots were forced to fight and in which they died, and still die! Is it our military leaders who have sent our flyers into battle with such old and inadequate equipment? No. The politicians have done it. Let me quote to you from a letter that is, in its way, every bit as shocking as any written by Captain Shank. It was written by the Assistant Secretary of State, Frederick Dutton, to a colleague of mine in the Congress. Just listen to this: "We believe the equipnent currently being used by American personnel and provided to the Vietnamese is safe and adequate for the job." manned - Now listen to Captain Shank: undergunned. '' "We are getting beat. We are und.er- Lis t en to Captain Shank again: "We're using equipment and bombs from · World War II and it's not too reliable •.• the Air Force hasn't used any of this equipment since Korea • • • Lost two guys today ••• the only guess is , the airplane just came apart." And what was that airplane? It was a 13-26, a relic of the Second world War! Now whose judgment do you respect in this? A hero who died for his country -- or a State Department spokesman! (more) - Officially, 4 - they say that we are using obso1ete equipment in Vietnam because of the Geneva conventions which were supposed to bring peace to that area! What peace! And what respect has the enemy shown to those conventions? When will this, the mightiest nation on earth, stop sacrificing the lives of its men to the whims of its politicians? I charge that the death of men like Captain Shank, sent to die in obsolete planes, must lie heavily upon the conscience of.the defense and foreign policy planners who have directed the failure in Vietnam so far. How many more Captain Shanks will have to die before we call a halt to these policies of failure and defeat? How much more will freedom around the world have to suffer before we call a hal t to retreat. from ·reality and responsibility . in foreign policy? How much more will war be risked in a pell-mell rush to disarm and in a failure to provide new defenses? When will America turn to the sort of leadership that has always kept the peace in the past? I say that America is ready for that change today! And if we have that change, we will move closer to the greatest day of all -- the day an American President tells Nikita Khrµshchev or his successor: You are wrong. Our children will not live under socialism. or communism. children will live under freedom. Your ### for President t Committee FOR RELEASE TUESDAY AM's June 16 , 1964 Speech by Senator Barry Goldwater, Statler Hilton Hotel, Grand Ballroom, Dallas, Texas · What better place than Texas to talk about my favorit subject: Lyndon Baines Johnson! I want to enlist your help in getting him out of Washington and back into the television business. Maybe we can stand a Johnson monopoly in Texas when it comes to television. But this nation cannot stand a Johnson monopoly when it comes to fiscal responsibi:.li ty. And there is no better state in which to make this clear than right here in Texas. I think that Texans of both Parties are ready to reject Lyndon's policies of debt at home and weakness abroad. The signs of this Administration's foreign policy failures litter the international landscape. Just look at the most obvious ones. NATO, the instrument which I have always regarded as the greatest guardian of the peace ever conceived, lies paralyzed thanks to the fumbling surgery of this Administration . NATO needs a responsible Republican administration so that, properly armed, it can serve again as the great shield of peace. Southeast Asia, ripped apart by lhis Administration's terrible mistake in Laos, is torn further by this Administration's failures in Vietnam. The problems of Southeast Asia need a responsible Republican administration to bring order, determination and -- let me say it loud and clear, for I know that Texans understand this kind of talk -- to bring victory for freedom in Southeast Asia. In the United Nations, this Administration's ineptitude had permitted dangerous drift and decay to set in. The United Nations, to serve its great original purposes, needs a strong American voice to speak up for the demands of responsibility, to speak against tyranny and chaos. A Republican administration would provide that voice and return the U.N. to its original purposes rather than letting it become a new tower of Babel. In La.tin America, this Administration's half-hearted stand aginst Communnism still leaves a continent divided, fearful, and in doubt. Even in the crucial matter of Cuba, anxious Latins must know that the decisions upon which their futures rest are being made by an Administration that gears every one of those decisions to t he urgencies of domestic politics alone. What basis for · continuing, and concerted action is there in such cynical planning as {more) . . . the The list world i t s el£. is as long as the world I will not belabor i t . matters very much closer t:o home. is wide. Instead, And the list is as appal I a s k t h a t you consider with me Matters which, unfortunately, are not as appa- rent as the foreign policy failures of this Administration. I submit, for your con sid era tion , the economics of this Ad mini strati on • And I charge that these economic actions are bankrupt in concept, bankrupt in re- sult, and bankrupt in responsibllity. Bankrupt in concept ---because this Administration persists in fastening a wartime tax structure on the nation. --bacause this Administration persists in economic planning that was designed during and because of the great Depression --and finally because this Administration persists in misu nd erstanding the free enter prise system, reiying on government programs rather than individual initiative to fuel the fires of our economy. Bankrupt in result -.