,transcriber's ,notes3 ,text enclosed by underscores is in italics 7italics74 ,additional ,transcriber's ,notes are at the end4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,the ,,conscience ,,of ,a ,,conservative by ,,barry ,,goldwater #aifj ,,victor ,,publishing ,,company1 ,,inc4 #a #dth ,avenue1 ,shepherdsville1 ,kentucky 99 99 99 99 99 ,copyright #aifj ,by ,,victor ,,publishing ,,company1 ,,inc4 ,,all ,,rights ,,reserved4 ,no reproduction in any form of this book1 in whole or in part1 7except for brief quotation in critical articles or reviews7 may be made without written authorization from the publisher4 ,first ,printing #aj1jjj copies ,march #aifj ,second ,printing #aj1jjj copies ,april #aifj ,third ,printing #ej1jjj copies ,may #aifj ,library of ,congress ,catalog ,card ,number #fj-abbfi ,printed in the ,united ,states of ,america ,,foreword ,this book is not written with the idea of adding to or improving on the ,conservative philosophy4 ,or of 8bringing it up to date40 ,the ancient and tested truths that guided our ,republic through its early days will do equally well for us4 ,the challenge to ,conservatives today is quite simply to demonstrate the bearing of a proven philosophy on the problems of our own time4 ,i should explain the considerations that led me to join in this effort4 ,i am a politician1 a ,united ,states ,senator4 ,as such1 ,i have had an opportunity to learn something about the political instincts of the ,american people1 ,i have crossed the length and breadth of this great land hundreds of times and talked with tens of thousands of people1 with ,democrats and ,republicans1 with farmers and laborers and businessmen4 ,i find that ,america is fundamentally a ,conservative nation4 ,the preponderant judgment of the ,american people1 especially of the young people1 is that the radical1 or ,liberal1 approach has not worked and is not working4 ,they yearn for a return to ,conservative principles4 ,at the same time1 ,i have been in a position to observe first hand how ,conservatism is faring in ,washington4 ,and it is all too clear that in spite of a ,conservative revival among the people the radical ideas that were promoted by the ,new and ,fair ,deals under the guise of ,liberalism still dominate the councils of our national government4 ,in a country where it is now generally understood and proclaimed that the people's welfare depends on individual self reliance rather than on state paternalism1 ,congress annually deliberates over whether the increase in government welfarism should be small or large4 ,in a country where it is now generally understood and proclaimed that the federal government spends too much1 ,congress annually deliberates over whether to raise the federal budget by a few billion dollars or by many billion4 ,in a country where it is now generally understood and proclaimed that individual liberty depends on decentralized government1 ,congress annually deliberates over whether vigorous or halting steps should be taken to bring state government into line with federal policy4 ,in a country where it is now generally understood and proclaimed that ,communism is an enemy bound to destroy us1 ,congress annually deliberates over means of 8co-existing0 with the ,soviet ,union4 ,and so the question arises3 ,why have ,american people been unable to translate their views into appropriate political action8 ,why should the nation's underlying allegiance to ,conservative principles have failed to produce corresponding deeds in ,washington8 ,i do not blame my brethren in government1 all of whom work hard and conscientiously at their jobs4 ,i blame ,conservatives--ourselves--myself4 ,our failure1 as one ,conservative writer has put it1 is the failure of the ,conservative demonstration4 ,though we ,conservatives are deeply persuaded that our society is ailing1 and know that ,conservatism holds the key to national salvation--and feel sure the country agrees with us--we seem unable to demonstrate the practical relevance of ,conservative principles to the needs of the day4 ,we sit by impotently while ,congress seeks to improvise solutions to problems that are not the real problems facing the country1 while the government attempts to assuage imagined concerns and ignores the real concerns and real needs of the people4 ,perhaps we suffer from an over-sensitivity to the judgments of those who rule the mass communications media4 ,we are daily consigned by 8enlightened0 commentators to political oblivion3 ,conservatism1 we are told1 is out-of-date4 ,the charge is preposterous and we ought boldly to say so4 ,the laws of ,god1 and of nature1 have no dateline4 ,the principles on which the ,conservative political position is based have been established by a process that has nothing to do with the social1 economic and political landscape that changes from decade to decade and from century to century4 ,these principles are derived from the nature of man1 and from the truths that ,god has revealed about ,his creation4 ,circumstances do change4 ,so do the problems that are shaped by circumstances4 ,but the principles that govern the solution of the problems do not4 ,to suggest that the ,conservative philosophy is out of date is akin to saying that the ,golden ,rule1 or the ,ten ,commandments or ,aristotle's ,politics are out of date4 ,the ,conservative approach is nothing more or less than an attempt to apply the wisdom and experience and the revealed truths of the past to the problems of today4 ,the challenge is not to find new or different truths1 but to learn how to apply established truths to the problems of the contemporary world4 ,my hope is that one more ,conservative voice will be helpful in meeting this challenge4 ,this book is an attempt to bridge the gap between theory and practice4 ,i shall draw upon my speeches1 the radio and television broadcasts and the notes ,i have made over the years in the hope of doing what one is often unable to do in the course of a harried day's work on the ,senate floor3 to show the connection between ,conservative principles so widely espoused1 and ,conservative action1 so generally neglected4 ,table of ,contents ,,page ,,number ,,foreword ,,the ,,conscience ,,of ,a ,,conservative #i ,,the ,,perils ,,of ,,power #ae ,,states' ,,rights #bd ,,and ,,civil ,,rights #ca ,,freedom ,,for ,,the ,,farmer #ch ,,freedom ,,for ,,labor #dd ,,taxes ,,and ,,spending #eh ,,the ,,welfare ,,state #fh ,,some ,,notes ,,on ,,education #gf ,,the ,,soviet ,,menace #hf ,,chapter ,,one ,the ,conscience of a ,conservative ,i have been much concerned that so many people today with ,conservative instincts feel compelled to apologize for them4 ,or if not to apologize directly1 to qualify their commitment in a way that amounts to breast-beating4 8,republican candidates10 ,vice ,president ,nixon has said1 8should be economic conservatives1 but conservatives with a heart40 ,president ,eisenhower announced during his first term1 8,i am conservative when it comes to economic problems but liberal when it comes to human problems40 ,still other ,republican leaders have insisted on calling themselves 8progressive0 ,conservatives4#a ,these formulations are tantamount to an admission that ,conservatism is a narrow1 mechanistic economic theory that may work very well as a bookkeeper's guide1 but cannot be relied upon as a comprehensive political philosophy4 ,the same judgment1 though in the form of an attack rather than an admission1 is advanced by the radical camp4 8,we liberals10 they say1 8are interested in people4 ,our concern is with human beings1 while you ,conservatives are preoccupied with the preservation of economic privilege and status40 ,take them a step further1 and the ,liberals will turn the accusations into a class argument3 it is the little people that concern us1 not the 8malefactors of great wealth40 ,such statements1 from friend and foe alike1 do great injustice to the ,conservative point of view4 ,conservatism is not an economic theory1 though it has economic implications4 ,the shoe is precisely on the other foot3 it is ,socialism that subordinates all other considerations to man's material well-being4 ,it is ,conservatism that puts material things in their proper place--that has a structured view of the human being and of human society1 in which economics plays only a subsidiary role4 ,the root difference between the ,conservatives and the ,liberals of today is that ,conservatives take account of the whole man1 while the ,liberals tend to look only at the material side of man's nature4 ,the ,conservative believes that man is1 in part1 an economic1 an animal creature2 but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires4 ,what is more1 these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature1 and thus take precedence over his economic wants4 ,conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man's spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy4 ,liberals1 on the other hand1--in the name of a concern for 8human beings0--regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society4 ,they are1 moreover1 in a hurry4 ,so that their characteristic approach is to harness the society's political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel 8progress40 ,in this approach1 ,i believe they fight against ,nature4 ,surely the first obligation of a political thinker is to understand the nature of man4 ,the ,conservative does not claim special powers of perception on this point1 but he does claim a familiarity with the accumulated wisdom and experience of history1 and he is not too proud to learn from the great minds of the past4 ,the first thing he has learned about man is that each member of the species is a unique creature4 ,man's most sacred possession is his individual soul--which has an immortal side1 but also a mortal one4 ,the mortal side establishes his absolute differentness from every other human being4 ,only a philosophy that takes into account the essential differences between men1 and1 accordingly1 makes provision for developing the different potentialities of each man can claim to be in accord with ,nature4 ,we have heard much in our time about 8the common man40 ,it is a concept that pays little attention to the history of a nation that grew great through the initiative and ambition of uncommon men4 ,the ,conservative knows that to regard man as part of an undifferentiated mass is to consign him to ultimate slavery4 ,secondly1 the ,conservative has learned that the economic and spiritual aspects of man's nature are inextricably intertwined4 ,he cannot be economically free1 or even economically efficient1 if he is enslaved politically2 conversely1 man's political freedom is illusory if he is dependent for his economic needs on the ,state4 ,the ,conservative realizes1 thirdly1 that man's development1 in both its spiritual and material aspects1 is not something that can be directed by outside forces4 ,every man1 for his individual good and for the good of his society1 is responsible for his own development4 ,the choices that govern his life are choices that he must make3 they cannot be made by any other human being1 or by a collectivity of human beings4 ,if the ,conservative is less anxious than his ,liberal brethren to increase ,social ,security 8benefits10 it is because he is more anxious than his ,liberal brethren that people be free throughout their lives to spend their earnings when and as they see fit4 ,so it is that ,conservatism1 throughout history1 has regarded man neither as a potential pawn of other men1 nor as a part of a general collectivity in which the sacredness and the separate identity of individual human beings are ignored4 ,throughout history1 true ,conservatism has been at war equally with autocrats and with 8democratic0 ,jacobins4 ,the true ,conservative was sympathetic with the plight of the hapless peasant under the tyranny of the ,french monarchy4 ,and he was equally revolted at the attempt to solve that problem by a mob tyranny that paraded under the banner of egalitarianism4 ,the conscience of the ,conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being4 ,today1 therefore1 he is at odds with dictators who rule by terror1 and equally with those gentler collectivists who ask our permission to play ,god with the human race4 ,with this view of the nature of man1 it is understandable that the ,conservative looks upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order4 ,the ,conservative is the first to understand that the practice of freedom requires the establishment of order3 it is impossible for one man to be free if another is able to deny him the exercise of his freedom4 ,but the ,conservative also recognizes that the political power on which order is based is a self-aggrandizing force2 that its appetite grows with eating4 ,he knows that the utmost vigilance and care are required to keep political power within its proper bounds4 ,in our day1 order is pretty well taken care of4 ,the delicate balance that ideally exists between freedom and order has long since tipped against freedom practically everywhere on earth4 ,in some countries1 freedom is altogether down and order holds absolute sway4 ,in our country the trend is less far advanced1 but it is well along and gathering momentum every day4 ,thus1 for the ,american ,conservative1 there is no difficulty in identifying the day's overriding political challenge3 it is to preserve and extend freedom4 ,as he surveys the various attitudes and institutions and laws that currently prevail in ,america1 many questions will occur to him1 but the ,conservative's first concern will always be3 ,are we maximizing freedom8 ,i suggest we examine some of the critical issues facing us today with this question in mind4 ,,footnote3 #a ,this is a strange label indeed3 it implies that 8ordinary0 ,conservatism is opposed to progress4 ,have we forgotten that ,america made its greatest progress when ,conservative principles were honored and preserved4 ,,chapter ,,two ,the ,perils of ,power ,the ,new ,deal1 ,dean ,acheson wrote approvingly in a book called ,a ,democrat ,looks ,at ,his ,party1 8conceived of the federal government as the whole people organized to do what had to be done40 ,a year later ,mr4 ,larson wrote ,a ,republican ,looks ,at ,his ,party1 and made much the same claim in his book for ,modern ,republicans4 ,the 8underlying philosophy0 of the ,new ,republicanism1 said ,mr4 ,larson1 is that 8if a job has to be done to meet the needs of the people1 and no one else can do it1 then it is the proper function of the federal government40 ,here we have1 by prominent spokesmen of both political parties1 an unqualified repudiation of the principle of limited government4 ,there is no reference by either of them to the ,constitution1 or any attempt to define the legitimate functions of government4 ,the government can do whatever needs to be done2 note1 too1 the implicit but necessary assumption that it is the government itself that determines what needs to be done4 ,we must not1 ,i think underrate the importance of these statements4 ,they reflect the view of a majority of the leaders of one of our parties1 and of a strong minority among the leaders of the other1 and they propound the first principle of totalitarianism3 that the ,state is competent to do all things and is limited in what it actually does only by the will of those who control the ,state4 ,it is clear that this view is in direct conflict with the ,constitution which is an instrument1 above all1 for limiting the functions of government1 and which is as binding today as when it was written4 ,but we are advised to go a step further and ask why the ,constitution's framers restricted the scope of government4 ,conservatives are often charged1 and in a sense rightly so1 with having an overly mechanistic view of the ,constitution3 8,it is ,america's enabling document2 we are ,american citizens2 therefore10 the ,conservatives' theme runs1 8we are morally and legally obliged to comply with the document40 ,all true4 ,but the ,constitution has a broader claim on our loyalty than that4 ,the founding fathers had a reason for endorsing the principle of limited government2 and this reason recommends defense of the constitutional scheme even to those who take their citizenship obligations lightly4 ,the reason is simple1 and it lies at the heart of the ,conservative philosophy4 ,throughout history1 government has proved to be the chief instrument for thwarting man's liberty4 ,government represents power in the hands of some men to control and regulate the lives of other men4 ,and power1 as ,lord ,acton said1 corrupts men4 8,absolute power10 he added1 8corrupts absolutely40 ,state power1 considered in the abstract1 need not restrict freedom3 but absolute state power always does4 ,the legitimate functions of government are actually conducive to freedom4 ,maintaining internal order1 keeping foreign foes at bay1 administering justice1 removing obstacles to the free interchange of goods--the exercise of these powers makes it possible for men to follow their chosen pursuits with maximum freedom4 ,but note that the very instrument by which these desirable ends are achieved can be the instrument for achieving undesirable ends--that government can1 instead of extending freedom1 restrict freedom4 ,and note1 secondly1 that the 8can0 quickly becomes 8will0 the moment the holders of government power are left to their own devices4 ,this is because of the corrupting influence of power1 the natural tendency of men who possess some power to take unto themselves more power4 ,the tendency leads eventually to the acquisition of all power--whether in the hands of one or many makes little difference to the freedom of those left on the outside4 ,such1 then1 is history's lesson1 which ,messrs4 ,acheson and ,larson evidently did not read3 release the holders of state power from any restraints other than those they wish to impose upon themselves1 and you are swinging down the well-travelled road to absolutism4 ,the framers of the ,constitution had learned the lesson4 ,they were not only students of history1 but victims of it3 they knew from vivid1 personal experience that freedom depends on effective restraints against the accumulation of power in a single authority4 ,and that is what the ,constitution is3 a system of restraints against the natural tendency of government to expand in the direction of absolutism4 ,we all know the main components of the system4 ,the first is the limitation of the federal government's authority to specific1 delegated powers4 ,the second1 a corollary of the first1 is the reservation to the ,states and the people of all power not delegated to the federal government4 ,the third is a careful division of the federal government's power among three separate branches4 ,the fourth is a prohibition against impetuous alteration of the system--namely1 ,article ,v's tortuous1 but wise1 amendment procedures4 ,was it then a ,democracy the framers created8 ,hardly4 ,the system of restraints1 on the face of it1 was directed not only against individual tyrants1 but also against a tyranny of the masses4 ,the framers were well aware of the danger posed by self-seeking demagogues--that they might persuade a majority of the people to confer on government vast powers in return for deceptive promises of economic gain4 ,and so they forbade such a transfer of power--first by declaring1 in effect1 that certain activities are outside the natural and legitimate scope of the public authority1 and secondly by dispersing public authority among several levels and branches of government in the hope that each seat of authority1 jealous of its own prerogatives1 would have a natural incentive to resist aggression by the others4 ,but the framers were not visionaries4 ,they knew that rules of government1 however brilliantly calculated to cope with the imperfect nature of man1 however carefully designed to avoid the pitfalls of power1 would be no match for men who were determined to disregard them4 ,in the last analysis their system of government would prosper only if the governed were sufficiently determined that it should4 8,what have you given us80 a woman asked ,ben ,franklin toward the close of the ,constitutional ,convention4 8,a ,republic10 he said1 8if you can keep it60 ,we have not kept it4 ,the ,achesons and ,larsons have had their way4 ,the system of restraints has fallen into disrepair4 ,the federal government has moved into every field in which it believes its services are needed4 ,the state governments are either excluded from their rightful functions by federal preemption1 or they are allowed to