<--PREV Doc #783  |  Memorial Commission Home Page  |  First Term Table of Contents  |  Presidential Papers Home Page  |  Doc#  |  NEXT--> Doc #785 Document #784; March 18, 1954 To Edward Everett Hazlett, Jr. Series: EM, AWF, Name Series The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower, Volume XV - The Presidency: The Middle Way Part IV: "Pushing ahead along the broad center"; December 1953 to March 1954 Chapter 9: Fending off "the reactionary fringe"   Dear Swede: I suddenly realize that too much time has elapsed since I last wrote to you an intimate report on the "State of the Union." I believe I did manage to congratulate you on your (non-existent, but nevertheless numerical) birthday, but it has been months otherwise.1 The interval since the opening of this session of Congress has been turbulent, as reported too fully in the papers. The press has harped, or so it seems from this nerve center, on certain demagogic individuals and practices, and exaggerated, out of all proportion in my opinion, their importance to the nation as a whole. These things, I am convinced, will run their inevitable course--and I refuse to deviate from my declared position, in spite of the urgings of some of my most valued friends and associates in government.2 Three things have of this day occupied my time and attention. (I say three, excluding, of course, the inevitable handshaking or button-pushing ceremonies that seem daily and inevitably to intrude on the business of government.) One of these problems is the recent declaration by the Secretary of Agriculture that as of April first supports for dairy products will be reduced from 90% of parity to 75%. This announcement is in accordance with common sense. It has, however, been widely interpreted as a violation of the principle of gradualism that we have advocated in flexible price supports. This may put us in a hole in establishing our sincerity when we talk of gradualism as a feature of the farm policy. In addition, there is no question that it will somewhat diminish the purchasing power of the people in the dairy producing states, and inevitably add to our burdens there. I personally think the Secretary of Agriculture made a mistake in failing to take smaller bites--though I hasten to add that he did so with my general approval and on his understanding of the law, believing it to be compulsory. The error, if any, was merely in failing to search for some means of acting a bit more gradually, even though we have butter, milk, cheese and all other dairy products flooding the country. In saying this I want to stress, too, that there is no man in government more dedicated and devoted, and more selfless and sincere, than is Ezra Benson.3 Another problem of the day and of the past weeks (now successfully concluded as I dictate this around five o'clock) has been the struggle in the House over the Administration's tax program.4 You know as well as I the attack the program has been under, and there is no need here to repeat the views I expressed in my television talk on Monday night. But I do want to say that I am firmly convinced that, under existing circumstances, the Administration's bill is a well thought out program of tax reduction and economic stimulation. It is designed to do the greatest good for the greatest number of our citizens, under domestic and world conditions of this moment. The fact that the bill was succesfully pushed through the House was due to the great work done by Charlie Halleck, Joe Martin and a couple of others up on the Hill.5 On this particular issue I found the Administration had the good solid team work in the House that it should have had and did not have in certain other matters in the Senate, notably the "Bricker Amendment."6 The third major problem of the day is the increasingly bad situation in Indo China. As you know, the Vietminh continue their assault on Dien Bien Phu, and the situation there becomes increasingly disturbing.7 I hope the French will have the stamina to stick it out; because a defeat in that area will inevitably have a serious psychological effect on the French. I suspect that this particular attack was launched by the Communists to gain an advantage to be used at the Geneva Conference.8 At any rate, it is just another of the problems that is dumped in my lap--in this particular case, of course, there is little I can do except to wait it out and hope for the best. You must forgive my ramblings--but I do find some release from the tensions of the day in writing in this fashion. It provides the next best thing to seeing you. My love to Ibby, and of course, as always, the very best to yourself. As ever 1 We have found no record in EM of Eisenhower's remembrance of Hazlett's February birthday. Hazlett, however, writing on March 25, would acknowledge a birthday "note" from the President. "Age is largely a matter of spirit," the sixty-two-year-old Hazlett would write, "and in that respect I am barely of voting age" (AWF/N). Hazlett also said that he probably should not reveal that he had been saving Eisenhower's letters--"It might," he wrote, "heaven forbid, affect your free and easy style." See Ike's Letters to a Friend: 1941-1958, ed. Robert W. Griffith (Lawrence, Kans., 1984). A draft of this letter, with Eisenhower's longhand emendations, is in AWF/Drafts. Ann Whitman would comment in her diary: "Note to Swede Hazlett--NOTE, what am I saying?" (Mar. 20, 1954, AWF/AWD). 