- -because this Administration, despite its glib talk of frugality, is heading toward a staggering addition to our national debt, perhaps as much as ten billion dollars at precisely the time when we should be balancing our budget, not digging ourselves deeper and deeper into the red. Bankrupt in responsibility ---because this Administration seeks to be all things to all men, in appearance, while following its spendthrift course without real deviation. At the outset it was apparent that this Administration's notion of fiscal responsibility went no deeper than the wheeler-dealer mentality of a card sharp. Claims of savings were made when, actually, large amounts of spending had been crowded into the previous fiscal year, when tricky bookkeeping devices had been used to make things look good, and while proposals were made to sell off billions of dollars worth of government assets which would be counted in the budget as cuts in spending! And worst of all, this Administration has adopted, as a firm policy, the very lack of responsibility which says, in effect, that continued and huge budget deficits are now to be our way of life. · I charge that this Administration's devotion to debt and to spending is buying present popularity by placing future prosperity under a heavy mortgage. And I pledge that my first and foremost fiscal principle as President of the United States would be to bring our budget toward and finally into balance in such times as these. This is no academic pledge based upon sterile economic theory. It has prof ound meaning to our entire way of life. It has in it the basis of the great chv choiceswe are being asked to make in this election -- or, at least, that I hope we will be asked to make in this election. Our present trend in spending and taxing can continue, of course, for some years to come. Going as things are, however, we might within a decade find a full one-third of our entire gross national product-consumed-by taxes. And this would surely be a critical point. Look at it this way: there is very little real scope left in our present system to expand government programs while still preserving the rest of our economic system intact, or even relatively intact. we are ' - In fact, if we do want to preserve the sort of economic system with which the trends of the past three decades, the trends toward , • familiar - 3 - will have to be reversed A d I ttrends k . • n say that the evidence strongly suggests that 0 make a real difference, these trends will have to be changed within the next two American pres.1dentia1 Administrations. If these trends are not reversed, it the spending and the debt are not reversed -- in short, if this Johnson hand-me-down version of the New Deal is not reversed -- our entire economic character as a nation is going t o htoachange. ve Let me put it as bluntly as possible and pray that it will be understood as clearly as possible by as many Americans as possible: If we continue to enlarge the power and the purse of the Federal government at the rate we are now enlarging both, we will have to institute a new economic system - - we will ha v e to adopt a form of U.S. socialism within the next sev eral Presidential terms. Even if we do nothing more than continue to augment Federal taxes gradually and avoid major new programs, the trend of government financing clearly indicates that the change from free enterprise to a form of socialism will have been made by the mid-1970's. Argue if you will, the years or the percentages involved, but the over-riding facts are clear: this nation cannot continue to focus its economic power in Washington indefinitely without basically and radically changing its entire economic environment. There is no way to harness the sort of national debt this Administration is building without instituting new national economic controls. There is no way to enlarge the public spending, as this Administration plans to do, without planning also to enlarge the power of the central government. A government that will not live within its means must eventually find ways to make you live within its means and meaning -- and this, I urge you to realize, must mean a change from what we have to some form of state control over all our . money and all our property -- and all our .jobs, and all our savings. We will decide, in this coming election, much more than just details of economic policy, forlevels of taxation, or percentages of this or that level of this or that economic indicator. We will decide our economic future, fully and fatefully. This is the message that Republicans should be carrying across the nation this year. This is a message that means something. This is more than a petty haggling about this or that program. Let the people of America be fully aware that what we are talking about this election year is the most important economic decision of our lifetime, even of our hi story. Are we going to preserve the free enterprise system, or are we going to follow the dreary path of socialism that has blighted the future of so many other nations around the world ? I say that our free economy is too vigorous, too young to die I I say that the miracles it has produced, the envy of the whole world, can be produced again and even