act at the sufferance of the federal government4 ,inside the federal government both the executive and judicial branches have roamed far outside their constitutional boundary lines4 ,and all of these things have come to pass without regard to the amendment procedures prescribed by ,article ,v4 ,the result is a ,leviathan1 a vast national authority out of touch with the people1 and out of their control4 ,this monolith of power is bounded only by the will of those who sit in high places4 ,there are a number of ways in which the power of government can be measured4 ,one is the size of its financial operations4 ,federal spending is now approaching a hundred billion dollars a year 7compared with three and one-half billion less than three decades ago47 ,another is the scope of its activities4 ,a study recently conducted by the ,chicago ,tribune showed that the federal government is now the 8biggest land owner1 property manager1 renter1 mover and hauler1 medical clinician1 lender1 insurer1 mortgage broker1 employer1 debtor1 taxer and spender in all history40 ,still another is the portion of the peoples' earnings government appropriates for its own use3 nearly a third of earnings are taken every year in the form of taxes4 ,a fourth is the extent of government interference in the daily lives of individuals4 ,the farmer is told how much wheat he can grow4 ,the wage earner is at the mercy of national union leaders whose great power is a direct consequence of federal labor legislation4 ,the businessman is hampered by a maze of government regulations1 and often by direct government competition4 ,the government takes six per cent of most payrolls in ,social ,security ,taxes and thus compels millions of individuals to postpone until later years the enjoyment of wealth they might otherwise enjoy today4 ,increasingly1 the federal government sets standards of education1 health and safety4 ,how did it happen8 ,how did our national government grow from a servant with sharply limited powers into a master with virtually unlimited power8 ,in part1 we were swindled4 ,there are occasions when we have elevated men and political parties to power that promised to restore limited government and then proceeded1 after their election1 to expand the activities of government4 ,but let us be honest with ourselves4 ,broken promises are not the major causes of our trouble4 ,kept promises are4 ,all too often we have put men in office who have suggested spending a little more on this1 a little more on that1 who have proposed a new welfare program1 who have thought of another variety of 8security40 ,we have taken the bait1 preferring to put off to another day the recapture of freedom and the restoration of our constitutional system4 ,we have gone the way of many a democratic society that has lost its freedom by persuading itself that if 8the people0 rule1 all is well4 ,the ,frenchman1 ,alexis de ,tocqueville1 probably the most clairvoyant political observer of modern times1 saw the danger when he visited this country in the #ahcj's4 ,even then he foresaw decay for a society that tended to put more emphasis on its democracy than on its republicanism4 ,he predicted that ,america would produce1 not tyrants but 8guardians40 ,and that the ,american people would 8console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians4 ,every man allows himself to be put in lead-strings1 because he sees that it is not a person nor a class of persons1 but the people at large that hold the end of his chain40 ,our tendency to concentrate power in the hands of a few men deeply concerns me4 ,we can be conquered by bombs or by subversion2 but we can also be conquered by neglect--by ignoring the ,constitution and disregarding the principles of limited government4 ,our defenses against the accumulation of unlimited power in ,washington are in poorer shape1 ,i fear1 than our defenses against the aggressive designs of ,moscow4 ,like so many other nations before us1 we may succumb through internal weakness rather than fall before a foreign foe4 ,i am convinced that most ,americans now want to reverse the trend4 ,i think that concern for our vanishing freedoms is genuine4 ,i think that the people's uneasiness in the stifling omnipresence of government has turned into something approaching alarm4 ,but bemoaning the evil will not drive it back1 and accusing fingers will not shrink government4 ,the turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to men who understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power they have been given4 ,it will come when ,americans1 in hundreds of communities throughout the nation1 decide to put the man in office who is pledged to enforce the ,constitution and restore the ,republic4 ,who will proclaim in a campaign speech3 8,i have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient1 for ,i mean to reduce its size4 ,i do not undertake to promote welfare1 for ,i propose to extend freedom4 ,my aim is not to pass laws1 but to repeal them4 ,it is not to inaugurate new programs1 but to cancel old ones that do violence to the ,constitution1 or that have failed in their purpose1 or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden4 ,i will not attempt to discover whether legislation is #8needed' before ,i have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible4 ,and if ,i should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' #8interests1' ,i shall reply that ,i was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause ,i am doing the very best ,i can40 ,,chapter ,,three ,states' ,rights ,the ,governor of ,new ,york1 in #aicj1 pointed out that the ,constitution does not empower the ,congress to deal with 8a great number of 444 vital problems of government1 such as the conduct of public utilities1 of banks1 of insurance1 of business1 of agriculture1 of education1 of social welfare1 and a dozen other important features40 ,and he added that 8,washington must not be encouraged to interfere0 in these areas4 ,franklin ,roosevelt's rapid conversion from ,constitutionalism to the doctrine of unlimited government1 is an oft-told story4 ,but ,i am here concerned not so much by the abandonment of ,states' ,rights by the national ,democratic ,party--an event that occurred some years ago when that party was captured by the ,socialist ideologues in and about the labor movement--as by the unmistakable tendency of the ,republican ,party to adopt the same course4 ,the result is that today neither of our two parties maintains a meaningful commitment to the principle of ,states' ,rights4 ,thus1 the cornerstone of the ,republic1 our chief bulwark against the encroachment of individual freedom by ,big ,government1 is fast disappearing under the piling sands of absolutism4 ,the ,republican ,party1 to be sure1 gives lip-service to ,states' ,rights4 ,we often talk about 8returning to the ,states their rightful powers02 the ,administration has even gone so far as to sponsor a federal-state conference on the problem4 ,but deeds are what count1 and ,i regret to say that in actual practice1 the ,republican ,party1 like the ,democratic ,party1 summons the coercive power of the federal government whenever national leaders conclude that the ,states are not performing satisfactorily4 ,let us focus attention on one method of federal interference--one that tends to be neglected in much of the public discussion of the problem4 ,in recent years the federal government has continued1 and in many cases has increased1 federal 8grants-in-aid0 to the ,states in a number of areas in which the ,constitution recognizes the exclusive jurisdiction of the ,states4 ,these grants are called 8matching funds0 and are designed to 8stimulate0 state spending in health1 education1 welfare1 conservation or any other area in which the federal government decides there is a need for national action4 ,if the ,states agree to put up money for these purposes1 the federal government undertakes to match the appropriation according to a ratio prescribed by ,congress4 ,sometimes the ratio is fifty-fifty2 often the federal government contributes over half the cost4 ,there are two things to note about these programs4 ,the first is that they are federal programs--they are conceived by the federal government both as to purpose and as to extent4 ,the second is that the 8stimulative0 grants are1 in effect1 a mixture of blackmail and bribery4 ,the ,states are told to go along with the program 8or else40 ,once the federal government has offered matching funds1 it is unlikely1 as a practical matter1 that a member of a ,state ,legislature will turn down his ,state's fair share of revenue collected from all of the ,states4 ,understandably1 many legislators feel that to refuse aid would be political suicide4 ,this is an indirect form of coercion1 but it is effective nonetheless4 ,a more direct method of coercion is for the federal government to threaten to move in unless state governments take action that ,washington deems appropriate4 ,not so long ago1 for example1 the ,secretary of ,labor gave the ,states a lecture on the wisdom of enacting 8up-to-date0 unemployment compensation laws4 ,he made no effort to disguise the alternative3 if the ,states failed to act1 the federal government would4 ,here are some examples of the 8stimulative0 approach4 ,late in #aieg a 8,joint ,federal-,state ,action ,committee0 recommended that certain matching funds programs be 8returned0 to the ,states on the scarcely disguised grounds that the ,states1 in the view of the ,committee1 had learned to live up to their responsibilities4 ,these are the areas in which the ,states were learning to behave3 8vocational education0 programs in agriculture1 home economics1 practical nursing1 and the fisheries trade2 local sewage projects2 slum clearance and urban renewal2 and enforcement of health and safety standards in connection with the atomic energy program4 ,now the point is not that ,congress failed to act on these recommendations1 or that the ,administration gave them only half-hearted support2 but rather that the federal government had no business entering these fields in the first place1 and thus had no business taking upon itself the prerogative of judging the ,states' performance4 ,the ,republican ,party should have said this plainly and forthrightly and demanded the immediate withdrawal of the federal government4 ,we can best understand our error1 ,i think1 by examining the theory behind it4 ,i have already alluded to the book1 ,a ,republican ,looks at ,his ,party1 which is an elaborate rationalization of the 8,modern ,republican0 approach to current problems4 7,it does the job just as well1 ,i might add1 for the ,democrats' approach47 ,mr4 ,larson devotes a good deal of space to the question of ,states' ,rights4 ,he contends that while there is 8a general presumption0 in favor of ,states' ,rights1 thanks to the ,tenth ,amendment1 this presumption must give way whenever it appears to the federal authorities that the ,states are not responding satisfactorily to 8the needs of the people40 ,this is a paraphrase of his position but not1 ,i think1 an unjust one4 ,and if this approach appears to be a high-handed way of dealing with an explicit constitutional provision1 ,mr4 ,larson justifies the argument by summoning the concept that 8for every right there is a corresponding duty40 8,when we speak of ,states' ,rights10 he writes1 8we should never forget to add that there go with those rights the corresponding ,states' responsibilities40 ,therefore1 he concludes1 if the ,states fail to do their duty1 they have only themselves to blame when the federal government intervenes4 ,the trouble with this argument is that it treats the ,constitution of the ,united ,states as a kind of handbook in political theory1 to be heeded or ignored depending on how it fits the plans of contemporary federal officials4 ,the ,tenth ,amendment is not 8a general assumption10 but a prohibitory rule of law4 ,the ,tenth ,amendment recognizes the ,states' jurisdiction in certain areas4 ,states' ,rights means that the ,states have a right to act or not to act1 as they see fit1 in the areas reserved to them4 ,the ,states may have duties corresponding to these rights1 but the duties are owed to the people of the ,states1 not to the federal government4 ,therefore1 the recourse lies not with the federal government1 which is not sovereign1 but with the people who are1 and who have full power to take disciplinary action4 ,if the people are unhappy with say1 their ,state's disability insurance program1 they can bring pressure to bear on their state officials and1 if that fails1 they can elect a new set of officials4 ,and if1 in the unhappy event they should wish to divest themselves of this responsibility1 they can amend the ,constitution4 ,the ,constitution1 ,i repeat1 draws a sharp and clear line between federal jurisdiction and state jurisdiction4 ,the federal government's failure to recognize that line has been a crushing blow to the principle of limited government4 ,but again1 ,i caution against a defensive1 or apologetic1 appeal to the ,constitution4 ,there is a reason for its reservation of ,states' ,rights4 ,not only does it prevent the accumulation of power in a central government that is remote from the people and relatively immune from popular restraints2 it also recognizes the principle that essentially local problems are best dealt with by the people most directly concerned4 ,who knows better than ,new ,yorkers how much and what kind of publicly-financed slum clearance in ,new ,york ,city is needed and can be afforded8 ,who knows better than ,nebraskans whether that ,state has an adequate nursing program8 ,who knows better than ,arizonans the kind of school program that is needed to educate their children8 ,the people of my own ,state--and ,i am confident that ,i speak for the majority of them--have long since seen through the spurious suggestion that federal aid comes 8free40 ,they know that the money comes out of their own pockets1 and that it is returned to them minus a broker's fee taken by the federal bureaucracy4 ,they know1 too1 that the power to decide how that money shall be spent is withdrawn from them and exercised by some planning board deep in the caverns of one of the federal agencies4 ,they understand this represents a great and perhaps irreparable loss--not only in their wealth1 but in their priceless liberty4 ,nothing could so far advance the cause of freedom as for state officials throughout the land to assert their rightful claims to lost state power2 and for the federal government to withdraw promptly and totally from every jurisdiction which the ,constitution reserved to the states4 ,,chapter ,,four ,and ,civil ,rights ,an attempt has been made in recent years to disparage the principle of ,states' ,rights by equating it with defense of the ,south's position on racial integration4 ,i have already indicated that the reach of ,states' ,rights is much broader than that--that it affects ,northerners as well as ,southerners1 and concerns many matters that have nothing to do with the race question4 ,still1 it is quite true that the integration issue is affected by the ,states' ,rights principle1 and that the ,south's position on the issue is1 today1 the most conspicuous expression of the principle4 ,so much so that the country is now in the grips of a spirited and sometimes ugly controversy over an imagined conflict between ,states' ,rights1 on the one hand1 and what are called 8civil rights0 on the other4 ,i say an imagined conflict because ,i deny that there can be a conflict between ,states' ,rights1 properly defined--and civil rights1 properly defined4 ,if ,states' 8,rights0 are so asserted as to encroach upon individual rights that are protected by valid federal laws1 then the exercise of state power is a nullity4 ,conversely1 if individual 8rights0 are so asserted as to infringe upon valid state power1 then the assertion of those 8rights0 is a nullity4 ,the rights themselves do not clash4 ,the conflict arises from a failure to define the two categories of rights correctly1 and to assert them lawfully4 ,states' ,rights are easy enough to define4 ,the ,tenth ,amendment does it succinctly3 8,the powers not delegated to the ,united ,states by the ,constitution nor prohibited by it to the ,states are reserved to the ,states respectively1 or to the people40 ,civil rights should be no harder4 ,in fact1 however--thanks to extravagant and shameless misuse by people who ought to know better--it is one of the most badly understood concepts in modern political usage4 ,civil rights is frequently used synonymously with 8human rights0--or with 8natural rights40 ,as often as not1 it is simply a name for describing an activity that someone deems politically or socially desirable4 ,a sociologist writes a paper proposing to abolish some inequity1 or a politician makes a speech about it--and1 behold1 a new 8civil right0 is born6 ,the ,supreme ,court has displayed the same creative powers4 ,a civil right is a right that is asserted and is therefore protected by some valid law4 ,it may be asserted by the common law1 or by local or federal statutes1 or by the ,constitution2 but unless a right is incorporated in the law1 it is not a civil right and is not enforceable by the instruments of the civil law4 ,there may be some rights--8natural10 8human10 or otherwise--that should also be civil rights4 ,but if we desire to give such rights the protection of the law1 our recourse is to a legislature or to the amendment procedures of the ,constitution4 ,we must not look to politicians1 or sociologists--or the courts--to correct the deficiency4 ,in the field of racial relations1 there are some rights that are clearly protected by valid laws and are therefore 8civil0 rights4 ,one of them is the right to vote4 ,the ,fifteenth ,amendment provides that no one shall be denied the franchise on account of race1 color or previous condition of servitude4 ,similarly with certain legal privileges enforced by the ,fourteenth ,amendment4 ,the legislative history of that amendment makes it clear 7,i quote from the ,civil ,rights ,act of #ahff which the ,amendment was designed to legitimize7 that people of all races shall be equally entitled 8to make and enforce contracts1 to sue1 be parties1 and give evidence1 to inherit1 to purchase1 lease1 sell1 hold and convey real and personal property and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property40 ,after the passage of that ,act and the ,amendment1 all persons1 ,negroes included1 had a 8civil0 right to these protections4 ,it is otherwise1 let us note1 with education4 ,for the federal ,constitution does not require the ,states to maintain racially mixed schools4 ,despite the recent holding of the ,supreme ,court1 ,i am firmly convinced--not only that integrated schools are not required--but that the ,constitution does not permit any interference whatsoever by the federal government in the field of education4 ,it may be just or wise or expedient for negro children to attend the same schools as white children1 but they do not have a civil right to do so which is protected by the federal constitution1 or which is enforceable by the federal government4 ,the intentions of the founding fathers in this matter are beyond any doubt3 no powers regarding education were given the federal government4 ,consequently1 under the ,tenth ,amendment1 jurisdiction over the entire field was reserved to the ,states4 ,the remaining question is whether the ,fourteenth ,amendment--concretely1 that amendment's 8equal protection0 clause--modified the original prohibition against federal intervention4 ,to my knowledge it has never been seriously argued--the argument certainly was not made by the ,supreme ,court--that the authors of the ,fourteenth ,amendment intended to alter the ,constitutional scheme with regard to education4 ,indeed1 in the famous school integration decision1 ,brown v4 ,board of ,education 7#aied71 the ,supreme ,court justices expressly acknowledged that they were not being guided by the intentions of the amendment's authors4 8,in approaching this problem10 ,chief ,justice ,warren said 8we cannot turn the clock back to #ahfh when the amendment was adopted4444 ,we must consider public education in the light of its full development and in its present place in ,american life throughout the nation40 ,in effect1 the ,court said that what matters is not the ideas of the men who wrote the ,constitution1 but the ,court's ideas4 ,it was only by engrafting its own views onto the established law of the land that the ,court was able to reach the decision it did4 ,the intentions