Republican Revival ?
By ROBERT WAITHMAN
Washington.
THE view that it would be a far, far better thing for every- one if the twenty-year rule of the Democratic Party in America were broken and a Republican President were returned to the White House has not up to now been held exclusively by Republicans. It has been encountered among many of those who call themselves independents, and among those who do not call themselves anything and reserve the right to be critical of all politicians and parties. It has even occurred occasionally among voters, who say that they have gone down the line since 1932 for Roosevelt and Truman. There has been, in short,- a widely-believed argument that a change in the positions of the two major parties would be bene- ficial for the nation and (it was sometimes further contended) the world in general.
The most passionate advocates of this point of view have carried it to the point of admitting, when taxed with it, that they were, in fact, talking themselves into a state of mind in which it would seem to them that a poor Republican President would be preferable to a good Democratic President. Yes, they have said, even with an indifferent or mediocre personality in the White House America must benefit from the tonic effect irresistible in the coming five months to some millions of minds to thousands of jobs within the Government, from the expulsion of the tired, the complacent and the over- confident, from the national exhilaration that must accompany a general house-cleaning.
This is an interesting mood. But it is not necessarily a durable one. It could disappear quickly in some imaginable circumstances—if, for instance, a Republican candidate were nominated next month who had for one reason or another failed to satisfy any large part of the electorate that he would make a good President, and if a Democratic candidate to whom any large part of the electorate felt genuinely attracted were then to appear on the scene. But, so long as the conviction that the nation needs a change is widely held, it provides the Republican Party with an advantage which makes a Republican victory look feasible.
Without such an advantage—without a basic condition calcu- lated to assure it of the...support of independents and dissatisfied Democrats—the Republican Party cannot, on unchallengeable mathematical grounds, expect to win. It is one of the political facts of life that there are now fewer proclaimed Republicans than there are proclaimed Democrats. The Republicans can win only if, when all the circumstances, including the personal appeal of the respective candidates, have been taken into con- sideration, the argument that a change is desirable can be made irresistible in the coming five months to some millions of Americans outside the. Republican Party.
This fundamental truth, though it is easy for Republicans to overlook it in the heat and burden of the current party-fight, will not yield to any oratory or to any manipulations of delega- tions before or during the nominating convention. Since General Eisenhower returned home, there has been a breathless preoccupation with his performance in relation to Senator Taft, and in Senator Taft's performance in relation to him. As a political spectacle it is magnificent. But it is not war. That is to say, it is not determining the issue to which the Republi- cans, if they want to win, will sooner or later have to give the top priority. It may be that Eisenhower will get the nomination; or it may be that Taft will; or it may be that a deadlock will develop which neither can break, so that a compromise candi- date will have to be nominated. In any of these three contin- gencies there will be no Republican President in the White House unless the conviction that so radical a change from what the country has been used to for twenty years is abroad in the land on November 4th.
The circumstances in which Eisenhower has been impelled out of the role of war-hero and architect of the post-war military unity of Western Europe into the role of political candidate provide every human reason why the country should be 'raptly following his performance. Can he do it ? Will he make some terrible bloomer ? Will he be equal to the fantas- tic demands upon his sagacity in the face of the competition from Taft ? Will he say too much, or too little ? Lacking the experience, not to say the ferocity, of the-Taft camp, can he find his way by instinct through the fearful political minefield that- stretches between him and the nomination ?
Nor is there less reason, in human terms, for following the performance of Senator Taft himself. Here is the son of a President who has laboured half a lifetime to bring, himself within reach of the supreme prize, who has toiled and planned and now finds an outsider, a non-politician who has never served this apprenticeship, threatening to snatch away victory in the very last lap. It will not happen if he can prevent it. It is, as we say, a drama 'I; it is the climatic struggle of two dissimilar men to win a very, very high stake. But when one (or conceivably though improbably both) of these men have lost the struggle, the obstinate political truth will remain.
Then it will be necessary for the Republican Party and all its adherents to consider what some of the wiser of them have already begun to think about. Is it going to be possible to -restore belief in the unity and single-mindedness of a party which has been so divided by the rival contenders ? Will it be possible to convince the electorate that a contest for the nomination which has split the party into embittered factions, (so that one has accused the other of almost nameless crimes, and wounds publicly displayed have been inflicted) was really all in the game, and that hearty post-nomination handshakes will automatically restore a harmonious whole ? And, if the electorate is not so convinced, will enough of it feel sure that a change to a Republican Administration is what the nation needs ?
Suppose Eisenhower were to be nominated, and suppose he were to be elected, what would his relations be with a Congress in which Senator Taft would certainly be playing a dominant part and might (if Eisenhower produced the landslide victory . required to create a Republican majority in the House and Senate) become the unchallenged leader ? They espouse different policies, and they serve different ends. Where would the country be in such a situation ? Perhaps it will come out all right in the end for the Republicans. But the Democrats, watching and knowing that a victory over them will not be carelessly won, may have some reason at this moment for feeling that things are not going too badly for theta.
Previous page