2 Eisenhower referred here to the ongoing controversy over Senator McCarthy's attack on the Army. See nos. 773, 794, 799 and 820. 3 On the reduction in price supports for dairy products see no. 787. 4 The House had just passed the Administration's omnibus tax reform bill (H.R. 8300). For background on the measure see no. 773 and the preceding document. At the same time the House had rejected a Democratic proposal for higher personal income tax exemptions--a double victory for the President, but a setback for the Democrats, who would renew the fight for higher personal exemptions when the measure went to the Senate. On the controversial legislation see Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. X, 1954, pp. 476-89; and New York Times, March 10, 12, 19, 1954. 5 House Majority Leader Charles A. Halleck and House Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., had been in the forefront of debate on the bill. Their work together with other Republican leaders in urging party unity would have a significant impact as the measure went before the Senate. Republicans would ultimately block Democratic efforts to eliminate the dividend tax credit and to increase the individual exemption. The Senate Finance Committee would report H.R. 8300, with amendments (S. Rept. 1622) on June 18, 1954, and the Senate would pass the measure on July 2. The conference report (H. Rept. 2543) was agreed to by the House on July 28, by the Senate on July 29, and Eisenhower would sign the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 into law (PL 591) on August 16 (see Reichard, Reaffirmation of Republicanism, pp. 108-13). 6 On the Bricker amendment see, for example, nos. 233, 741, and 773. 7 In Eisenhower's original draft this word was "critical." For background on Indochina see no. 722. On March 13 the Vietminh had begun a ground assault against one of the strong points protecting the central French perimeter at Dien Bien Phu (see no. 718). The Vietminh surprised the French defenders with the volume and accuracy of their artillery fire and quickly rendered the airstrip unusable for large-scale resupply or evacuation. By March 17 the French had lost three major defensive positions (Davidson, Vietnam at War, pp. 223-45; Bernard B. Fall, Hell in a Very Small Place: The Siege of Dien Bien Phu [Philadelphia and New York, 1967], pp. 125-67; and State, Foreign Relations, 1952-1954, vol. XIII, Indochina, pt. 1, pp. 1124-25). At a March 25 NSC meeting Eisenhower wondered why the Vietminh had not been stopped from moving their troops to Dien Bien Phu. Army Chief of Staff Ridgway replied that guerilla resistance had prevented the French from interdicting them. The President responded that "if the point had been reached when the French forces could be moved only by air, it seemed sufficient indication that the population of Vietnam did not wish to be free from Communist domination" (NSC meeting minutes, Mar. 25, 1954, AWF/NSC). 8 For background on the forthcoming Geneva Conference see nos. 722 and 776. On March 14 an American envoy in Saigon had cabled the State Department that the Vietminh desperately needed a military victory in order to strengthen their bargaining position at Geneva (State, Foreign Relations, 1952-1954, vol. XIII, Indochina, pt. 1, pp. 1119-20). For developments see no. 816. Bibliographic reference to this document: Eisenhower, Dwight D. To Edward Everett Hazlett, Jr., 18 March 1954. In The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower, ed. L. Galambos and D. van Ee, doc. 784. World Wide Web facsimile by The Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission of the print edition; Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996, http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/784.cfm <--PREV Doc #783  |  Memorial Commission Home Page  |  First Term Table of Contents  |  Presidential Papers Home Page  |  Doc#  |  NEXT--> Doc #785

Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission 1629 K Street, NW Suite 801 Washington DC 20006 Phone: 202.296.0004    Fax: 202.296.6464