of the ,fourteenth ,amendment's authors are perfectly clear4 ,consider these facts4 #a4 ,during the entire congressional debate on the ,fourteenth ,amendment it was never once suggested by any proponent of the amendment that it would outlaw segregated schools4 #b4 ,at the same time that it approved the ,fourteenth ,amendment1 ,congress established schools in ,washington in ,georgetown 8for the sole use of 444 colored children40 #c4 ,in all the debates on the amendment by the ,state ,legislatures there was only one legislator1 a man in ,indiana1 who thought the amendment would affect schools4 #d4 ,the great majority of the ,states that approved the amendment permitted or required segregated schools at the very time they approved the amendment4 ,there is not room here for exhaustive treatment of this evidence1 but the facts are well documented1 and they are all we have to know about the ,fourteenth ,amendment's bearing on this problem4 ,the amendment was not intended to1 and therefore it did not outlaw racially separate schools4 ,it was not intended to1 and therefore it did not1 authorize any federal intervention in the field of education4 ,i am therefore not impressed by the claim that the ,supreme ,court's decision on school integration is the law of the land4 ,the ,constitution1 and the laws 8made in pursuance thereof10 are the 8supreme law of the land04 ,the ,constitution is what its authors intended it to be and said it was--not what the ,supreme ,court says it is4 ,if we condone the practice of substituting our own intentions for those of the ,constitution's framers1 we reject1 in effect1 the principle of ,constitutional ,government3 we endorse a rule of men1 not of laws4 ,i have great respect for the ,supreme ,court as an institution1 but ,i cannot believe that ,i display that respect by submitting abjectly to abuses of power by the ,court1 and by condoning its unconstitutional trespass into the legislative sphere of government4 ,the ,congress and the ,states1 equally with the ,supreme ,court1 are obliged to interpret and comply with the ,constitution according to their own lights4 ,i therefore support all efforts by the ,states1 excluding violence of course1 to preserve their rightful powers over education4 ,as for the ,congress1 ,i would hope that the national legislature would help clarify the problem by proposing to the ,states a ,constitutional amendment that would reaffirm the ,states' exclusive jurisdiction in the field of education4 ,this amendment would1 in my judgment1 assert what is already provided unmistakably by the ,constitution2 but it would put the matter beyond any further question4 ,it so happens that ,i am in agreement with the objectives of the ,supreme ,court as stated in the ,brown decision4 ,i believe that it is both wise and just for negro children to attend the same schools as whites1 and that to deny them this opportunity carries with it strong implications of inferiority4 ,i am not prepared1 however1 to impose that judgment of mine on the people of ,mississippi or ,south ,carolina1 or to tell them what methods should be adopted and what pace should be kept in striving toward that goal4 ,that is their business1 not mine4 ,i believe that the problem of race relations1 like all social and cultural problems1 is best handled by the people directly concerned4 ,social and cultural change1 however desirable1 should not be effected by the engines of national power4 ,let us1 through persuasion and education1 seek to improve institutions we deem defective4 ,but let us1 in doing so1 respect the orderly processes of the law4 ,any other course enthrones tyrants and dooms freedom4 ,,chapter ,,five ,freedom ,for ,the ,farmer 8444 supervision of agriculture and other concerns of a similar nature 444 which are proper to be provided for by local legislation1 can never be desirable cares of a general jurisdiction4 ,it is therefore improbable that there should exist a disposition in the federal councils to usurp the powers with which they are connected2 because the attempt to exercise those powers would be as troublesome as they were nugatory40 ,alexander ,hamilton in the ,federalist ,papers1 ,no4 #ag4 ,hamilton was wrong in his prediction as to what men would do1 but quite right in foreseeing the consequences of their foolhardiness4 ,federal intervention in agriculture has1 indeed1 proved 8troublesome40 ,disregard of the ,constitution in this field has brought about the inevitable loss of personal freedom2 and it has created economic chaos4 ,unmanageable surpluses1 an immense tax burden1 high consumer prices1 vexatious controls--,i doubt if the folly of ignoring the principle of limited government has ever been more convincingly demonstrated4 ,we have blundered on so grand a scale that even our critical faculties seem to have been damaged in the process4 ,no man who is familiar with the subject will deny that the policy of price supports and production controls has been a colossal failure4 ,yet1 today1 some of our best minds have no better solution to the problem than to raise the supports and increase the controls6 ,the teaching of the ,constitution on this matter is perfectly clear4 ,no power over agriculture was given to any branch of the national government4 ,the sponsors of the first ,agriculture ,adjustment ,act1 passed in #aicc1 tried to justify the law under the so-called general welfare clause of the ,constitution4 ,the ,supreme ,court promptly struck down that legislation on the grounds that the phrase1 8general welfare10 was simply a qualification of the taxing power and did not give ,congress the power to control anything4 8,the regulation 7of agricultural production710 the ,court said in ,united ,states v4 ,butler 7#aicf7 8is not in fact voluntary4 ,the farmer1 of course1 may refuse to comply a privilege not given him under present legislation1 but the price of such refusal is loss of benefits 444 the power to confer or withhold unlimited benefits is the power to coerce or destroy44440 ,the ,new ,deal ,congress replied by enacting substantially identical legislation1 the second ,,aaa1 and now sought to justify the program as a 8regulation of interstate commerce40 ,this was a transparent evasion of the ,butler case2 but the ,supreme ,court1 which by this time was under heavy political fire for having thwarted the 8,roosevelt ,revolution10 made one of its celebrated about-faces and upheld the new act4 ,the federal government has usurped many powers under the guise of 8regulating commerce10 but this instance of distorting the plain meaning of the ,constitution's language is perhaps the most flagrant on record4 ,in the case that upheld the second ,,aaa1 ,wickard v4 ,filburn1 7#aidb71 a farmer had been fined for planting #bc acres of wheat1 instead of the eleven acres the government had allotted him--notwithstanding that the 8excess0 wheat had been consumed on his own farm4 ,now how in the world1 the farmer wanted to know1 can it be said that the wheat ,i feed my own stock is in interstate commerce8 ,that's easy1 the ,court said4 ,if you had not used your own wheat for feed1 you might have bought feed from someone else1 and that purchase might have affected the price of wheat that was transported in interstate commerce6 ,by this bizarre reasoning the ,court made the commerce clause as wide as the world and nullified the ,constitution's clear reservation to the ,states of jurisdiction over agriculture4 ,the tragedy1 of course1 is that the federal government's unconstitutional intrusion into ,agriculture has not brought us any closer to a solution of the 8farm problem40 ,the problem1 when federal intervention began1 was declining farm incomes4 ,today1 many farm incomes are still low4 ,but now we have additional problems--production controls that restrict freedom1 high consumer prices1 huge crop surpluses and a gigantic tax bill that is running close to six billion dollars a year4 ,no matter what variant of the price support-production control approach we adopt1 the solution to these problems continues to elude us4 ,the reason government intervention has created more problems than it has solved is quite simple4 ,farm production1 like any other production is best controlled by the natural operation of the free market4 ,if the nation's farmers are permitted to sell their produce freely1 at price consumers are willing to pay1 they will1 under the law of supply and demand1 end up producing roughly what can be consumed in national and world markets4 ,and if farmers1 in general1 find they are not getting high enough prices for their produce1 some of them will move into other kinds of economic activity4 ,the result will be reduced agricultural production and higher incomes for those who remain on the farms4 ,if1 however1 the government interferes with this natural economic process1 and pegs prices higher than the consumer is willing to pay1 the result will be1 in ,hamilton's phrase1 8troublesome40 ,the nation will pay exorbitant prices for work that is not needed and for produce that cannot be consumed4 ,in recent years1 the government has sought to alleviate the problem of over-production by the soil bank and acreage retirement programs4 ,actually1 these programs are simply a modern version of the hog-killing and potato-burning schemes promoted by ,henry ,wallace during the ,new ,deal4 ,and they have been no more successful in reducing surpluses than their predecessors4 ,but there is also a positive evil in these programs3 in effect1 they reward people for not producing4 ,for a nation that is expressing great concern over its 8economic growth10 ,i cannot conceive of a more absurd and self-defeating policy than one which subsidizes non-production4 ,the problem of surpluses will not be solved until we recognize that technological progress and other factors have made it possible for the needs of ,america1 and those of accessible world markets1 to be satisfied by a far fewer number of farmers than now till the soil4 ,i cannot believe that any serious student of the farm problems fails to appreciate this fact4 ,what has been lacking is not an understanding of a problem that is really quite impossible not to understand1 but the political courage to do something about it4 ,doing something about it means--and there can be no equivocation here--prompt and final termination of the farm subsidy program4 ,the only way to persuade farmers to enter other fields of endeavor is to stop paying inefficient farmers for produce that cannot be sold at free market prices4 ,is this a cruel solution8 ,is it heartless to permit the natural laws of economics to determine how many farmers there shall be in the same way that those laws determine how many bankers1 or druggists1 or watchmakers there shall be8 ,it was never considered so before the subsidy program began4 ,let us remember that the movement from the farm to other fields of endeavor has been proceeding in this country since its beginning--and with good effects1 not ill4 ,i cannot believe that this course will lose politicians as many votes as some of them seem to fear4 ,most farmers want to stand on their own feet4 ,they are prepared to take their chances in the free market4 ,they have a more intimate knowledge than most of us of the consequences of unlimited government power1 and so1 it would seem1 a greater interest than most in returning agriculture to freedom and economic sanity4 ,,chapter ,,six ,freedom ,for ,labor ,if ,i had to select the vote ,i regard as the most important of my ,senate career it would be the one ,i cast on the ,kennedy-,ervin 8,labor ,reform0 ,bill of #aiei4 ,the ,senate passed the measure #ij-a2 the dissenting vote was mine4 ,the measure had been advertised as a cure-all for the evils uncovered by the ,mc,clellan ,committee investigation4 ,i opposed it because ,i felt certain that legislation which pretended to respond to the popular demand for safeguards against union power1 but actually did not do so1 would preclude the possibility of meaningful legislation for some time to come4 ,that opinion was vindicated later on4 ,the ,house of ,representatives rejected ,kennedy-,ervin1 and substituted in its place a much better measure1 the ,landrum-,griffin bill4 ,the ensuing conference between representatives of the two houses made only minor changes in the ,house version2 ,i would guess that #ij of the original ,landrum-,griffin bill survived in the conferees' report4 ,the ,senate adopted the report with only two dissenting votes--proof to me that my initial protest had been wise4 ,but the protest still holds3 though the ,landrum-,griffin ,bill was an improvement over the ,kennedy measure1 ,congress has still to come to grips with the real evil in the ,labor field4 ,graft and corruption are symptoms of the illness that besets the labor movement1 not the cause of it4 ,the cause is the enormous economic and political power now concentrated in the hands of union leaders4 ,such power hurts the nation's economy by forcing on employers contract terms that encourage inefficiency1 lower production and high prices--all of which result in a lower standard of living for the ,american people4 ,it corrupts the nation's political life by exerting undue influence on the selection of public officials4 ,it gravely compromises the freedom of millions of individual workers who are able to register a dissent against the practice of union leaders only at the risk of losing their jobs4 ,all of us have heard the charge that to thus criticize the power of ,big ,labor is to be anti-labor and anti-union4 ,this is an argument that serves the interest of union leaders1 but it does not usually fit the facts1 and it certainly does not do justice to my views4 ,i believe that unionism1 kept within its proper and natural bounds1 accomplishes a positive good for the country4 ,unions can be an instrument for achieving economic justice for the working man4 ,moreover1 they are an alternative to1 and thus discourage ,state ,socialism4 ,most important of all1 they are an expression of freedom4 ,trade unions properly conceived1 are an expression of man's inalienable right to associate with other men for the achievement of legitimate objectives4 ,the natural function of a trade union and the one for which it was historically conceived is to represent those employees who want collective representation in bargaining with their employers over terms of employment4 ,but note that this function is perverted the moment a union claims the right to represent employees who do not want representation1 or conducts activities that have nothing to do with terms of employment 7e4g4 political activities71 or tries to deal with an industry as a whole instead of with individual employers4 ,as ,america turned increasingly1 in the latter half of the nineteenth century1 from an agricultural nation into an industrial one1 and as the size of business enterprises expanded1 individual wage earners found themselves at a distinct disadvantage in dealing with their employers over terms of employment4 ,the economic power of the large enterprises1 as compared with that of the individual employee1 was such that wages and conditions of employment were pretty much what the employer decided they would be4 ,under these conditions1 as a means of increasing their economic power1 many employees chose to band together and create a common agent for negotiating with their employers4 ,as time went on1 we found that the working man's right to bargain through a collective agent needed legal protection2 accordingly ,congress enacted laws--notably certain provisions of the ,clayton ,act1 the ,norris ,la,guardia ,act and the ,wagner ,act--to make sure that employees would be able to bargain collectively4 ,this is not the place to examine those laws in detail4 ,it is clear1 however1 that they have over-accomplished their purpose4 ,thanks to some unwise provisions and to the absence of others that should have been included1 the delicate balance of power we sought to achieve between labor and management has shifted1 in avalanche proportions1 to labor's advantage4 ,or1 more correctly to the advantage of union leaders4 ,this mammoth concentration of power in the hands of a few men is1 ,i repeat1 a grave threat to the nation's economic stability1 and to the nation's political processes4 ,more important1 it has taken from the individual wage earner a large portion of his freedom4 ,the time has come1 not to abolish unions or deprive them of deserved gains2 but to redress the balance--to restore unions to their proper role in a free society4 ,we have seen that unions perform their natural function when three conditions are observed3 association with the union is voluntary2 the union confines its activities to collective bargaining2 the bargaining is conducted with the employer of the workers concerned4 ,let us briefly treat with each of these conditions1 noting the extent to which they are violated today1 and the remedial action we are called upon to take4 ,freedom of ,association4 ,here the argument is so plain that ,i wonder why elaboration is necessary4 ,what could be more fundamental than the freedom to associate with other men1 or not to associate1 as each man's conscience and reason dictates8 ,yet compulsory unionism is the rule rather than the exception today in the ranks of organized labor4 ,millions of laboring men are required to join the union that is the recognized bargaining agent at the place they work4 ,union shop agreements deny to these laboring men the right to decide for themselves what union they will join1 or indeed1 whether they will join at all4 ,the exercise of freedom for many of these citizens1 means the loss of their jobs4 ,here is the kind of thing that can happen as the result of compulsory unionism4 ,x1 a family man in ,pennsylvania had been a union member in good standing for over twenty years4 ,when the ,united ,electrical ,workers became the recognized bargaining agent at his plant1 he refused to join on the grounds the ,,uew was ,communist dominated--a judgment that had been made by the ,,cio itself when it expelled the ,,uew in #aiej4 ,the result1 since his employer had a union shop agreement with the ,,uew1 was that ,x lost his job4 ,the remedy here is to give freedom of association legal protection4 ,and that is why ,i strongly favor enactment of ,state right-to-work laws which forbid contracts that make union membership a condition of employment4 ,these laws are aimed at removing a great blight on the contemporary ,american scene1 and ,i am at a loss to understand why so many people who so often profess concern for 8civil rights0 and 8civil liberties0 are vehemently opposed to them4 ,freedom of association is one of the natural rights of man4 ,clearly1 therefore1 it should also be a 8civil0 right4 ,right-to-work laws derive from the natural law3 they are simply an attempt to give freedom of association the added protection of civil law4 ,i am well aware of the 8free loader0 argument1 so often advanced by union leaders in defense of compulsory unionism4 ,the contention is that a man ought not to enjoy the benefits of an organization's activities unless he contributes his fair share of their cost4 ,i am unaware1 however1 of any other organization or institution that seeks to enforce this theory by compulsion4 ,the ,red ,cross benefits all of us1 directly or indirectly1 but no one suggests that ,red ,cross donations be compulsory4 ,it is one thing to say that a man should contribute to an association that is purportedly acting in his interest2 it is quite another thing to say that he must do so4 ,i believe that a man ought to join a union if it is a good union that is serving the interests of its members4 ,i believe1 moreover1 that most men will give support to a union provided it is deserving of that support4 ,there will always be some men1 of course1 who will try to sponge off others2 but let us not express our contempt for some men by denying freedom of choice to all men4 ,the union leaders' further argument that right to work legislation is a 8union-busting0 device is simply not borne out by the facts4 ,a recent survey disclosed that in all of the nineteen ,states which have enacted right-to-work laws union membership increased after the right-to-work laws were passed4 ,it is also well to remember that the union movement throughout the world has prospered when it has been put on a voluntary basis4 ,contrary to popular belief compulsory unionism is not typical of the labor movement in the free world4 ,it prevails in the ,united ,states and ,england1 but in the other countries of ,western ,europe and in ,australia1 union membership is generally