more brilliantly if we will just have the faith, the courage, and the will to let it work -- and the spunk ourselves to make it work! ! But I repeat that unless the trend of government debt, the trend that will cost us as much as ten billion dollars this year alone, unless that trend is not just stopped -- but reversed! -- this nation will inevitably have to abandon its economic freedoms and line up, hat in hand, to join such socialist nations as India, or those of the Soviet world, in eking out the cold, gray existence which is all that socialism ever has delivered. Continue the o f spending and debt ·•---···--·- _ nistration, no matter its split-level words, and there can be no more place for the give-and-take of union negotiations. No, government arbitration eventually will have to replace that economic freedom. Continue the trend and investment will no longer be the fuel for growth and the stake for individual enterprise. No, government plans will demand government controls over savings, over profits, over re-investment. · Go down the list and the story is the same. Continue the trend and we must slowly abandon our economic system and all that has gone with it. There is no other, no more pleasant reading possible from an Administration which, in good time timt3, plunges deeper into debt -- no more pleasant reading possible from an Administration which boasts of a tax cut even while noting cost of living increases which, if continued, will totally wipe out that tax cut. No! This is a time of economic decision. This is a time for Americans of all Parties to ask not which programs they do o: do not want -- this is the time ·to ask something far more basic: what sort of economic future do you want? And remember this also; and let Republicans try to remind all Americans of it -- there is no solace in just slowing the trend. That won't avoid eventual government control of all our jobs, all our property, all our production. No. Only by reversing the trend can we preserve what we have and restore our ability to move ahead • in the way we have proven, in the way we have prospered. And I am one candidate for the Presidency who can promise you flatly and absolutely that I would reverse the trend, that I would work toward the preservation of our free enterprise system. There are no ready-made solutions alphabetically filed . away in drawers. I promise you only the honest procedure of reviving and preserving a free economy. I promise you rejection of schemes and an honest search, instead, for solutions; I promise you responsible leadership, not merely responsive scheming. And these are the guidelines, as I see them. The individual, the family, the voluntary group, the government, each has a responsibility in solving our national problems. But each has an appropriate role. Government's is not foremost or exclusive. Ultimately, responsibility must rest on the individual citizen. But he may wish to discharge it through himself, his family, the associations to which he be.- · longs, or through his government. The decision as to where to delegate responsibility must remain his. So. ciety should be the creature of individuals, never the reverse. The general rule is this: the individual is the best guardian of his own interes t s and well:being until proven otherwise. The case for government action must be proved. We must be shown in advance that we will be better off after government intervention than were before. we The view of this Administration is the opposite. This Administration says that an individual cannot be trusted to run his own life. He is irresponsible until proven otherwise, guilty unless proven innocent. And this administration sets as its legislative pattern the demand that the case acrainst government intervention must be proven, while it is taken for granted that we always will be better off after government intervention than we were before . .Thepeople in effect says this Administration, are not it "=/\· wise enough to do - 5 - Actually, of course, in a government of honest and open discussion -- rather than a government by muddle, scheme, and dictation -- it is not a question of whether government is always right or always wrong. It is a question of being reasonable, of distrusting untested schemes -- of putting to work our healthy skepticism, our critical spirit, the stuff of which our democracy was built. Whatever government does, it should do as a trustee of the people. It must remain responsible to the people. It is the wisdom of our history that we have developed a constitutional system, a federal system, a system of separate powers to make sure that government never will enslave us. But that wisdom is being flouted today. We are rapidly losing protection against arbitrary and distant power. The authority and independence of our states is being drained away by tempting dependence on Washington. I The balance between executive, legislative, and judicial branches is being upset by an executive that demands more and more power, while attempting to tum the legislative into a rubber stamp,. and by a judicial branch that moves ever closer to the role of legislator. The upside-down government of this Administration is apparent at every turn. It is abdicating some of the most serious responsibilities of government to mobs, demonstrators, and the civilly disobedient. It is exploiting poverty for political ends, with callous disregard for real · a nd lasting solutions . For every dollar spent to alleviate the symptoms of poverty, new Federal