The happenings of the past few weeks emphasize again how difficult it is for a party that has been in the minority for twenty years to take up the burdens of responsibility for the operation of the government. We have had a number of misunderstandings, to say nothing of blunders. Sometimes these have been either my own fault or the fault of some other part of the Executive Department. More frequently, I think, they result from the readiness of political legislators to fly into print at every possible opportunity. I repeat, this is especially true because of the fact that for so long a time the Republican Party has been opposed to, and often a deadly enemy of, the individual in the White House.
One of the difficulties that is now more of a carry-over than a new incident is occasioned by the so-called Bricker Amendment.1 Senator Bricker wants to amend the Constitution to limit the power of the President in making international agreements. Likewise, he wants to limit the position of an approved treaty as "the Supreme Law of the Land."2 By and large I think the logic of the case is all against Senator Bricker, but he has gotten almost psychopathic on the subject and a great many lawyers have taken his side of the case. This fact does not impress me very much. Lawyers are trained to take either side of any case and make the most intelligent and impassioned defense of their adopted viewpoint. This tends to create a practice of submerging conviction in favor of plausible argument.
I realize that there are few lawyers whose standing and position have been such that they could afford to take only cases that completely agree with their own political and philosophical convictions. This, however, does not affect the observation I have just made, and I truly believe that that observation is at least partially correct. In any event, such lawyers as John W. Davis,3 General Mitchell,4 Foster Dulles and Herbert Brownell are of the opinion that the effect of the Amendment would be to damage the United States materially in its efforts to lead the world in support of a free way of life. These are not only able lawyers, they are also experienced in government. This is important.
Senator McCarthy is, of course, so anxious for the headlines that he is prepared to go to any extremes in order to secure some mention of his name in the public press.5 His actions create trouble on the Hill with members of the Party; they irritate, frustrate and infuriate members of the Executive Department. I really believe that nothing will be so effective in combating his particular kind of trouble-making as to ignore him. This he cannot stand.6
Throughout these weeks, with the difficulties of which the above two are random examples, there has been a growing strength in the friendly relations between the Republican leaders of both Houses and the Executive Department. I think it is scarcely too much to say that Senator Taft and I are becoming right good friends.7 This applies, also, to the mass of Republican senators, who in general will follow Taft's lead. In the contest on Bohlen's confirmation, eleven Republican senators voted against us.8 There were only two or three who surprised me by their actions; the others are the most stubborn and essentially small-minded examples of the extreme isolationist group in the Party. I was surprised by the vote of Bricker and Goldwater.9 These two seemed to me a little bit more intelligent than the others, who sought to defend their position with the most specious kind of excuse and the most misleading kind of argument.
In spite of all this, Taft held the mass of Republicans squarely in line, and the Democrats, with the exception of two only, voted solidly with us.10
Of course, if this kind of thing were often repeated, it would give some weight to an argument that was presented to me only yesterday. It was that I should set quietly about the formation of a new party. The method would be to make a personal appeal to every member of the House and Senate; to every Governor, and to every National Committeeman whose general political philosophy and purpose seem to belong to that school known as "The Middle Way."11 It may come about that this will be forced upon us, but the difficulties are vast and if we can possibly bring about a greater solidarity among Republicans, if we can get them more deeply committed to team work and party responsibility, this will be much the better way.
In the House I do not anticipate a great deal of difficulty, but in the Senate the record of the past few weeks is encouraging only insofar as the majority of Republicans is concerned. However, if we can win away from the McCarthy-Malone axis about five or six of their members, the splinter group will be reduced to impotence.12
On such a basis, I think we should be able to build a splendid progressive record, including substantial balancing of the '54 budget, greater achievements in our whole security program, a stronger position in Asia, real progress in the NATO concept, and possibly a real prospect of lowering taxes by the end of the '54 fiscal year. If we can have the solidarity that will accomplish these things, then the chances for the Republicans retaining control of the House and Senate (which involves the vital chairmanship of committees) shall be really bright.
If that comes about, the only remaining great problem will be the date of my announcement that I am through with politics.