on a voluntary basis4 ,indeed the greatest percentage of unionized workers are found in countries that prohibit compulsion by law4 ,the unions in those countries operate on the principle that a union is stronger and better if its members give their adherence of their own free will4 ,here1 it seems to me1 is the sensible way to combat graft and corruption in the labor movement4 ,as long as union leaders can force workers to join their organization1 they have no incentive to act responsibly4 ,but if workers could choose to belong or not to belong depending on how the union performed1 the pressure to stamp out malpractice would become irresistible4 ,if unions had to earn the adherence of their members the result would be--not only more freedom for the working man--but much less dishonesty and high handedness in the management of the union affairs4 ,political ,freedom4 ,one way we exercise political freedom is to vote for the candidate of our choice4 ,another way is to use our money to try to persuade other voters to make a similar choice--that is1 to contribute to our candidate's campaign4 ,if either of these freedoms is violated1 the consequences are very grave not only for the individual voter and contributor1 but for the society whose free political processes depend on a wide distribution of political power4 ,it is in the second of these areas1 that of political contributions1 that labor unions seriously compromise ,american freedom4 ,they do this by spending the money of union members without prior consultation for purposes the individual members may or may not approve of1 purposes that are decided upon by a relatively small number of union leaders4 ,probably the greatest spender in the labor movement is the powerful ,,afl_/,,cio ,committee on ,political ,education 7,,cope7 which is supported in its 8educational0 work entirely by union general funds4 ,it is impossible to say just how much unions spend on political campaigns2 certainly one can't tell from the amounts officially reported1 which invariably present a grossly distorted picture4 ,in #aief1 for example1 ,labor officially acknowledged expenditures of #ida1bga4 ,according to that official report1 #gi1ici of the total was spent in the ,state of ,michigan4 ,however1 a ,senate investigating committee obtained evidence that in that year each of ,michigan's #gjj1jjj union members had been assessed #a4bj as a contribution to a 8citizenship fund10 and that this money was made available for political activities4 ,this suggests that labor spent1 from that one source alone1 almost a million dollars in ,michigan instead of #gi1jjj4 ,by projecting the difference on a nation-wide scale we get a more realistic idea of the size of ,labor's political contributions4 ,union political activity is not confined1 of course1 to direct financial contributions4 ,in fact1 this is one of its smallest endeavors4 ,unions provide manpower for election day chores--for making phone calls1 driving cars1 manning the polls and so on4 ,often the union members who perform these chores are reimbursed for their time-off out of union funds4 ,unions also sponsor radio and television programs and distribute a huge volume of printed material designed to support the candidate of the union's choice4 ,in short1 they perform all the functions of a regular party organization4 ,now the evil here is twofold4 ,for one thing1 the union's decision whether to support candidate ,x or candidate ,y--whether to help the ,republican ,party or the ,democratic ,party--is not reached by a poll of the union membership4 ,it is made by a handful of top union officers4 ,these few men are thus able to wield tremendous political power in virtue of their ability to spend other people's money4 ,no one else in ,america is so privileged4 ,the other evil is more serious4 ,individual union members are denied the right to decide for themselves how to spend their money4 ,certainly a moral issue is at stake here4 ,is it morally permissible to take the money of a ,republican union member1 for example1 and spend it on behalf of a ,democrat8 ,the travesty is deeper1 of course1 when the money takes the form of compulsory union dues4 ,under union shop conditions1 the only way an individual can avoid contributing to the political campaign of a candidate whom he may not approve is to give up his job4 ,the passage of right-to-work laws will help the situation4 ,but putting unionism on a voluntary basis is only part of the answer4 ,for even though a man can leave or refuse to join a union that spends money for purposes that he does not approve1 there may be other factors that would dissuade him from doing so4 ,in many communities strong economic and social pressures are exerted on behalf of joining a union--quite aside from the threat of loss of employment4 ,as a result1 a man may decide to join a union notwithstanding his disapproval of its political activities4 ,and the question remains3 ,should that man's union dues be used for political purposes8 ,the answer is clearly1 no4 ,unions exist1 presumably to confer economic advantages on their members1 not to perform political services for them4 ,unions should therefore be forbidden to engage in any kind of political activity4 ,i believe that the ,federal ,corrupt ,practices ,act does forbid such activity4 ,that legislation has been circumvented by the 8education0 approach and other devices2 and ,congress and the courts1 in effect1 have looked the other way4 ,the only remedy1 it appears1 is new legislation4 ,in order to achieve the widest possible distribution of political power1 financial contributions to political campaigns should be made by individuals and individuals alone4 ,i see no reason for labor unions--or corporations--to participate in politics4 ,both were created for economic purposes and their activities should be restricted accordingly4 ,economic ,freedom4 ,americans have been much disturbed in recent years by the apparent power of ,big ,labor to impose its will on the nation's economic life whenever the impulse strikes4 ,the recent steel controversy1 and the terms of its settlement1 are the latest illustration of ,labor's ability to get its way notwithstanding the cost to the rest of society4 ,when the strike began1 neutral observers--including government economists normally friendly to the unions--agreed that the ,steel ,workers' wage demands were exorbitant and would inevitably cause further inflation2 and that the steel companies were quite right in insisting that certain 8work rules0 promoted inefficiency and retarded production4 ,nevertheless1 the steel companies were forced to accept a settlement that postponed indefinitely revision of work rules and granted a large portion of the union's wage demands4 ,the reason the union won is quite simple3 it posed to the country the choice of tolerating stoppages in steel production that would imperil national security1 or of consenting to an abandonment of the collective bargaining process4 ,since neither the steel companies nor the country at large wanted to resort to compulsory arbitration1 the alternative was to give the unions what they asked4 ,in this situation1 the only power superior to union power was government power1 and the government chose to yield4 ,one way to check the unions' power is for the government to dictate through compulsory arbitration1 the terms of employment throughout an entire industry4 ,i am opposed to this course because it simply transfers economic power from the unions to the government1 and encourages ,state ,socialism4 ,the other way is to disperse union power and thus extend freedom in labor-management relations4 ,eighty years ago the nation was faced with a comparable concentration of economic power4 ,large corporations1 by gaining monopoly control over entire industries1 had nullified the laws of competition that are conducive to freedom4 ,we responded to that challenge by outlawing monopolies through the ,sherman ,act and other anti-trust legislation4 ,these laws1 however1 have never been applied to labor unions4 ,and ,i am at a loss to understand why4 ,if it is wrong for a single corporation to dictate prices throughout an entire industry1 it is also wrong for a single union--or1 as is the actual case1 a small number of union leaders--to dictate wages and terms of employment throughout an entire industry4 ,the evil to be eliminated is the power of unions to enforce industry-wide bargaining4 ,employees have a right1 as we have seen1 to select a common agent for bargaining with their employer but they do not have a right to select a national agent to bargain with all employers in the industry4 ,if a union has the power to enforce uniform conditions of employment throughout the nation its power is comparable to that of a ,socialist government4 ,employers are forbidden to act collusively for sound reasons4 ,the same reasons apply to unions4 ,industry-wide price-fixing causes economic dislocations4 ,so does industry-wide wage-fixing4 ,a wage that is appropriate in one part of the country may not be in another area where economic conditions are very different4 ,corporate monopolies impair the operation of the free market1 and thus injure the consuming public4 ,so do union monopolies4 ,when the ,united ,automobile ,workers demand a wage increase from the auto industry1 a single monolith is pitted against a number of separate1 competing companies4 ,the contest is an unequal one1 for the union is able to play off one company against another4 ,the result is that individual companies are unable to resist excessive wage demands and must1 in turn1 raise their prices4 ,the consumer ultimately suffers for he pays prices that are fixed not by free market competition--the law of supply and demand--but by the arbitrary decision of national union leaders4 ,far better if the employees of ,ford were required to deal with ,ford1 and those of ,chrysler with ,chrysler and so on4 ,the collective bargaining process will work for the common good in all industries if it is confined to the employers and employees directly concerned4 ,let us henceforth make war on all monopolies--whether corporate or union4 ,the enemy of freedom is unrestrained power1 and the champions of freedom will fight against the concentration of power wherever they find it4 ,,chapter ,,seven ,taxes and ,spending ,we all have heard much throughout our lifetimes1 and seen little happen1 on the subject of high taxes4 ,where is the politician who has not promised his constituents a fight to the death for lower taxes--and who has not proceeded to vote for the very spending projects that make tax cuts impossible8 ,there are some the shoe does not fit1 but ,i am afraid not many4 ,talk of tax reduction has thus come to have a hollow ring4 ,the people listen1 but do not believe4 ,and worse3 as the public grows more and more cynical1 the politician feels less and less compelled to take his promises seriously4 ,i suspect that this vicious circle of cynicism and failure to perform is primarily the result of the ,liberals' success in reading out of the discussion the moral principles with which the subject of taxation is so intimately connected4 ,we have been led to look upon taxation as merely a problem of public financing3 ,how much money does the government need8 ,we have been led to discount1 and often to forget altogether1 the bearing of taxation on the problem of individual freedom4 ,we have been persuaded that the government has an unlimited claim on the wealth of the people1 and that the only pertinent question is what portion of its claim the government should exercise4 ,the ,american taxpayer1 ,i think1 has lost confidence in his claim to his money4 ,he has been handicapped in resisting high taxes by the feeling that he is1 in the nature of things1 obliged to accommodate whatever need for his wealth government chooses to assert4 ,the 8nature of things10 ,i submit1 is quite different4 ,government does not have an unlimited claim on the earnings of individuals4 ,one of the foremost precepts of the natural law is man's right to the possession and the use of his property4 ,and a man's earnings are his property as much as his land and the house in which he lives4 ,indeed1 in the industrial age1 earnings are probably the most prevalent form of property4 ,it has been the fashion in recent years to disparage 8property rights0--to associate them with greed and materialism4 ,this attack on property rights is actually an attack on freedom4 ,it is another instance of the modern failure to take into account the whole man4 ,how can a man be truly free if he is denied the means to exercise freedom8 ,how can he be free if the fruits of his labor are not his to dispose of1 but are treated1 instead1 as part of a common pool of public wealth8 ,property and freedom are inseparable3 to the extent government takes the one in the form of taxes1 it intrudes on the other4 ,here is an indication of how taxation currently infringes on our freedom4 ,a family man earning #d1ejj a year works1 on the average1 twenty-two days a month4 ,taxes1 visible and invisible1 take approximately #cb of his earnings4 ,this means that one-third1 or seven whole days1 of his monthly labor goes for taxes4 ,the average ,american is therefore working one-third of the time for government3 a third of what he produces is not available for his own use but is confiscated and used by others who have not earned it4 ,let us note that by this measure the ,united ,states is already one-third 8socialized40 ,the late ,senator ,taft made the point often4 8,you can socialize10 he said 8just as well by a steady increase in the burden of taxation beyond the #cj we have already reached as you can by government seizure4 ,the very imposition of heavy taxes is a limit on a man's freedom40 ,but having said that each man has an inalienable right to his property1 it also must be said that every citizen has an obligation to contribute his fair share to the legitimate functions of government4 ,government1 in other words1 has some claim on our wealth1 and the problem is to define that claim in a way that gives due consideration to the property rights of the individual4 ,the size of the government's rightful claim--that is1 the total amount it may take in taxes--will be determined by how we define the 8legitimate functions of government40 ,with regard to the federal government1 the ,constitution is the proper standard of legitimacy3 its 8legitimate0 powers1 as we have seen are those the ,constitution has delegated to it4 ,therefore1 if we adhere to the ,constitution1 the federal government's total tax bill will be the cost of exercising such of its delegated powers as our representatives deem necessary in the national interest4 ,but conversely1 when the federal government enacts programs that are not authorized by its delegated powers1 the taxes needed to pay for such programs exceed the government's rightful claim on our wealth4 ,the distribution of the government's claim is the next part of the definition4 ,what is a 8fair share80 ,i believe that the requirements of justice here are perfectly clear3 government has a right to claim an equal percentage of each man's wealth1 and no more4 ,property taxes are typically levied on this basis4 ,excise and sales taxes are based on the same principle--though the tax is levied on a transaction rather than on property4 ,the principle is equally valid with regard to incomes1 inheritances and gifts4 ,the idea that a man who makes #ajj1jjj a year should be forced to contribute ninety per cent of his income to the cost of government1 while the man who makes #aj1jjj is made to pay twenty per cent is repugnant to my notions of justice4 ,i do not believe in punishing success4 ,to put it more broadly1 ,i believe it is contrary to the natural right to property to which we have just alluded--and is therefore immoral--to deny to the man whose labor has produced more abundant fruit than that of his neighbor the opportunity of enjoying the abundance he has created4 ,as for the claim that the government needs the graduated tax for revenue purposes1 the facts are to the contrary4 ,the total revenue collected from income taxes beyond the twenty per cent level amounts to less than #e billion--less than the federal government now spends on the one item of agriculture4 ,the graduated tax is a confiscatory tax4 ,its effect1 and to a large extent its aim1 is to bring down all men to a common level4 ,many of the leading proponents of the graduated tax frankly admit that their purpose is to redistribute the nation's wealth4 ,their aim is an egalitarian society--an objective that does violence both to the charter of the ,republic and the laws of ,nature4 ,we are all equal in the eyes of ,god but we are equal in no other respect4 ,artificial devices for enforcing equality among unequal men must be rejected if we would restore that charter and honor those laws4 ,one problem with regard to taxes1 then1 is to enforce justice--to abolish the graduated features of our tax laws2 and the sooner we get at the job1 the better4 ,the other1 and the one that has the greatest impact on our daily lives1 is to reduce the volume of taxes4 ,and this takes us to the question of government spending4 ,while there is something to be said for the proposition that spending will never be reduced so long as there is money in the federal treasury1 ,i believe that as a practical matter spending cuts must come before tax cuts4 ,if we reduce taxes before firm1 principled decisions are made about expenditures1 we will court deficit spending and the inflationary effects that invariably follow4 ,it is in the area of spending that the ,republican ,party's performance1 in its seven years of power1 has been most disappointing4 ,in the ,summer of #aieb1 shortly after the ,republican ,convention1 the two men who had battled for the ,presidential nomination met at ,morningside ,heights1 ,new ,york1 to discuss the problem of taxes and spending4 ,after the conference1 ,senator ,taft announced3 8,general ,eisenhower emphatically agrees with me in the proposal to reduce drastically overall expenses4 ,our goal is about #gj billion in fiscal #aied 7,president ,truman had proposed #ha billion7 and #fj billion in fiscal #aiee4444 ,of course1 ,i hope we may do better than that and that the reduction can steadily continue40 ,thereafter1 the idea of a #fj billion budget in #aiee1 plus the promise of further reductions later on1 became an integral part of the ,republican campaign4 ,now it would be bad enough if we had simply failed to redeem our promise to reduce spending2 the fact1 however1 is that federal spending has greatly increased during the ,republican years4 ,instead of a #fj billion budget1 we are confronted1 in fiscal #aifa1 with a budget of approximately #hj billion4 ,if we add to the formal budget figure disbursements from the so-called trust funds for ,social ,security and the ,federal ,highway ,program--as we must if we are to obtain a realistic picture of federal expenditures--total federal spending will be in the neighborhood of #ie billion4 ,we are often told that increased federal spending is simply a reflection of the increased cost of national defense4 ,this is untrue4 ,in the last ten years purely domestic expenditures have increased from #ae4b billion1 in fiscal #aiea1 to a proposed #cg4j billion in fiscal #aifab--;an increase of #adc6 ,here are the figures measured by a slightly different yardstick3 during the last five years of the ,truman ,administration the average annual federal expenditure for domestic purposes was #ag4g billion2 during the last five years of the ,eisenhower ,administration it was #cc4f billion1 an increase of #hi4 ,some allowance must be made1 of course1 for the increase in population2 obviously the same welfare program will cost more if there are more people to be cared for4 ,but the increase in population does not begin to account for the increase in spending4 ,during the ten-year period in which federal spending will have increased by #adc1 our population will have increased by roughly #ah4 ,nor does inflation account for the difference4 ,in the past ten years the value of the dollar has decreased less than #bj4 ,finally1 we are often told that the government's share of total spending in the country is what is important and consequently we must take into account the increase in gross national product4 ,again1 however1 the increase in ,,gnp1 which was roughly #dj over the past ten years1 is not comparable to a #adc increase in federal spending4 ,the conclusion here is inescapable--that far from arresting federal spending and the trend toward ,statism we ,republicans have kept the trend moving forward4 ,i do not mean to suggest1 of course1 that things would have been different under a ,democratic ,administration4 ,every year the ,democratic national leadership demands that the federal government spend more than it is spending1 and that ,republicans propose to spend4 ,and this year1 several weeks before ,president ,eisenhower submitted his #aifa budget1 ,the ,democratic ,national ,advisory ,council issued a manifesto calling for profligate spending increases in nearly every department of the federal government2 the demands for increases in domestic spending alone could hardly cost less than #bj billion a year4 ,i do mean to say1 however1 that neither of our political parties has seriously faced up to the problem of government spending4 ,the recommendations of the ,hoover ,commission which could save the taxpayer in the neighborhood of #g billion a year have been largely ignored4 ,yet even these recommendations1 dealing as they do for the most part with extravagance and waste1 do not go to the heart of the problem4 ,the root evil is that the government is engaged in activities in which it has no legitimate business4 ,as long as the federal government acknowledges responsibility in a given social or economic field1 its spending in that field cannot be substantially reduced4 ,as long as the federal government acknowledges responsibility for education1 for example1 the amount of federal aid is bound to increase1 at the very least1 in direct proportion to the cost of supporting the nation's schools4 ,the only way to curtail spending substantially1 is to eliminate the programs on which excess spending is consumed4 ,the government must begin to withdraw from a whole series of programs that are outside its constitutional mandate--from social welfare programs1 education1 public power1 agriculture1 public housing1 urban renewal and all the other activities that can be better performed by lower levels of government or by private institutions or by individuals4 ,i do not suggest that the federal government drop all of these programs overnight4 ,but ,i do suggest that we establish1 by law1 a rigid timetable for a staged withdrawal4 ,we might provide1 for example1 for a #aj spending reduction each year in all of the fields in which federal participation is undesirable4 ,it is only through this kind of determined assault on the principle of unlimited government that ,american people will obtain relief from high taxes1 and will start making progress toward regaining their freedom4 ,and let us1 by all means1 remember the nation's interest in reducing taxes and spending4 ,the need for 8economic growth0 that we hear so much about these days will be achieved1 not by the government harnessing the nation's economic forces1 but by emancipating them4 ,by reducing taxes and spending we will not only return to the individual the means with which he can assert his freedom and dignity1 but also guarantee to the nation the economic strength that will always be its ultimate defense against foreign foes4 ,,footnote3 #b ,these figures do not include interest payments on the national debt4 ,,chapter ,,eight ,the ,welfare ,state ,washington--,the ,president estimated that the expenditures of the ,department of ,health1 ,education and ,welfare in the fiscal year #aifa 7including ,social ,security payments7 would exceed #ae1jjj1jjj1jjj4 ,thus the current results of ,new ,deal legislation are ,federal disbursements for human welfare in this country second only to national defense4 ,the ,new ,york ,times1 ,january #ah1 #aifj1 p4 #a4 ,for many years it appeared that the principal domestic threat to our freedom was contained in the doctrines of ,karl ,marx4 ,the collectivists--non-,communists as well as ,communists--had adopted the ,marxist objective of 8socializing the means of production40 ,and so it seemed that if collectivization were imposed1 it would take the form of a ,state owned and operated economy4 ,i doubt whether this is the main threat any longer4 ,the collectivists have found1 both in this country and in other industrialized nations of the ,west1 that free enterprise has removed the economic and social conditions that might have made a class struggle possible4 ,mammoth productivity1 wide distribution of wealth1 high standards of living1 the trade union movement--these and other factors have eliminated whatever incentive there might have been for the 8proletariat0 to rise up1 peaceably or otherwise1 and assume direct ownership of productive property4 ,significantly1 the bankruptcy of doctrinaire ,marxism has been expressly acknowledged by the ,socialist ,party of ,west ,germany1 and by the dominant faction of the ,socialist ,party of ,great ,britain4 ,in this country the abandonment of the ,marxist approach 7outside the ,communist ,party1 of course7 is attested to by the negligible strength of the ,socialist ,party1 and more tellingly perhaps1 by the content of left wing literature and by the programs of left wing political organizations such as the ,americans ,for ,democratic ,action4 ,the currently favored instrument of collectivization is the ,welfare ,state4 ,the collectivists have not abandoned their ultimate goal--to subordinate the individual to the ,state--but their strategy has changed4 ,they have learned that ,socialism can be achieved through ,welfarism quite as well as through ,nationalization4 ,they understand that private property can be confiscated as effectively by taxation as by expropriating it4 ,they understand that the individual can be put at the mercy of the ,state--not only by making the ,state his employer--but by divesting him of the means to provide for his personal needs and by giving the ,state the responsibility of caring for those needs from cradle to grave4 ,moreover1 they have discovered--and here is the critical point--that ,welfarism is much more compatible with the political processes of a democratic society4 ,nationalization ran into popular opposition1 but the collectivists feel sure the ,welfare ,state can be erected by the simple expedient of buying votes with promises of 8free0 federal benefits--8free0 housing1 8free0 school aid1 8free0 hospitalization1 8free0 retirement pay and so on4444 ,the correctness of this estimate can be seen from the portion of the federal budget that is now allocated to welfare1 an amount second only to the cost of national defense4#c ,i do not welcome this shift of strategy4 ,socialism-through-,welfarism poses a far greater danger to freedom than ,socialism-through-,nationalization precisely because it is more difficult to combat4 ,the evils of ,nationalization are self-evident and immediate4 ,those of ,welfarism are veiled and tend to be postponed4 ,people can understand the consequences of turning over ownership of the steel industry1 say1 to the ,state2 and they can be counted on to oppose such a proposal4 ,but let the government increase its contribution to the 8,public ,assistance0 program and we will1 at most1 grumble about excessive government spending4 ,the effect of ,welfarism on freedom will be felt later on--after its beneficiaries have become its victims1 after dependence on government has turned into bondage and it is too late to unlock the jail4 ,but a far more important factor is ,welfarism's strong emotional appeal to many voters1 and the consequent temptations it presents the average politician4 ,it is hard1 as we have seen1 to make out a case for ,state ownership4 ,it is very different with the rhetoric of humanitarianism4 ,how easy it is to reach the voters with earnest importunities for helping the needy4 ,and how difficult for ,conservatives to resist these demands without appearing to be callous and contemptuous of the plight of less fortunate citizens4 ,here1 perhaps1 is the best illustration of the failure of the ,conservative demonstration4 ,i know1 for ,i have heard the questions often4 ,have you no sense of social obligation8 the ,liberals ask4 ,have you no concern for people who are out of work8 for sick people who lack medical care8 for children in overcrowded schools8 ,are you unmoved by the problems of the aged and disabled8 ,are you against human welfare8 ,the answer to all of these questions is1 of course1 no4 ,but a simple 8no0 is not enough4 ,i feel certain that ,conservatism is through unless ,conservatives can demonstrate and communicate the difference between being concerned with these problems and believing that the federal government is the proper agent for their solution4 ,the long range political consequences of ,welfarism are plain enough3 as we have seen1 the ,state that is able to deal with its citizens as wards and dependents has gathered unto itself unlimited political and economic power and is thus able to rule as absolutely as any oriental despot4 ,let us1 however1 weigh the consequences of ,welfarism on the individual citizen4 ,consider1 first1 the effect of ,welfarism on the donors of government welfare--not only those who pay for it but also the voters and their elected representatives who decide that the benefits shall be conferred4 ,does some credit redound on them for trying to care for the needs of their fellow citizens8 ,are they to be commended and rewarded1 at some moment in eternity1 for their 8charity80 ,i think not4 ,suppose ,i should vote for a measure providing for free medical care3 ,i am unaware of any moral virtue that is attached to my decision to confiscate the earnings of ,x and give them to ,y4 ,suppose1 however1 that ,x approves of the program--that he has voted for welfarist politicians with the idea of helping his fellow man4 ,surely the wholesomeness of his act is diluted by the fact that he is voting not only to have his own money taken but also that of his fellow citizens who may have different ideas about their social obligations4 ,why does not such a man1 instead1 contribute what he regards as his just share of human welfare to a private charity8 ,consider the consequences to the recipient of welfarism4 ,for one thing1 he mortgages himself to the federal government4 ,in return for benefits--which1 in the majority of cases1 he pays for--he concedes to the government the ultimate in political power--the power to grant or withhold from him the necessities of life as the government sees fit4 ,even more important1 however1 is the effect on him--the elimination of any feeling of responsibility for his own welfare and that of his family and neighbors4 ,a man may not immediately1 or ever1 comprehend the harm thus done to his character4 ,indeed1 this is one of the great evils of ,welfarism--that it transforms the individual from a dignified1 industrious1 self-reliant spiritual being into a dependent animal creature without his knowing it4 ,there is no avoiding this damage to character under the ,welfare ,state4 ,welfare programs cannot help but promote the idea that the government owes the benefits it confers on the individual1 and that the individual is entitled1 by right1 to receive them4 ,such programs are sold to the country precisely on the argument that government has an obligation to care for the needs of its citizens4 ,is it possible that the message will reach those who vote for the benefits1 but not those who receive them8 ,how different it is with private charity where both the giver and the receiver understand that charity is the product of the humanitarian impulses of the giver1 not the due of the receiver4 ,let us1 then1 not blunt the noble impulses of mankind by reducing charity to a mechanical operation of the federal government4 ,let us1 by all means1 encourage those who are fortunate and able to care for the needs of those who are unfortunate and disabled4 ,but let us do this in a way that is conducive to the spiritual as well as the material well-being of our citizens--and in a way that will preserve their freedom4 ,let welfare be a private concern4 ,let it be promoted by individuals and families1 by churches1 private hospitals1 religious service organizations1 community charities and other institutions that have been established for this purpose4 ,if the objection is raised that private institutions lack sufficient funds1 let us remember that every penny the federal government does not appropriate for welfare is potentially available for private use--and without the overhead charge for processing the money through the federal bureaucracy4 ,indeed1 high taxes1 for which government ,welfarism is so largely responsible1 is the biggest obstacle to fund raising by private charities4 ,finally1 if we deem public intervention necessary1 let the job be done by local and state authorities that are incapable of accumulating the vast political power that is so inimical to our liberties4 ,the ,welfare ,state is not inevitable1 as its proponents are so fond of telling us4 ,there is nothing inherent in an industrialized economy1 or in democratic processes of government that must produce de ,tocqueville's 8guardian society40 ,our future1 like our past1 will be what we make it4 ,and we can shatter the collectivists' designs on individual freedom if we will impress upon the men who conduct our affairs this one truth3 that the material and spiritual sides of man are intertwined2 that it is impossible for the ,state to assume responsibility for one without intruding on the essential nature of the other2 that if we take from a man the personal responsibility for caring for his material needs1 we take from him also the will and the opportunity to be free4 ,,footnote3 #c ,the total figure is substantially higher than the #ae1jjj1jjj1jjj noted above if we take into account welfare expenditures outside the ,department of ,health1 ,education and ,welfare--for federal housing projects1 for example4 ,,chapter ,,nine ,some ,notes ,on ,education ,i agree with lobbyists for federal school aid that education is one of the great problems of our day4 ,i am afraid1 however1 that their views and mine regarding the nature of the problem are many miles apart4 ,they tend to see the problem in quantitative terms--not enough schools1 not enough teachers1 not enough equipment4 ,i think it has to do with quality3 ,how good are the schools we have8 ,their solution is to spend more money4 ,mine is to raise standards4 ,their recourse is to the federal government4 ,mine is to the local public school board1 the private school1 the individual citizen--as far away from the federal government as one can possibly go4 ,and ,i suspect that if we knew which of these two views on education will eventually prevail1 we would know also whether ,western civilization is due to survive1 or will pass away4 ,to put this somewhat differently1 ,i believe that our ability to cope with the great crises that lie ahead will be enhanced in direct ratio as we recapture the lost art of learning1 and will diminish in direct ratio as we give responsibility for training our children's minds to the federal bureaucracy4 ,but let us put these differences aside for the moment and note four reasons why federal aid to education is objectionable even if we grant that the problem is primarily quantitative4 ,the first is that federal intervention in education is unconstitutional4 ,it is the fashion these days to say that responsibility for education 8traditionally0 rests with the local community--as a prelude to proposing an exception to the tradition in the form of federal aid4 ,this 8tradition10 let us remember1 is also the law4 ,it is sanctioned by the ,constitution of the ,united ,states1 for education is one of the powers reserved to the ,states by the ,tenth ,amendment4 ,therefore1 any federal aid program1 however desirable it might appear1 must be regarded as illegal until such time as the ,constitution is amended4 ,the second objection is that the alleged need for federal funds has never been convincingly demonstrated4 ,it all depends1 of course1 on how the question is put4 ,if you ask1 ,does ,state ,x need additional educational facilities8 the answer may be yes4 ,but if you ask1 ,does ,state ,x require additional facilities that are beyond the reach of its own financial means8 the answer is invariably no4 ,the ,white ,house ,conference on ,education in #aiee was1 most of us will remember1 an elaborate effort to demonstrate popular support for federal aid4 ,as expected1 the 8consensus0 of the conference was that more federal aid was needed4 ,however1 the conferees reached another conclusion that was hardly noticed by the press4 8,no state represented10 the ,conference report stated1 8has a demonstrated financial incapacity to build the schools they will need during the next five years40 ,what is lacking1 the report went on1 is not money1 but a 8political determination powerful enough to overcome all the obstacles04 ,through the succeeding five years1 congressional committees have listened to hundreds of hours of testimony in favor of federal aid1 but they have never heard that #aiee finding successfully contradicted4 ,what the ,white ,house conferees were saying in #aiee1 and what proponents of federal aid to education have been saying ever since1 is that because a few ,states have not seen fit to take care of their school needs1 it is incumbent upon the federal government to take up the slack4 ,my view is that if ,state ,x possesses the wealth to educate its children adequately1 but has failed to utilize its wealth for that purpose1 it is up to the people of ,state ,x to take remedial action through their local and state governments4 ,the federal government has neither the right nor the duty to intervene4 ,let us1 moreover1 keep the problem in proper perspective4 ,the national school system is not in distress4 ,shortly before the ,senate debate this year on increased federal aid1 ,i asked ,mr4 ,arthur ,flemming the ,secretary of ,health1 ,education and ,welfare1 how many of the ,nation's school districts were in actual trouble--how many1 that is1 had reached their bonded limit4 ,his answer was approximately #bcj4 ,now there are roughly #db1jjj school districts in ,america4 ,thus1 proponents of federal aid are talking about a problem that affects only one-half of one per cent of our school districts6 ,i cannot believe that the state governments responsible for those areas are incapable of making up whatever deficiencies exist4 ,it so happens that the same deficiency figure--one-half of one per cent--applies to my own state of ,arizona4 ,and ,arizona proudly turned down federal funds under the #aieh ,national ,defense ,education ,act on the grounds that ,arizonans1 themselves1 were quite capable of closing the gap4 ,this may be the place1 while we are speaking of need1 to lay to rest the notion that the ,american people have been niggardly in support of their schools4 ,since the end of ,world ,war ,,ii1 ,americans have built #eej1jjj classrooms at a cost of approximately #ai billion--almost all of which was raised at the local level4 ,this new construction provided space for over #ae million pupils during a period when the school population increased by only #aj million pupils4 ,it is evident1 therefore1 that increased school expenditures have more than kept pace with increased school needs4 ,here are some of the figures4 ,in the school year #aidi-ej there were #be million students enrolled in various education institutions in the ,united ,states4 ,in the year #aiei-fj there were #cd4g million--an increase of #ch4 ,during the same period revenues for school use1 raised largely at the local level1 increased from #e4d billion to #ab4a billion--an increase of #abd4 ,when school expenditures increase three and a half times as fast as the school population1 ,i do not think that the adequacy of ,america's 8traditional0 approach to education is open to serious question4 ,the third objection to federal aid is that it promotes the idea that federal school money is 8free0 money1 and thus gives the people a distorted picture of the cost of education4 ,i was distressed to find that five out of six high school and junior college students recently interviewed in ,phoenix said they favored federal aid because it would mean more money for local schools and ease the financial burden on ,arizona taxpayers4 ,the truth1 of course1 is that the federal government has no funds except those it extracts from the taxpayers who reside in the various ,states4 ,the money that the federal government pays to ,state ,x for education has been taken from the citizens of ,state ,x in federal taxes and comes back to them1 minus the ,washington brokerage fee4 ,the less wealthy ,states1 to be sure1 receive slightly more than they give1 just as the more wealthy ,states receive somewhat less4 ,but the differences are negligible4 ,for the most part1 federal aid simply substitutes the tax-collecting facilities of the federal government for those of local governments4 ,this fact cannot be stressed often enough2 for stripped of the idea that federal money is free money1 federal aid to education is exposed as an act of naked compulsion--a decision by the federal government to force the people of the ,states to spend more money than they choose to spend for this purpose voluntarily4 ,the fourth objection is that federal aid to education inevitably means federal control of education4 ,for many years1 advocates of federal aid denied that aid implies control1 but in the light of the ,national ,defense ,education ,act of #aieh they cannot very well maintain their position4 ,federal aid under the act is conditioned upon compliance by the ,states and local educational institutions with various standards and specifications laid down by the ,department of ,health1 ,education and ,welfare4 ,there are no less than twelve direct controls of this kind in the act4 ,moreover1 the acknowledged purpose of the act is to persuade local educational institutions to put greater emphasis on the physical sciences and other subjects directly related to national defense4 ,i do not question the desirability of encouraging increased proficiency in the physical sciences1 but when the federal government does the encouraging through the withholding and granting of funds1 ,i do not see how it can be denied that the federal government is helping to determine the content of education2 and influencing content is the last1 not the first1 stage of control4 ,nobody should be surprised that aid has led to controls4 ,it could1 and should not be otherwise4 ,congress cannot be expected to appropriate the people's money and make no provision for how it will be spent4 ,congress would be shirking its responsibilities to the taxpayer if it distributed his money willy-nilly1 without regard to its use4 ,should ,congress permit the use of federal funds to subsidize ,communist schools and thus promote the cause of our enemies8 ,of course not4 ,but a prohibition of such use is clearly an exercise of federal control4 ,congress will always feel impelled to establish conditions under which people's money is to be spent1 and while some controls may be wise we are not guaranteed against unwise controls any more than we are guaranteed against unwise ,congressmen4 ,the mistake is not the controls but appropriating the money that requires controls4 ,so much for the evils and dangers of federal aid4 ,note that ,i have not denied that many of our children are being inadequately educated1 or that the problem is nation-wide4 ,i have only denied that it is the kind of problem that requires a solution at the national level4 ,to the extent the problem is quantitative--to the extent we have too few classrooms and pay some of our teachers too little money--the shortages can be taken care of by the localities concerned4 ,but more3 to the extent the problem is qualitative--which in my opinion it mainly is--it is manifestly one that lends itself to correction at the local level4 ,there is no place where deficiencies in the content of an educational system can be better understood than locally where a community has the opportunity to view and judge the product of its own school system4 ,in the main1 the trouble with ,american education is that we have put into practice the educational philosophy expounded by ,john ,dewey and his disciples4 ,in varying degrees we have adopted what has been called 8progressive education40 ,subscribing to the egalitarian notion that every child must have the same education1 we have neglected to provide an educational system which will tax the talents and stir the ambitions of our best students and which will thus insure us the kind of leaders we will need in the future4 ,in our desire to make sure that our children learn to 8adjust0 to their environment1 we have given them insufficient opportunity to acquire the knowledge that will enable them to master their environment4 ,in our attempt to make education 8fun10 we have neglected the academic disciplines that develop sound minds and are conducive to sound characters4 ,responding to the ,deweyite attack on methods of teaching1 we have encouraged the teaching profession to be more concerned with how a subject is taught than with what is taught4 ,most important of all3 in our anxiety to 8improve0 the world and insure 8progress0 we have permitted our schools to become laboratories for social and economic change according to the predilections of the professional educators4 ,we have forgotten that the proper function of the school is to transmit the cultural heritage of one generation to the next generation1 and to so train the minds of the new generation as to make them capable of absorbing ancient learning and applying it to the problem of its own day4 ,the fundamental explanation of this distortion of values is that we have forgotten that purpose of education4 ,or better3 we have forgotten for whom education is intended4 ,the function of our schools is not to educate1 or elevate1 society2 but rather to educate individuals and to equip them with the knowledge that will enable them to take care of society's needs4 ,we have forgotten that a society progresses only to the extent that it produces leaders that are capable of guiding and inspiring progress4 ,and we cannot develop such leaders unless our standards of education are geared to excellence instead of mediocrity4 ,we must give full rein to individual talents1 and we must encourage our schools to enforce the academic disciplines--to put preponderant emphasis on ,english1 mathematics1 history1 literature1 foreign languages and the natural sciences4 ,we should look upon our schools--not as a place to train the 8whole character0 of the child--a responsibility that properly belongs to his family and church--but to train his mind4 ,our country's past progress has been the result1 not of the mass mind applying average intelligence to the problems of the day1 but of the brilliance and dedication of wise individuals who applied their wisdom to advance the freedom and the material well-being of all of our people4 ,and so if we would improve education in ,america--and advance the fortunes of freedom--we will not rush to the federal treasury with requests for money4 ,we will focus attention on our local community1 and make sure that our schools1 private and public1 are performing the job the ,nation has the right to expect of them4 ,,chapter ,,ten ,the ,soviet ,menace ,and still the awful truth remains3 ,we can establish the domestic conditions for maximizing freedom1 along the lines ,i have indicated1 and yet become slaves4 ,we can do this by losing the ,cold ,war to the ,soviet ,union4 ,american freedom has always depended1 to an extent1 on what is happening beyond our shores4 ,even in ,ben ,franklin's day1 ,americans had to reckon with foreign threats4 ,our forebearers knew that 8keeping a ,republic0 meant1 above all1 keeping it safe from foreign transgressors2 they knew that a people cannot live and work freely1 and develop national institutions conducive to freedom1 except in peace and with independence4 ,in those early days the threat to peace and independence was very real4 ,we were a fledgling-nation and the slightest misstep--or faint hearts--would have laid us open to the ravages of predatory ,european powers4 ,it was only because wise and courageous men understood that defense of freedom required risks and sacrifice1 as well as their belief in it1 that we survived the crisis of national infancy4 ,as we grew stronger1 and as the oceans continued to interpose a physical barrier between ourselves and ,european militarism1 the foreign danger gradually receded4 ,though we always had to keep a weather eye on would-be conquerors1 our independence was acknowledged and peace1 unless we chose otherwise1 was established4 ,indeed1 after the ,second ,world ,war1 we were not only master of our own destiny2 we were master of the world4 ,with a monopoly of atomic weapons1 and with a conventional military establishment superior to any in the world1 ,america was--in relative and absolute terms--the most powerful nation the world had ever known4 ,american freedom was as secure as at any time in our history4 ,now1 a decade and half later1 we have come full circle and our national existence is once again threatened as it was in the early days of the ,republic4 ,though we are still strong physically1 we are in clear and imminent danger of being overwhelmed by alien forces4 ,we are confronted by a revolutionary world movement that possesses not only the will to dominate absolutely every square mile of the globe1 but increasingly the capacity to do so3 a military power that rivals our own1 political warfare and propaganda skills that are superior to ours1 an international fifth column that operates conspiratorially in the heart of our defenses1 an ideology that imbues its adherents with a sense of historical mission2 and all of these resources controlled by a ruthless despotism that brooks no deviation from the revolutionary course4 ,this threat1 moreover1 is growing day by day4 ,and it has now reached the point where ,american leaders1 both political and intellectual1 are searching desperately for means of 8appeasing0 or 8accommodating0 the ,soviet ,union as the price of national survival4 ,the ,american people are being told that1 however valuable their freedom may be1 it is even more important to live4 ,a craven fear of death is entering the ,american consciousness2 so much so that many recently felt that honoring the chief despot himself was the price we had to pay to avoid nuclear destruction4 ,the temptation is strong to blame the deterioration of ,america's fortunes on the ,soviet ,union's acquisition of nuclear weapons4 ,but this is self-delusion4 ,the rot had set in1 the crumbling of our position was already observable1 long before the ,communists detonated their first ,atom ,bomb4 ,even in the early #aiejs1 when ,america still held unquestioned nuclear superiority1 it was clear that we were losing the ,cold ,war4 ,time and again in my campaign speeches of #aieb ,i warned my fellow ,arizonans that 8,american ,foreign ,policy has brought us from a position of undisputed power1 in seven short years1 to the brink of possible disaster40 ,and in the succeeding seven years1 that trend1 because its cause remains1 has continued4 ,the real cause of the deterioration can be simply stated4 ,our enemies have understood the nature of the conflict1 and we have not4 ,they are determined to win the conflict1 and we are not4 ,i hesitate to restate the obvious--to say again what has been said so many times before by so many others3 that the ,communists' aim is to conquer the world4 ,i repeat it because it is the beginning and the end of our knowledge about the conflict between ,east and ,west4 ,i repeat it because ,i fear that however often we have given lip-service to this central political fact of our time1 very few of us have believed it4 ,if we had1 our entire approach to foreign policy over the past fourteen years would have been radically different1 and the course of world events radically changed4 ,if an enemy power is bent on conquering you1 and proposes to turn all of his resources to that end1 he is at war with you2 and you--unless you contemplate surrender--are at war with him4 ,moreover--unless you contemplate treason--your objective1 like his1 will be victory4 ,not 8peace10 but victory4 ,now1 while traitors 7and perhaps cowards7 have at times occupied key positions in our government1 it is clear that our national leadership over the past fourteen years has favored neither surrender nor treason4 ,it is equally clear1 however1 that our leaders have not made victory the goal of ,american policy4 ,and the reason that they have not done so1 ,i am saying1 is that they have never believed deeply that the ,communists are in earnest4 ,our avowed national objective is 8peace40 ,we have1 with great sincerity1 8waged0 peace1 while the ,communists wage war4 ,we have sought 8settlements10 while the ,communists seek victories4 ,we have tried to pacify the world4 ,the ,communists mean to own it4 ,here is why the contest has been an unequal one1 and why1 essentially1 we are losing it4 ,peace1 to be sure1 is a proper goal for ,american policy--as long as it is understood that peace is not all we seek4 ,for we do not want the peace of surrender4 ,we want a peace in which freedom and justice will prevail1 and that--given the nature of ,communism--is a peace in which ,soviet power will no longer be in a position to threaten us and the rest of the world4 ,a tolerable peace1 in other words1 must follow victory over ,communism4 ,we have been fourteen years trying to bury that unpleasant fact4 ,it cannot be buried and any foreign policy that ignores it will lead to our extinction as a nation4 ,we do not1 of course1 want to achieve victory by force of arms4 ,if possible1 overt hostilities should always be avoided2 especially is this so when a shooting war may cause the death of many millions of people1 including our own4 ,but we cannot1 for that reason1 make the avoidance of a shooting war our chief objective4 ,if we do that--if we tell ourselves that it is more important to avoid shooting than to keep our freedom--we are committed to a course that has only one terminal point3 surrender4 ,we cannot1 by proclamation1 make war 8unthinkable40 ,for it is not unthinkable to the ,communists3 naturally1 they would prefer to avoid war1 but they are prepared to risk it1 in the last analysis1 to achieve their objectives4 ,we must1 in our hearts1 be equally dedicated to our objectives4 ,if war is unthinkable to us but not to them1 the famous 8balance of terror0 is not a balance at all1 but an instrument of blackmail4 ,u4 ,s4-,soviet power may be in balance2 but if we1 and not they1 rule out the possibility of using that power1 the ,kremlin can create crisis after crisis1 and force the ,u4 ,s41 because of our greater fear of war1 to back down every time4 ,and it cannot be long before a universal ,communist ,empire sits astride the globe4 ,the rallying cry of an appeasement organization1 portrayed in a recent novel on ,american politics1 was 8,i would rather crawl on my knees to ,moscow than die under an ,atom bomb40 ,this sentiment1 of course1 repudiates everything that is courageous and honorable and dignified in the human being4 ,we must--as the first step toward saving ,american freedom--affirm the contrary view and make it the cornerstone of our foreign policy3 that we would rather die than lose our freedom4 ,there are ways which ,i will suggest later on--not easy ways1 to be sure--in which we may save both our freedom and our lives2 but all such suggestions are meaningless and vain unless we first understand what the objective is4 ,we want to stay alive1 of course2 but more than that we want to be free4 ,we want to have peace2 but before that we want to establish the conditions that will make peace tolerable4 8,like it or not10 ,eugene ,lyons has written1 8the great and inescapable task of our epoch is not to end the ,cold ,war but to win it40 ,i suggest that we look at ,america's present foreign policy1 and ask whether it is conducive to victory4 ,there are several aspects of this policy4 ,let us measure each of them by the test3 ,does it help defeat the enemy8 ,,defensive ,,alliances ,through ,,nato1 ,,seato and the ,central ,treaty ,organization in mid-,asia1 we have served notice on the ,kremlin that overt ,communist aggression in certain areas of the world will be opposed by ,american arms4 ,it is likely that the existence of these alliances has helped discourage military adventurism by the ,communists4 ,still1 we should not overestimate the value of the alliances4 ,though they play a significant role in safeguarding ,american freedom1 there are a number of reasons why it is a limited role4 ,first1 the alliance system is not co-extensive with the line that must be held if enemy expansion is to be prevented4 ,there are huge areas of the non-,communist world that the alliances do not touch4 ,nor--even assuming ,america is strong enough to guard a world-wide defense perimeter--is there any prospect of bringing these areas into the system4 ,the so-called neutral countries of the ,middle ,east1 ,africa and ,southern ,asia have refused to align themselves with the anti-,communist cause1 and it is in those areas1 as we might expect1 that the ,communists are making significant strides4 ,this is a critical weakness4 ,if all of those areas should fall under ,communist rule1 the alliances would be outflanked everywhere3 the system would be reduced to a series of outposts1 and probably indefensible ones at that1 in a wholly hostile world4 ,secondly1 the alliance system does not protect even its members against the most prevalent kind of ,communist aggression3 political penetration and internal subversion4 ,iraq is a case in point4 ,we had pledged ourselves to support the ,iraqi against overt ,soviet aggression--not only under the ,baghdad ,pact of which ,iraq was the cornerstone1 but also under the ,eisenhower ,doctrine4 ,iraq fell victim to a pro-,communist coup without an ,american or ,russian shot being fired4 ,cuba is another example4 ,if the ,red ,army had landed in ,havana1 we would have come to ,cuba's aid4 ,castro's forces1 however1 were native ,cubans2 as a result1 a pro-,communist regime has become entrenched on our very doorstep through the technique of internal subversion4 ,and so it will always be with an enemy that lays even more emphasis on political warfare than on military warfare4 ,so it will be until we learn to meet the enemy on his own grounds4 ,but thirdly1 the alliance system cannot adequately protect its members even against overt aggression4 ,in the past1 the ,communists have been kept in check by ,america's strategic air arm4 ,indeed1 in the light of the weakness of the allied nations' conventional military forces1 our nuclear superiority has been the alliances' only real weapon4 ,but as the ,soviet ,union draws abreast of us in nuclear strength1 that weakness could prove our undoing4 ,in a nuclear stalemate1 where neither side is prepared to go 8all out0 over local issues1 the side with the superior conventional forces has an obvious advantage4 ,moreover1 it is clear that we cannot hope to match the ,communist world man for man1 nor are we capable of furnishing the guns and tanks necessary to defend thirty nations scattered over the face of the globe4 ,the long-overdue answer1 as we will see later on1 lies in the development of a nuclear capacity for limited wars4 ,finally--and ,i consider this the most serious defect of all--the alliance system is completely defensive in nature and outlook4 ,this fact1 in the light of the ,communists' dynamic1 offensive strategy1 ultimately dooms it to failure4 ,no nation at war1 employing an exclusively defensive strategy1 can hope to survive for long4 ,like the boxer who refuses to throw a punch1 the defense-bound nation will be cut down sooner or later4 ,as long as every encounter with the enemy is fought on his initiative1 on grounds of his choosing and with weapons of his choosing1 we shall keep on losing the ,cold ,war4 ,,foreign ,,aid ,another aspect of our policy is the ,foreign ,aid program4 ,to it1 in the last fourteen years1 we have committed over eighty billions of ,american treasure--in grants1 loans1 material1 and technical assistance4 ,i will not develop here what every thinking ,american knows about this ,gargantuan expenditure--that it has had dire consequences1 not only for the ,american taxpayer1 but for the ,american economy2 that it has been characterized by waste and extravagance both overseas and in the agencies that administer it2 and that it has created a vast reservoir of anti-,americanism among proud peoples who1 however irrationally1 resent dependence on a foreign dole4 ,i would rather put the question1 ,has the ,foreign ,aid program1 for all of its drawbacks1 made a compensating contribution toward winning the ,cold ,war8 ,and this test1 let me say parenthetically1 is the only one under which the ,foreign ,aid program can be justified4 ,it cannot1 that is to say1 be defended as a charity4 ,the ,american government does not have the right1 much less the obligation1 to try to promote the economic and social welfare of foreign peoples4 ,of course1 all of us are interested in combating poverty and disease wherever it exists4 ,but the ,constitution does not empower