power is being sought to bring closer and closer the day when there will be no recourse left but government intervention to solve any pressing economic problem. The market place is being hamstrung by arbitrary governmental intervention. Private property is being abused and its concept being misused by people who do not or will not understand that humari rights include property rights. What protection does the individual have against a towering government which would take away his property rights? No, I charge again, this Administration is indeed an upside-down government and that t he inidividual citizen, the very human, the man whose indep ndence s hould be the central object of government has been toppled to the bottom of the heap. Let those who choose to do so follow the false hopes and the false promises of this sort of government. They will follow 1t to the destruction of their freedoms, their d ignity, and their individual place in this world. They will follow it to a world in which their only distinction and. consideration as an individual will be the zip code number on a government chart. I say that Americans are the la st people on earth to fall for that ! I say t hat the good common sense of Americans will, before this year is out , s e e through the jerry-built political circuses that this Administration is putting up t o lure votes. I say that the good common sense of Americans will see through the talk of fi scal responsibility and demand an explanation for the fact, the irrefutable fact of fiscal irresponsibility that will become apparent as the budget bulges far into the red. I say that the good common sense of Americans will see through and reject - 6 - an Administration that cynically buys time today by setting a time-bomb of inflation ticking for tomorrow. All of these things this Administraton has done and is doing. All of these things, as I have said, add up to more than a choice between programs or details. They add up to a choice of whether we will keep or abandon our free enterprise system, our system of property and production and profits. I do not want to see this country go down the road to regimented, stateowned or run business and industry. I do not want to see American workingmen and women turned into or over to an ant-hill race of bureaucrats. I do not want to see investors become wards of the government. I want a free America, a prospering ·America and I say that we can have and keep such an America, and · build, an even more prosperous one 1 I But we cannot do it without action; .without conviction, without changing the course on which this Administration is plunging us deeper and deeper into debt and toward the quickening decline of freedom. I . This is the great domestic debate of 1964 and I dedicate my candidacy to waging it across this land and to exposing the fallacies, the foolishness, and even the fraud of the financial hoax that this Administration is trying to sell the American \ people. •' \ The choice is America's: Pie-in-the-sky or Jobs in hand; responsibility with the citizen, or coercian by Washington? Or put it most simply of all: do you want to be your own man, a free man, or are you ready to wear Washington's collar? Who's going to pick whom up by the ears? I pledge you this: with your help, it will be freedom's answer in 1964 ! I for • ee President Committee FOR RELEASE THURSDAY PM's JUNE 25, 1964 REMARKS BY SENATOR BARRY GOLDWATER, TUCSON, ARIZONA, JUNE 25, 1964 . .Americans are once again steeling themselves for a crisis of roughly the same magnitude as the Cuban missile showdown. The situation in Southeast Asia, over the past few days, has been heading in exactly that direction . Let me make one point very clear, in case our enemies have any doubts about it. Americans are ready to support their government in any action that may be necessary to fulfill our obligations to freedom in that or any other part of the world. This does not mean, however, that Americans will not ask questions about the latest developments in Southeast Asia. The most basic one, of course, is to demand to know .just when this Administration is going to take the American people into its confidence! Just as there is evidence that the information about missiles in Cuba was withheld from Americans for sometime before the crisis, we know that much of the news from Vietnam and Laos has been withheld over the past weeks. I for one say that Americans have had enough of crisis by surprise. I believe that the Administration most learn to trust the American people. It's about time that they learned that the people are not children, to be led about on the leashes of government news management. Spokesmen for this Administration have said that we are prepared to risk "even war" with Red China in the present situation in Southeast Asia. I applaud the determination and the courage of that remark -- even though I regret the fact that it has been so tragically long in coming. I am convinced, as a matter of fact, that if we had spoken that straight months or even years ago there would be no crisis of this sort in Southeast Asia today, that Red China would have backed down, just as the Soviet withdrew in Cuba. But today we face an entrenched enemy in his, not our own, backyard; we face an enemy emboldened by our past failures, an enemy even supported by our past policies, such as the policy that divided Laos, giving a third of the country outright to Communism and leaving the remainder wide open to just the sort of Communist aggression with