Dear Meade: It would appear that some new kind of approach is necessary to convince all Republicans that we are essentially of the same general group in political thinking. I think that we have succumbed too readily to the columnists' efforts to divide us into two "wings." I talked to Senator Knowland about this subject yesterday morning. He agrees generally with me.1
Take an example: The Senate Republican leader, Senator Knowland, is popularly depicted as a representative of the conservative wing, while I am placed in the so-called liberal wing. Here are a few facts.
(a). Senator Knowland stands among the first four or five of the Republican Senators in his record of voting for measures which I have proposed. With one or two exceptions over the five year period, his differing vote has been based upon some detail or technical feature. We have, at times, differed on applicable policy in foreign affairs--but in important Administrative projects, he has led the fights for approval.2
(b). He and I agree that we are conservatives. While I have recognized the necessity of the Federal government undertaking functions and responsibilities that far exceed those in which it was engaged forty years ago, yet I have consistently fought against the needless and useless expansion of these functions and responsibilities. Senate members of the so-called "right wing" have acted similarly. Among them are such men as Bridges, Ed Martin, Capehart, Dirksen and Hickenlooper, each of whom I suppose would be categorized by most observers as representatives of the conservative side of the Party.3 Particularly we have fought against the theory that more and more of the financing of public services of all kinds should be undertaken by the Federal government.
On election night in 1956, over a television circuit, I used the expression "Modern Republicanism," meaning only, of course, Republicanism adapted to the problems of today.4 Unfortunately that phrase has been used, by those who seek to divide the Republican Party, to indicate the existence of a deep and wide schism in the political thinking of two non-existent "wings" of the Party.
I would be perfectly happy to see some substitute phrase used for what I had in mind. In a press conference I once described a "Modern Republican" as anyone who supports the 1956 Platform. This seems wide enough to me to suit everybody except a few malcontents--but, as I say, I would be delighted to see the phrase dropped in favor of "Republicanism of the 20th Century" or "20th Century Republicanism," or any other appropriate designation.
In any event, I believe it should be possible, along with all the literature you send out to the faithful, to devise and hammer away continuously at the subject of unity. Such unity should be based upon adherence to a few common doctrines and beliefs.
For example:
(a). We believe that we should oppose the trend toward centralization of responsibility in the Federal government, with its consequent increasing dependence of every citizen upon the Federal government.
(b). We believe that agricultural programs should depend more upon increased research, enlargement of markets, increased use of agricultural products, and the setting aside of land to provide for its own enrichment and preservation, rather than upon rigid laws fixing certain monetary prices for given products.
(c). We believe that organizations borrowing money from the government should be required to pay interest rates no lower than the cost to the Federal government. In other words, we do not believe that through the guise of artificially low interest rates, we should require the American public to serve the selfish interests of any special group.
(d). We believe that private enterprise should be encouraged, but that the leadership of government should be devoted toward insuring a just and wide distribution of the profits from such enterprise.
(e). We believe (with McKinley) that isolation is not possible for the United States, and that our best ways of binding other free nations to us are:5
(1). By emphasizing our unity in spiritual values.
(2). By opposing Communism and other forms of dictatorship with our whole might, achieving here at home a unified bipartisan foreign policy, to be developed and exploited by the State Department, supported by Defense, Mutual Aid, and Intelligence organizations.
(3). Through investments, by private capital wherever possible, in those countries whose future development is dependent upon the acquisition of outside investment capital.
(4). Through mutually beneficial, multi-lateral aid.
(f). We believe in the equality of all citizens before the law--meaning that the political and economic right of no citizen should be jeopardized because of his race or religion.
(g). We believe in sound fiscal policies for the government, thereby helping to combat inflation and to preserve the purchasing power of the working man's savings.
I have not attempted to give above a "Bible for Republicans." I am merely showing that if we agree on such things as these, there are a thousand details and technicalities on which we can disagree and still not destroy the essential unity of the Republican Party. In the things to which I have adverted there are plenty of good speeches for anybody seeking office in the United States, whether it be municipal or a national post.
If Republicans do not want to have a unity based on these essentially conservative principles applied to 20th century conditions, but instead would rather indulge their personal animosities by passive or active opposition in general elections against an individual who won a primary, then we are going to have a succession of Wisconsins, rather than the kind of sweep that was achieved by the national ticket in 1956.6
As a final notation, I have asked Governor Adams to arrange for a reasonably early meeting with you, possibly during the next six weeks, at which he will also invite Senator Knowland and Joe Martin, or their representatives, to discuss further the subject that was brought up at the legislative meeting the other morning when you were there.7
All this is for your private study and contemplation, but in your discussions and communications with others you are at liberty to use all, any or none of it as representative of your own personal thinking.
With warm regard, Sincerely
P.S. The mention of Wisconsin above recalls to my mind the coming election in New Jersey. It seems clear that in Wisconsin the organization did not work together--in fact it seems doubtful that there was any work whatsoever at the level where it counts most, namely the precinct level. I wonder if we are doing all we can to help the Jersey Republicans organize fully and effectively on the precinct, county, district and State levels. I believe that hard work now will save a lot of grief later. For example, I believe that the State organization should know the name of every precinct captain and his address. There should be available lists of all the block and apartment house workers that serve under the precinct captain. In fact, I believe that every precinct captain--maybe every precinct worker in the State--should get a letter signed by you telling that individual how important he or she is to the whole Republican Party and thanking them for the work that they do.8
We cannot leave these things to chance. Experience and common sense alike dictate a thorough and full organization of all the strength we can bring to bear.
P.S. II. I suggest consultation with Dick Nixon whenever you get a chance. He has a remarkably clear conception of what is necessary if we are to avoid future Wisconsins.9