our government to undertake that job in foreign countries1 no matter how worthwhile it might be4 ,therefore1 except as it can be shown to promote ,america's national interests1 the ,foreign ,aid program is unconstitutional4 ,it can be argued1 but not proved1 that ,american aid helped prevent ,western ,europe from going ,communist after the ,second ,world ,war4 ,it is true1 for example1 that the ,communist parties in ,france and ,italy were somewhat weaker after economic recovery than before it4 ,but it does not follow that recovery caused the reduction in ,communist strength1 or that ,american aid caused the recovery4 ,it is also true1 let us remember1 that ,west ,germany recovered economically at a far faster rate than ,france or ,italy1 and received comparatively little ,american aid4 ,it also can be argued that ,american military aid has made the difference between friendly countries having the power to fight off or discourage ,communist aggression1 and not having that power4 ,here1 however1 we must distinguish between friendly countries that were not able to build their own military forces1 and those that were4 ,greece1 ,turkey1 ,free ,china1 ,south ,korea and ,south ,vietnam needed our help4 ,other countries1 ,england and ,france1 for example1 were able to maintain military forces with their own resources4 ,for many years now1 our allies in ,western ,europe have devoted smaller portions of their national budgets to military forces than we have4 ,the result is that the ,american people1 in the name of military aid1 have been giving an economic handout to these nations2 we have permitted them to transfer to their domestic economy funds which1 in justice1 should have been used in the common defense effort4 ,now let us note a significant fact4 ,in each of the situations we have mentioned so far--situations where some evidence exists that ,foreign ,aid has promoted ,american interests--there is a common denominator3 in every case1 the recipient government was already committed to our side4 ,we may have made these nations1 on balance1 stronger and more constant allies1 though even that is debatable4 ,but we did not cause them to alter their basic political commitments4 ,this brings us to the rest of the ,foreign ,aid program--and to the great fallacy that underlies it4 ,increasingly1 our foreign aid goes not to our friends1 but to professed neutrals--and even to professed enemies4 ,we furnish this aid under the theory that we can buy the allegiance of foreign peoples--or at least discourage them from 8going ,communist0--by making them economically prosperous4 ,this has been called the 8stomach theory of ,communism10 and it implies that a man's politics are determined by the amount of food in his belly4 ,everything we have learned from experience1 and from our observation of the nature of man1 refutes this theory4 ,a man's politics are1 primarily1 the product of his mind4 ,material wealth can help him further his political goals1 but it will not change them4 ,the fact that some poor1 illiterate people have 8gone ,communist0 does not prove that poverty caused them to do so any more than the fact that ,alfred ,k4 and ,martha ,d4 ,stern are ,communists proves that great wealth and a good education make people go ,communist4 ,let us remember that ,communism is a political movement1 and that its weapons are primarily political4 ,the movement's effectiveness depends on small cadres of political activists1 and these cadres are1 typically1 composed of literate and well-fed people4 ,we are not going to change the minds of such political activists1 or impede their agitation of the masses by a 8war on poverty10 however worthy such an effort might be on humanitarian grounds4 ,it thus makes little sense to try to promote anti-,communism by giving money to governments that are not anti-,communist1 that are1 indeed1 far more inclined to the ,soviet-type society than to a free one4 ,and let us remember that the foreign policies of many of the allegedly neutral nations that receive our aid are not 8neutral0 at all4 ,is ,sukarno's ,indonesia neutral when it encourages ,red ,chinese aggression8 ,or ,nehru's ,india when it censures the ,western effort to recover ,suez but refuses to censure the ,soviet invasion of ,hungary8 ,or ,nasser's ,united ,arab ,republic which equips its armed forces with ,communist weapons and ,communist personnel8 ,is ,american aid likely to make these nations less pro-,communist8 ,has it8 ,but let us1 for the moment1 concede the validity of the 8stomach theory10 and ask a further question3 ,is our foreign aid program the kind that will bring prosperity to underdeveloped countries8 ,we ,americans believe--and we can cite one hundred and fifty years of experience to support the belief--that the way to build a strong economy is to encourage the free play of economic forces3 free capital1 free labor1 a free market4 ,yet every one of the 8neutral0 countries we are aiding is committed to a system of ,state ,socialism4 ,our present policy of government-to-government aid strengthens ,socialism in those countries4 ,we are not only perpetuating the inefficiency and waste that always attends government-controlled economies2 by strengthening the hand of those governments1 we are making it more difficult for free enterprise to take hold4 ,for this reason alone1 we should eliminate all government-to-government capital assistance and encourage the substitution of ,american private investment4 ,our present ,foreign ,aid program1 in sum1 is not only ill-administered1 but ill-conceived4 ,it has not1 in the majority of cases1 made the free world stronger2 it has made ,america weaker2 and it has created in minds the world over an image of a nation that puts prime reliance1 not on spiritual and human values1 but on the material things that are the stock-in-trade of ,communist propaganda4 ,to this extent we have adopted ,communist doctrine4 ,in the future1 if our methods are to be in tune with our true objectives1 we will confine foreign aid to military and technical assistance to those nations that need it and that are committed to a common goal of defeating world ,communism4 ,,negotiations ,as ,i write1 the world is waiting for another round of diplomatic conferences between ,east and ,west4 ,a full scale summit meeting is scheduled for ,spring2 later on1 ,president ,eisenhower and ,premier ,khrushchev will have further talks in the ,soviet ,union4 ,and we are told that this is only the beginning of a long-range ,american policy to try to settle world problems by 8negotiation40 ,as the preparations for the ,spring meetings go forward1 ,i am struck by a singular fact3 no one on our side claims--let alone believes--that the ,west will be stronger after these new negotiations than it is today4 ,the same was true last ,summer4 ,we agreed to 8negotiate0 about ,berlin--not because we hoped to gain anything by such talks--but because the ,communists had created a 8crisis10 and we could think of nothing better to do about it than go to the conference table4 ,after all1 we assured ourselves1 there is no harm in talking4 ,i maintain there is harm in talking under present conditions4 ,there are several reasons why this is so4 ,first of all1 ,communists do not look upon negotiations1 as we do1 as an effort to reach an agreement4 ,for them1 negotiations are simply an instrument of political warfare4 ,for them1 a summit meeting is another battle in the struggle for the world4 ,a diplomatic conference1 in ,communist language1 is a 8propaganda forum from which to speak to the masses over the heads of their leaders40 ,of course1 if the ,communists can obtain a formal agreement beneficial to them1 so much the better4 ,but if not the negotiations themselves will provide victory enough4 ,for example1 when the ,soviets challenged our rights in ,west ,berlin1 we handed them a victory by the mere act of sitting down at the conference table4 ,by agreeing to negotiate on that subject1 we agreed that our rights in ,berlin were 8negotiable0--something they never were before4 ,thus we acknowledged1 in effect1 the inadequacy of our position1 and the world now expects us to adjust it as proof of our good faith4 ,our answer to ,khrushchev's ultimatum should have been that the status of ,west ,berlin concerns only ,west ,berliners and the occupying powers1 and is therefore not a matter that we are prepared to discuss with the ,soviet ,union4 ,that would have been the end of the ,berlin 8crisis40 ,the ,berlin situation illustrates another reason why the ,west is at an inherent disadvantage in negotiating with the ,communists4 ,the central strategic fact of the ,cold ,war1 as it is presently fought1 is that the ,communists are on the offensive and we are on the defensive4 ,the ,soviet ,union is always moving ahead1 always trying to get something from the free world2 the ,west endeavors1 at best1 to hold what it has4 ,therefore1 the focal point of negotiations is invariably somewhere in the non-,communist world4 ,every conference between ,east and ,west deals with some territory or right belonging to the free world which the ,communists covet4 ,conversely1 since the free world does not seek the liberation of ,communist territory1 the possibility of ,communist concessions never arises4 ,once the ,west did attempt to use the conference table for positive gain4 ,at ,geneva1 in #aiee1 ,president ,eisenhower told the ,soviets he wanted to discuss the status of the satellite nations of ,eastern ,europe4 ,he was promptly advised that the ,soviet ,union did not consider the matter a legitimate subject for negotiation1 and that was that4 ,now since we are not permitted to talk about what we can get1 the only interesting question at an ,east-,west conference is what the ,communists can get4 ,under such conditions1 we can never win4 ,at best we can hope for a stalemate that will place us exactly where we started4 ,there is still another reason for questioning the value of negotiations4 ,assume that somehow we achieve an agreement we think advances our interests4 ,is there any reason for supposing the ,communists will keep it one moment longer than suits their purpose8 ,we1 and they1 are different in this respect4 ,we keep our word4 ,the long and perfidious ,communist record of breaking agreements and treaties proves that the ,soviet ,union will not keep any agreement that is not to its advantage to keep4 ,it follows that the only agreement worth making with the ,soviets is one that will be self-enforceable--which means one that is in the ,kremlin's interest to keep4 ,but if that is the case1 why bother to 8negotiate0 about it8 ,if an action is in the interest of the ,soviet ,union1 the ,kremlin will go ahead and perform it without feeling any need to make it the subject of a formal treaty4 ,the next time we are urged to rush to the conference table in order to 8relax world tensions10 let our reaction be determined by this simple fact3 the only 8tensions0 that exist between ,east and ,west have been created1 and deliberately so1 by the ,communists4 ,they can therefore be 8relaxed0 by the ,kremlin's unilateral act4 ,the moment we decide to relax tensions by a 8negotiated compromise0 we have decided to yield something of value to the ,west4 ,,the 8,,exchange0 ,,program ,in recent months1 the so-called exchange program has become an increasingly prominent feature of ,american foreign policy4 ,the program began modestly enough in #aiee at the ,geneva ,summit ,meeting1 when we agreed with the ,soviets to promote 8cultural exchanges0 between the two countries4 ,since then we have exchanged everything from opera companies and basketball teams to trade exhibitions and heads of governments4 ,we are told that these exchanges are our best hope of peace--that if only the ,american and ,russian peoples can learn to 8understand0 each other1 they will be able to reconcile their differences4 ,the claim that the conflict between the ,soviets and ourselves stems from a 8lack of understanding0 is one of the great political fables of our time4 ,whose lack of understanding8 ,are the ,american people ill-informed as to the nature of ,communism and of the ,soviet state8 ,true1 some ,americans fail to grasp how evil the ,soviet system really is4 ,but a performance by the ,bolshoi ,ballet1 or a tour of the ,united ,states by ,nikita ,khrushchev1 is certainly not calculated to correct that deficiency4 ,what of the ,soviet leaders8 ,are they misled8 ,all of the evidence is that the men in the ,kremlin have a greater knowledge of ,america than many of our own leaders4 ,they know about our political system1 our industrial capacity1 our way of life--and would like to destroy it all4 ,what about the ,russian people8 ,we are repeatedly told that the ,russian man-on-the-street is woefully ignorant of the ,american way1 and that our trade exhibition in ,moscow1 for example1 contributed vastly to his knowledge and thus to his appreciation of ,america4 ,assume this is true4 ,is it relevant8 ,as long as the ,russian people do not control their government1 it makes little difference whether they think well of us or ill4 ,it is high time that our leaders stopped treating the ,russian people and the ,soviet government as one and the same thing4 ,the ,russian people1 we may safely assume1 are basically on our side 7whether or not they have the opportunity to listen to ,american musicians72 but their sympathy will not help us win the ,cold ,war as long as all power is held firmly in the hands of the ,communist ruling class4 ,the exchange program1 in ,soviet eyes1 is simply another operation in ,communist political warfare4 ,the people the ,kremlin sends over here are1 to a man1 trained agents of ,soviet policy4 ,some of them are spies1 seeking information2 all of them are trusted carriers of ,communist propaganda4 ,their mission is not cultural1 but political4 ,their aim is not to inform1 but to mislead4 ,their assignment is not to convey a true image of the ,soviet ,union1 but a false image4 ,the ,kremlin's hope is that they will persuade the ,american people to forget the ugly aspects of ,soviet life1 and the danger that the ,soviet system poses to ,american freedom4 ,it is a mistake to measure the success of this ,communist operation by the extent to which it converts ,americans to ,communism4 ,by that test1 of course1 the operation is almost a complete failure4 ,but the ,kremlin's aim is not to make ,americans approve of ,communism1 much as they would like that2 it is to make us tolerant of ,communism4 ,the ,kremlin knows that our willingness to make sacrifices to halt ,communist expansion varies in direct ratio as we are hostile to ,communism4 ,they know that if ,americans regard the ,soviet ,union as a dangerous1 implacable enemy1 ,communism will not be able to conquer the world4 ,the ,communists' purpose1 then1 is to show that ,khrushchev does not have horns1--that he is fundamentally a nice fellow2 that the ,soviet people are--8ordinary people0 just like ourselves2 that ,communism is just another political system4 ,it would not have made sense1 midway in the ,second ,world ,war1 to promote a ,nazi-,american exchange program or to invite ,hitler to make a state visit to the ,united ,states4 ,unless we cherish victory less today than we did then1 we will be equally reluctant to treat ,communist agents as friends and welcome guests4 ,the exchange program is a ,communist confidence game4 ,let us not be taken in by it4 ,let us remember that ,american confidence in the ,soviet government is the very last thing we want4 ,many people contend that a 8normalization0 of ,soviet-,american relations1 as envisaged by the exchange program1 is only a logical extension of granting diplomatic recognition to ,communist governments4 ,i agree4 ,accordingly1 ,i think it would be wise for the ,united ,states to re-examine the question of its diplomatic relations with ,communist regimes4 ,we often hear that recognition permits us to gather information in ,communist countries4 ,i am unaware1 however1 of any advantage that our diplomatic mission in ,moscow confers along these lines that does not doubly accrue to the ,soviet ,union from its diplomatic spy corps in ,washington and other ,american cities4 ,espionage possibilities aside1 ,i am quite certain that our entire approach to the ,cold ,war would change for the better the moment we announced that the ,united ,states does not regard ,mr4 ,khrushchev's murderous claque as the legitimate rulers of the ,russian people or of any other people4 ,not only would withdrawal of recognition stiffen the ,american people's attitude toward ,communism2 it would also give heart to the enslaved peoples and help them to overthrow their captors4 ,our present policy of not recognizing ,red ,china is eminently right1 and the reasons behind that policy apply equally to the ,soviet ,union and its ,european satellites4 ,if our objective is to win the ,cold ,war1 we will start now by denying our moral support to the very regimes we mean to defeat4 ,,disarmament ,for many years1 our policy-makers have paid lip-service to the idea of disarmament4 ,this seems to be one of the ways1 in modern diplomacy1 of proving your virtue4 ,recently1 however--under strong ,communist propaganda pressure--we have acted as though we mean this talk to be taken seriously4 ,i cite our government's momentous decision to suspend nuclear tests4 ,students of history have always recognized that armament races are a symptom of international friction--not a cause of it4 ,peace has never been achieved1 and it will not in our time1 by rival nations suddenly deciding to turn their swords into plowshares4 ,no nation in its right mind will give up the means of defending itself without first making sure that hostile powers are no longer in a position to threaten it4 ,the ,communist leaders are1 of course1 in their right minds4 ,they would not dream of adopting a policy that would leave them1 on balance1 relatively weaker than before they adopted such a policy4 ,they might preach general disarmament for propaganda purposes4 ,they also might seriously promote mutual disarmament in certain weapons in the knowledge that their superior strength in other weapons would leave them1 on balance1 decisively stronger than the ,west4 ,thus1 in the light of the ,west's weakness in conventional weapons1 it might make sense for the ,communists to seek disarmament in the nuclear field2 if all nuclear weapons suddenly ceased to exist1 much of the world would immediately be laid open to conquest by the masses of ,russian and ,chinese manpower4 ,american leaders have not shown a comparable solicitude for our security needs4 ,after the ,second ,world ,war1 the ,united ,states had a conventional military establishment rivaling the ,soviet ,union's1 and an absolute monopoly in nuclear power4 ,the former weapon we hastily and irresponsibly dismantled4 ,the latter we failed to exploit politically1 and then we proceeded to fritter away our lead by belated entry into the hydrogen bomb and guided missile fields4 ,the result is that we are out-classed in the conventional means for waging land warfare2 regarding nuclear weapons1 we are approaching the point1 if it has not already been reached1 where ,communist power is equal to our own4 ,to the impending physical parity in nuclear weapons must be added a psychological factor assiduously cultivated by ,communist propaganda4 ,the horrors of all-out warfare are said to be so great that no nation would consider resorting to nuclear weapons unless under direct attack by those same weapons4 ,now the moment our leaders really accept this1 strategic nuclear weapons will be neutralized and ,communist armies will be able to launch limited wars without fear of retaliation by our ,strategic ,air ,command4 ,i fear they are coming to accept it1 and thus that a military and psychological situation is fast developing in which aggressive ,communist forces will be free to maneuver under the umbrella of nuclear terror4 ,it is in this context that we must view the ,communist propaganda drive for a permanent ban on the testing of nuclear weapons1 and the inclination of our own leaders to go along with the proposal4 ,there are two preliminary reasons why such proposals ought to be firmly rejected4 ,first1 there is no reliable means of preventing the ,communists from secretly breaking such an agreement4 ,our most recent tests demonstrated that underground atomic explosions can be set off without detection4 ,secondly1 we cannot hope to maintain even an effective strategic deterrent unless we keep our present nuclear arsenal up to date2 this requires testing4 ,but the main point ,i