which we are faced today. But in all this time, the Administration has waited and waited, silent ly and deliberately refusing to spell out its policies or even permit a free flow of news from the battle areas. Why so much secrecy? And what has happened under that cloak of secrecy which, today , makes it necessary for the Administration to go into emergency gear in Southeast Asia? (more) Just a f'ew days ago, eight F-100 fighter-bombers made a strike against the Communists in Laos. This was the first offensive military action talcen by this country since the Korean war! It was taken in attempted secrecy! It was even denied! It was not until the enemy had reported the incident that the American people were let in on the secret of just how far things had gone in Laos . The use of managed news by this Administration is well known by the American people - - and, I might say, resented by most of them. But in the past we have seen mostly the management of news constantly to cover up political wheeling and dealing. This time, in Southeast Asia , we see the spectacle of a virtual state of war being covered up by news management and only being uncovered when, apparently, the situation has become critical • .Among other things we are suddenly confronted with a complete change of command in Vietnam -- at this crucial period. Ordinarily, to make such changes at such a time would mean the most critical breakdown in policy. Has there been such a breakdown? .I believe that the former Ambassador to Vietnam should feel a deep sense of responsibility to tell the American people precisely and fully where he stands on our Southeastern Asia policy and frankly evaluate its course and its performance. Further, I would regard it as proper for appropriate groups in the Congress to call upon the retiring military commander in Vietnam for his frank evaluation of the situation. The views of other military personnel in the area also should be sought. We can scarcely underestimate the potential explosiveness of the situation. I, for one, have never been under any illusion about it. But I have always felt that firmness was the best way to handle it. Just one aspect should give all of us something to wonder about. The new Ambassador to South Vietnam is scarcely just another diplomat. He has been, in fact, the highest ranking active duty officer in our armed forces. Will he now be directing the situation in Vietnam fully? How will his role differ from that of the former Ambassador? And why was the change deemed necessary - - and at such a critical time? Is the new Ambassador a Chief of Staff going to war, a diplomat going to a conference, or just another sight-seer from the Pentagon, a sight-seer such as the Secretary of Defense himself who, after five inspections of Vietnam, now presents us with a full-scale crisis. Let me repeat my absolute and full support of whatever strong actions are needed to save Southeast Asia from Communist aggression or erosion. But let me also repeat and flatly charge that this Administration has been building a crisis in secret, that this Administration has managed and distorted the facts of the situation in Southeast Asia, that this Administration has not kept faith with the American people in this matter nor has it been frank and honest with the American people. Now, for the sake of our security and the integrity of everything we may be called upon to do in Southeast Asia -- now, at long last, let us wipe the slate clean on the secrecy, deception, and mistakes of our policy in Southeast Asia. Let us have a full and frank accounting of where we stand and where we are going -- for we must all go together. It is not the politicians of this Administration that are being called upon to risk so mucn in Southeast Asia. It is the American soldier, the American citizen. They leserve no less than the whole truth. And the ti me to give it to them, to all of us, is right now. (more) -3The responsibility is shared by everyone who has been active in creating the situation with which we are faced. Just a little truth won't help! Just a brief glimpse at the background of policy, or even a guided tour through intelligence reports and other such matters will not be enough. We can all remember, for instance, that the Secretary of Defense risked many vital intelligence secrets in his defense of the missile crisis timetable. Yet we still are faced with a smouldering situation in Cuba. And we have never followed through on our demands for rigid inspection of the missile capabilities on the island! So, j ust a little honesty won't help. It might, in fact, Just serve to silence legitimate questions and sugar-coat · legitimate doubts. Ambassador Lodge must tell us what went wrong -- or how it could have gone right . President Johnson must tell us how the crisis grew and why -- and why such an extraordinary step is being taken as sending the Chairman of the· Joint Chiefs of Staff to take over as Ambassador. Above all, we must hear what our real long-range goals are in Southeast Asia. We must know if today's tough talk is to be followed by equally tough diplimatic action -- or can the Communists expect to gain real long-range concessions from us in return for backing down temporarily to our military threats? The American people must have scores of questions. The world may have even more. The time to answer is now. The time to trust Americans with the answers is now. Above all, the time to let Americans participate in the fateful decisions we may have to make, is right now.