The Press MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1952. General Eisenhower’s Campaign

Press, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 26824, 1 September 1952, Page 6

The Press MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1952. General Eisenhower’s Campaign

At a crucial point in his bid for the Republican party nomination, General Eisenhower decided to throw aside all the set speeches carefully prepared for him by his campaign backers and, instead, to I “speak from the heart”. Experienced political observers agree that his judgment was right, although in : following this course he had to con- ’ fess and, indeed, to flaunt his political naivety and inexperience. • Some such decision by him now may be needed to restore his own position and that of his party; for the fortunes of political >var have been running against both since the triumphant conclusion of the Democratic convention. There has been a good deal of criticism of the conduct of the Republican party’s election campaign, and from many different quarters. Two very influential New York newspapers have now joined in the chorus. The “ New York Times ” criticises General Eisenhower specifically for appeasing the McCarthy faction; the “ World Telegram and Sun ” deplores the lack of ginger in the campaign generally. Both criticisms seem, at this distance, to be valid. The Republican party is still reeling from the effects of the terrific struggle for power between the “ old guard ” of professional politicians who supported Senator Taft and the new und vigorous group of “ amateurs ” who successfully campaigned for General Eisenhower. After the convention it was realised that these conflicting interests in the party—and other interests »which conflict in different ways on different subjects—must be reconciled. A special party committee has been busily at work on the task; and it would not be surprising if its watchword has been “ unity at any cost ”. True, if the Republicans are to have any chance in November they cannot afford to let any probable or possible Republican votes slip away from them. But party unity can be bought at too high a cost, even in America; and it seems that an honest disavowal of the McCarthyites could not fail to win much more than the equivalent support from wellintentioned Americans who have no strong views about the candidates or the parties but deeply dislike McCarthy and all that he stands for.

These are not happy auguries for the Republican Party’s success in an election which its leaders recognise must be, at the best, desperately close. Their diffidence, indeed, is in marked contrast with their robust confidence in 1948. It is only to be expected that they would not again fall into the error of over-confidence; but there are stronger reasons than that for the present unsure feeling, which amounts almost to despondency. Things have gone very differently from what was expected. Those who worked for the “ drafting ” of General Eisenhower were convinced that they were backing a certain winner—in the primaries, at the convention, and at the poll. Even those who worked for Senator Taft or for other candidates conceded the strength of the general’s personal appeal; but many of them, it may be suspected, would rather lose the election than have the supreme political power—and the right to dispense patronage—pass out of the

hands of the professional politicians who run the party machine. The

American staff correspondent of the “ Economist ” referred recently to a report that General Eisenhower himself was induced to give up his military . post in Europe only because his backers had convinced him that from start to finish his candidature and his election would be a foregone conclusion.

General Eisenhower has won the nomination [said the “Economist” writer] but almost nothing else has gone according to the schedule sketched out in Paris. Instead of coming home and allowing the “clear call to duty” to develop to such a point that he would merely have to express his willingness to serve. General Eisenhower had to work and fight up to the last day but one of the Republican convention. Instead of being matched against a politically debilitated Mr Truman or a substitute desperately trying to hold the Fair Deal fort, he is up against a man who was in truth drafted without an effort on his part and who has now acquired a stature undreamt of in the earlier Republican philosophy. And so the writer summarises the

particular obstacles which stand in the way of General Eisenhower’s election—the unexpected stature of his opponent, unforeseen strains within the Republican party, and the unforeseen easing of strains within the Democrat party. And these obstacles are additional to those which must in any case impede the path of Republican electoral success at the present time, the chief of which is the simple fact that after 20 years of Democrat rule the country is enjoying unprecedented prosperity. The old slogan, “ Time for a Change ”, has served many political parties which have been long in opposition; but the slogan has never been enough by itself to secure victory. The opposition parties have always had to convince the electorate that it has something to gain from the change.