want to make is that tests are needed to develop tactical nuclear weapons for possible use in limited wars4 ,our military experts have long recognized that for limited warfare purposes we must have a weapons superiority to offset the ,communists' manpower superiority4 ,this means we must develop and perfect a variety of small1 clean nuclear weapons2 and this in turn means3 testing4 ,the development of such a weapons system is the only way in which ,america will be able to fight itself out of the dilemma--one horn of which is superior ,communist manpower1 the other1 the impending neutralization of strategic nuclear weapons4 ,our government was originally pushed into suspending tests by ,communist-induced hysteria on the subject of radio-active fallout4 ,however one may rate that danger1 it simply has no bearing on the problem at hand4 ,the facts are that there is practically no fallout from tests conducted above the earth's atmosphere1 and none at all from underground tests4 ,therefore1 the only excuse for suspending tests is that our forbearance somehow contributes to peace4 ,and my answer is that ,i am unable to see how peace is brought any nearer by a policy that may reduce our relative military strength4 ,such a policy makes sense only under the assumption that ,communist leaders have given up their plan for world revolution and will settle for peaceful coexistence--an assumption we make at the risk of losing our national life4 ,if our objective is victory over ,communism1 we must achieve superiority in all of the weapons--military1 as well as political and economic--that may be useful in reaching that goal4 ,such a program costs money1 but so long as the money is spent wisely and efficiently1 ,i would spend it4 ,i am not in favor of 8economizing0 on the nation's safety4 ,as a ,conservative1 ,i deplore the huge tax levy that is needed to finance the world's number-one military establishment4 ,but even more do ,i deplore the prospect of a foreign conquest1 which the absence of that establishment would quickly accomplish4 ,,united ,,nations ,support of the ,united ,nations1 our leaders earnestly proclaim1 is one of the cornerstones of ,american foreign policy4 ,i confess to being more interested in whether ,american foreign policy has the support of the ,united ,nations4 ,here1 again1 it seems to me that our approach to foreign affairs suffers from a confusion in objectives4 ,is the perpetuation of an international debating forum1 for its own sake1 the primary objective of ,american policy8 ,if so1 there is much to be said for our past record of subordinating our national interest to that of the ,united ,nations4 ,if1 on the other hand1 our primary objective is victory over ,communism1 we will1 as a matter of course1 view such organizations as the ,,un as a possible means to that end4 ,once the question is asked--,does ,america's participation in the ,united ,nations help or hinder her struggle against world ,communism8--it becomes clear that our present commitment to the ,,un deserves re-examination4 ,the ,united ,nations1 we must remember1 is in part a ,communist organization4 ,the ,communists always have at least one seat in its major policy-making body1 the ,security ,council2 and the ,soviet ,union's permanent veto power in that body allows the ,kremlin to block any action1 on a substantial issue1 that is contrary to its interests4 ,the ,communists also have a sizeable membership in the ,,un's other policy-making body1 the ,general ,assembly4 ,moreover1 the ,,un's working staff1 the ,secretariat1 is manned by hundreds of ,communist agents who are frequently in a position to sabotage those few ,,un policies that are contrary to ,communist interests4 ,finally1 a great number of non-,communist ,united ,nations are sympathetic to ,soviet aims--or1 at best1 are unsympathetic to ours4 ,we therefore should not be surprised that many of the policies that emerge from the deliberations of the ,united ,nations are not policies that are in the best interest of the ,united ,states4 ,united ,nations policy is1 necessarily1 the product of many different views--some of them friendly1 some of them indifferent to our interests1 some of them mortally hostile4 ,and the result is that our national interests usually suffer when we subordinate our own policy to the ,,un's4 ,in nearly every case in which we have called upon the ,united ,nations to do our thinking for us1 and to make our policy for us--whether during the ,korean ,war1 or in the ,suez crisis1 or following the revolution in ,iraq--we have been a less effective foe of ,communism than we otherwise might have been4 ,unlike ,america1 the ,communists do not respect the ,,un and do not permit their policies to be affected by it4 ,if the 8opinion of mankind10 as reflected by a ,,un resolution1 goes against them1 they--in effect--tell mankind to go fly a kite4 ,not so with us2 we would rather be approved than succeed1 and so are likely to adjust our own views to conform with a ,united ,nations majority4 ,this is not the way to win the ,cold ,war4 ,i repeat3 ,communism will not be beaten by a policy that is the common denominator of the foreign policies of #hj-odd nations1 some of which are our enemies1 nearly all of which are less determined than we to save the world from ,communist domination4 ,let us1 then1 have done with submitting major policy decisions to a forum where the opinions of the ,sultan of ,yeman count equally with ours2 where the vote of the ,united ,states can be cancelled out by the likes of 8,byelorussia40 ,i am troubled by several other aspects of our ,,un commitment4 ,first--and here again our ,cold ,war interests are damaged--the ,united ,nations provides a unique forum for ,communist propaganda4 ,we too1 of course1 can voice our views at the ,,un2 but the ,communists' special advantage is that their lies and misrepresentations are elevated to the level of serious international debate4 ,by recognizing the right of ,communist regimes to participate in the ,,un as equals1 and by officially acknowledging them as 8peace-loving10 we grant ,communist propaganda a presumption of reasonableness and plausibility it otherwise would not have4 ,second1 the ,,un places an unwarranted financial burden on the ,american taxpayer4 ,the ,marxist formula1 8from each according to his ability 4440--under which contributions to the ,,un and its specialized agencies are determined--does not tally with the ,american concept of justice4 ,the ,united ,states is currently defraying roughly a third of all ,united ,nations expenses4 ,that assessment should be drastically reduced4 ,the ,,un should not operate as a charity4 ,assessments should take into account the benefits received by the contributor-nation4 ,finally1 ,i fear that our involvement in the ,united ,nations may be leading to an unconstitutional surrender of ,american sovereignty4 ,many ,,un activities have already made strong inroads against the sovereign powers of ,member ,nations4 ,this is neither the time nor place to discuss the merits of yielding sovereign ,american rights--other than to record my unequivocal opposition to the idea4 ,it is both the time and place1 however1 to insist that any such discussion take place within the framework of a proposed constitutional amendment--and not1 clandestinely1 in the headquarters of some ,,un agency4 ,withdrawal from the ,united ,nations is probably not the answer to these problems4 ,for a number of reasons that course is unfeasible4 ,we should make sure1 however1 that the nature of our commitment is such as to advance ,american interests2 and that will involve changes in some of our present attitudes and policies toward the ,,un4 ,let the ,,un firsters--of whom there are many in this country--put their enthusiasm for 8international cooperation0 in proper perspective4 ,let them understand that victory over ,communism must come before the achievement of lasting peace4 ,let them1 in a word1 keep their eyes on the target4 ,,aid ,,to ,,communist ,,governments ,there is one aspect of our policy that is offensive-minded--in the minds of its authors1 anyway4 ,its effect1 unfortunately1 is exactly opposite to the one intended4 ,some time ago our leaders advanced the theory that ,communist satellite regimes would1 with our help1 gradually break their ties with the ,soviet ,union and 8evolve0 political systems more in keeping with our notions of freedom and justice4 ,accordingly1 ,america adopted the policy of giving aid to ,communist governments whose relations with ,moscow seemed to be strained4 ,and that policy gave birth to a slogan3 8,america seeks the liberation of enslaved peoples--not by revolution--but through evolution40 ,under the aegis of this slogan1 we are sending hundreds of millions of dollars to the ,communist government of ,poland1 having already given more than a billion dollars to the ,communist government of ,yugoslavia4 ,in my view1 this money has not only been wasted2 it has positively promoted the ,communist cause4 ,it has not made ,communist governments less ,communist4 ,it has not caused ,communist governments to change sides in the ,cold ,war4 ,it has made it easier for ,communist governments to keep their subjects enslaved4 ,and none of these results should have come as a surprise4 ,one does not have to take the view that a ,communist regime will never 8evolve0 into a non-,communist one 7though ,i tend to it7 in order to see that this is practically impossible as long as the ,soviet ,union possesses the military and political power to prevent it4 ,the ,kremlin may1 for its own purposes1 permit certain 8liberalization0 tendencies in satellite countries2 it may even permit small deviations from the approved ,soviet foreign policy line4 ,it will do so sometimes to confuse the ,west1 sometimes as a prudent means of relieving internal pressures4 ,but it will never let things go too far4 ,hungary proved that4 ,the moment a ,communist government threatens to become a non-,communist one1 or threatens to align itself with the ,west against the ,soviet ,union1 the ,kremlin will take steps to bring the defecting government into line4 ,hungary proved this truth1 and ,poland has proved that dissident ,communists learned it4 ,western leaders1 unfortunately1 were much less perceptive4 ,in the ,fall of #aief1 there appeared to be a breach between ,gomulka's government and the ,kremlin4 ,many ,westerners joyfully proclaimed that ,poland was pulling away from ,communism1 and hoping to hasten this movement1 our government began to send the ,gomulka regime ,american aid4 ,the succeeding years witnessed two facts3 #a4 ,our money made it easier for ,gomulka's regime to deal with its economic problems2 #b4 ,gomulka moved into an even closer relationship with the ,soviet government4 ,gomulka knew1 as ,american policy-makers ought to have known1 that the price of abandoning ,communism is a ,budapest-type blood bath4 ,this1 of course1 need not be the case were ,america prepared to come to the aid of people who want to strike out for freedom4 ,but as long as we give ,soviet military forces a free hand in ,eastern ,europe1 it is the height of folly to try to bribe ,communist governments into becoming our friends4 ,we must realize that the captive peoples are our friends and potential allies--not their rulers4 ,a truly offensive-minded strategy would recognize that the captive peoples are our strongest weapon in the war against ,communism1 and would encourage them to overthrow their captors4 ,a policy of strengthening their captors can only postpone that upheaval within the ,communist ,empire that is our best hope of defeating ,communism without resorting to nuclear war4 ,,toward ,,victory ,by measuring each aspect of our foreign policy against the standard--,is it helpful in defeating the enemy8--we can understand why the past fourteen years have been marked by frustration and failure4 ,we have not gotten ahead because we have been travelling the wrong road4 ,it is less easy to stake out the right road4 ,for in terms of our own experience it is a new road we seek1 and one therefore that will hold challenges and perils that are different 7though hardly graver7 from those with which we are now familiar4 ,actually1 the 8new0 road is as old as human history3 it is the one that successful political and military leaders1 having arrived at a dispassionate 8estimate of the situation10 always follow when they are in a war they mean to win4 ,from our own estimate of the situation1 we know the direction we must take2 and our standard--,is it helpful in defeating ,communism8--will provide guideposts all along the way4 ,there are some that can be observed even now3 #a4 ,the key guidepost is the ,objective1 and we must never lose sight of it4 ,it is not to wage a struggle against ,communism1 but to win it4 ,,our ,,goal ,,must ,,be ,,victory #b4 ,our strategy must be primarily offensive in nature4 ,given the dynamic1 revolutionary character of the enemy's challenge1 we cannot win merely by trying to hold our own4 ,in addition to parrying his blows1 we must strike our own4 ,in addition to guarding our frontiers1 we must try to puncture his4 ,in addition to keeping the free world free1 we must try to make the ,communist world free4 ,to these ends1 we must always try to engage the enemy at times and places1 and with weapons1 of our own choosing4 #c4 ,we must strive to achieve and maintain military superiority4 ,mere parity will not do4 ,since we can never match the ,communists in manpower1 our equipment and weapons must more than offset his advantage in numbers4 ,we must also develop a limited war capacity4 ,for this latter purpose1 we should make every effort to achieve decisive superiority in small1 clean nuclear weapons4 #d4 ,we must make ,america economically strong4 ,we have already seen why economic energy must be released from government strangulation if individual freedom is to survive4 ,economic emancipation is equally imperative if the nation is to survive4 ,america's maximum economic power will be forged1 not under bureaucratic direction1 but in freedom4 #e4 ,in all of our dealings with foreign nations1 we must behave like a great power4 ,our national posture must reflect strength and confidence and purpose1 as well as good will4 ,we need not be bellicose1 but neither should we encourage others to believe that ,american rights can be violated with impunity4 ,we must protect ,american nationals and ,american property and ,american honor--everywhere4 ,we may not make foreign peoples love us--no nation has ever succeeded in that--but we can make them respect us4 ,and respect is the stuff of which enduring friendships and firm alliances are made4 #f4 ,we should adopt a discriminating foreign aid policy4 ,american aid should be furnished only to friendly1 anti-,communist nations that are willing to join with us in the struggle for freedom4 ,moreover1 our aid should take the form of loans or technical assistance1 not gifts4 ,and we should insist1 moreover1 that such nations contribute their fair share to the common cause4 #g4 ,we should declare the world ,communist movement an outlaw in the community of civilized nations4 ,accordingly1 we should withdraw diplomatic recognition from all ,communist governments including that of the ,soviet ,union1 thereby serving notice on the world that we regard such governments as neither legitimate nor permanent4 #h4 ,we should encourage the captive peoples to revolt against their ,communist rulers4 ,this policy must be pursued with caution and prudence1 as well as courage4 ,for while our enslaved friends must be told we are anxious to help them1 we should discourage premature uprisings that have no chance of success4 ,the freedom fighters must understand that the time and place and method of such uprisings will be dictated by the needs of an overall world strategy4 ,to this end we should establish close liaison with underground leaders behind the ,iron ,curtain1 furnishing them with printing presses1 radios1 weapons1 instructors3 the paraphernalia of a full-fledged ,resistance4 #i4 ,we should encourage friendly peoples that have the means and desire to do so to undertake offensive operations for the recovery of their homelands4 ,for example1 should a revolt occur inside ,red ,china1 we should encourage and support guerrilla operations on the mainland by the ,free ,chinese4 ,should the situation develop favorably1 we should encourage the ,south ,koreans and the ,south ,vietnamese to join ,free ,chinese forces in a combined effort to liberate the enslaved peoples of ,asia4 #aj4 ,we must--ourselves--be prepared to undertake military operations against vulnerable ,communist regimes4 ,assume we have developed nuclear weapons that can be used in land warfare1 and that we have equipped our ,european divisions accordingly4 ,assume also a major uprising in ,eastern ,europe1 such as occurred in ,budapest in #aief4 ,in such a situation1 we ought to present the ,kremlin with an ultimatum forbidding ,soviet intervention1 and be prepared1 if the ultimatum is rejected1 to move a highly mobile task force equipped with appropriate nuclear weapons to the scene of the revolt4 ,our objective would be to confront the ,soviet ,union with superior force in the immediate vicinity of the uprising and to compel a ,soviet withdrawal4 ,an actual clash between ,american and ,soviet armies would be unlikely2 the mere threat of ,american action1 coupled with the ,kremlin's knowledge that the fighting would occur amid a hostile population and could easily spread to other areas1 would probably result in ,soviet acceptance of the ultimatum4 ,the ,kremlin would also be put on notice1 of course1 that resort to long-range bombers and missiles would prompt automatic retaliation in kind4 ,on this level1 we would invite the ,communist leaders to choose between total destruction of the ,soviet ,union1 and accepting a local defeat4444 ,had we the will and the means for it in #aief1 such a policy would have saved the ,hungarian ,revolution4 ,this is hard counsel4 ,but it is hard1 ,i think1 not for what it says1 but for saying it openly4 ,such a policy involves the risk of war8 ,of course2 but any policy1 short of surrender1 does that4 ,any policy that successfully frustrates the ,communists' aim of world domination runs the risk that the ,kremlin will choose to lose in a kamikaze-finish4 ,it is hard counsel because it frankly acknowledges that war may be the price of freedom1 and thus intrudes on our national complacency4 ,but is it really so hard when it goes on to search for the most likely means of safeguarding both our lives and our freedom8 ,is it so hard when we think of the risks that were taken to create our country8--risks on which our ancestors openly and proudly staked their 8lives1 fortunes1 and sacred honor40 ,will we do less to save our country8 ,the risks ,i speak of are risks on our terms1 instead of on ,communist terms4 ,we1 not they1 would select the time and place for a test of wills4 ,we1 not they1 would have the opportunity to bring maximum strength to bear on that test4 ,they1 not we1 would have to decide between fighting for limited objectives under unfavorable circumstances1 or backing down4 ,and these are immense advantages4 ,the future1 as ,i see it1 will unfold along one of two paths4 ,either the ,communists will retain the offensive2 will lay down one challenge after another2 will invite us in local crisis after local crisis to choose between all-out war and limited retreat2 and will force us1 ultimately1 to surrender or accept war under the most disadvantageous circumstances4 ,or we will summon the will and the means for taking the initiative1 and wage a war of attrition against them--and hope1 thereby1 to bring about the internal disintegration of the ,communist empire4 ,one course runs the risk of war1 and leads1 in any case1 to probable defeat4 ,the other runs the risk of war1 and holds forth the promise of victory4 ,for ,americans who cherish their lives1 but their freedom more1 the choice cannot be difficult4 99 99 99 99 99 ,illustration ,,publishers ,,printing ,,co41 ,,inc4 ,,shepherdsville1 ,,kentucky ,quality ,book ,manufacturers ,since #ahff 99 99 99 99 99 ,transcriber's ,notes3 ,footnotes have been moved to the end of each chapter and relabeled consecutively through the document4 ,punctuation has been made consistent4 ,variations in spelling and hyphenation were retained as they appear in the original publication1 except that obvious typographical errors have been corrected4 ,the following changes were made3 p4 #df3 is changed to are 7conceived1 are an7 p4 #aah3 paring changed to parrying 7to parrying his7