Adlai E. Stevenson:Last Chance

by Richard L. Neuberger

Reprinted from The Progressive • Madison, Wisconsin • 1960

Adlai E. Stevenson: Last Chanceby RICHARD L. NEUBERGER

IN 1956, after his second defeat lorthe Presidency, Adlai E. Stevenson

made a statement regarding the high-est elective office in the free worldwhich was both renunciatory andphilosophical. He said, "1 can con-template in tranquillity the distinctpossibility that I will never he Presi-dent of the United States."

Because millions of his fellowAmericans do not share this tran-quillity, Stevenson continues to be re-garded as the most likely nominee ofhis party for the third consecutivetime. Many Stevenson enthusiasts hap-pen to be intellectuals, civic leaders,and generous campaign contributors.They might be called the catalyticagent of the Democratic Party. Theyare what make the water fizz. Theycreate public opinion. And they feela sense of kinship with Adlai Steven-son that they seem to sense in noother Presidential hopeful in eitherparty.

Thus, in spite of all the zeal andfervor for that brace of tireless cam-paigning Democratic Senators, JohnF. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey,many adherents of these men contin-ually make it evident that Kennedyand Humphrey are their first choicesonly if Stevenson does not activelyenter the field. At innumerable Demo-cratic gatherings, I have heard peoplevolunteer the information that theirheart belongs to Stevenson eventhough they happen to be wearingsomebody else's campaign button on

their lapel or bosom at the moment.This was vividly demonstrated at thebanquet in New York honoring Elea-nor Roosevelt's 75th birthday. Mostof the Democratic White House po-tentials were present. Stevenson re-ceived by far the most vociferous ova-tion. Raymond P. Brandt wrote inthe St. Louis Post-Dispatch that onlyStevenson and Mrs. Roosevelt herself"came away with increased popular-ity and respect."

Stevenson has told me that he willnot spend a four-cent postage stampto win the Democratic nomination.He is personally fond of both Hum-phrey and Kennedy, and he hasgiven each of them a sort of may-the-best-man-win benediction. But if astalemate should occur at the LosAngeles convention, it is probablethat Stevenson will be available forthe party's nomination—even thoughsome of his closest friends trust thiswill not be the case, for they wish tosee him spared the ordeal of a thirdnationwide campaign. "I'd die ifStevenson lost again," said the attrac-tive wife of a wealthy and enlighteneddate grower near Palm Springs.

It is my judgment that most of theleaders of the Democratic Party lookupon Stevenson as the nation's intel-lectually best prepared man to servein the White House. Who can rivalhis eloquence and basic wisdom? Yetmany of these same individuals con-fess to some doubt that Stevenson canbe elected. II it were not for this

doubt, he probably would be a cer-tainty for the nomination in 1960.But Stevenson has been beaten twice.One defeat was by a margin of6,500,000 votes, the other by 9,500,000.These were not photo-finishes. Theywere landslides. Over and against thisis the dry comment of Palmer Hoytof the Denver Post: "Who could havelicked George Washington? That washow General Eisenhower was pre-sented to the American people."

This is the great behind-the-scenesdebate within Democratic ranks re-gar'1 iag Adlai Stevenson. Were 1952and 1956 fair tests of his nationalvote-corraling ability? If they accu-rately measured his appeal, then Dem-ocratic Party delegates will shy awayfrom him as the 1960 nominee. Butif the previous two elections are writ-ten off as forlorn hopes for the Dem-ocrats, regardless of the identity ofthe party's candidate, Adlai Stevensoncould still be the overwhelming choiceof those who will assemble in LosAngeles next July to make a fatefuldecision. I was told by a generousand liberal-minded California con-tributor to Democratic coffers:

"If I could appoint a President,I'd appoint Stevenson. He has whatit takes to be a truly illustrious Pres-ident. But if Stevenson is unable towin at the polls, I would rather suc-ceed with a Democrat of lesser staturethan to lose again with Stevenson."

It is Hamlet's dilemma repeated,

because it involves so many hypothet-icals. What if the Suez crisis had notoccurred on the eve of the 1956 elec-tions? Had Republican demagogueryover the unpopular Korean War in1952 made it impossible for a Demo-crat to succeed? Had the Democraticstring run out after 20 years in na-tional office? Many of Harry Tru-man's intimates believe that Steven-son was too indecisive, that he did notconduct "fighting" campaigns, that heequivocated on issues of vast potentialappeal for the Democrats. But one ofStevenson's faithful has replied wryly,"Don't ever forget that Truman ranagainst Dewey. That's a wholelot different from running againstEisenhower."

The Lingering Doubt of

Whether He Can Be Elected

The debate is endless, but it alsonarrows down to another question.How much have the two defeats byEisenhower hurt Stevenson's politicalprestige, no matter how blameless hemay be for what happened? Onetheory holds that too many votersamong the present electorate casttheir ballots against Stevenson forhim ever to be able to reverse theverdict. Would millions of voters con-fess, even to themselves, that theycould have been wrong twice before?Yet, arrayed against this is the factthat many political figures in Americahave won major offices after numer-ous defeats—Senators John Carroll ofColorado, William E. Proxmire ofWisconsin, and Ralph W. Yarbor-ough of Texas, to mention only aconspicuous few on the contemporaryscene. And if the British people hadpermitted earlier political failures toshape their attitude perpetually, theymight have been denied the giftedleadership of Winston Churchill dur-ing World War II.

I am confident that Adlai Stevensonis the private 1960 favorite of theoverwhelming majority of influentialDemocrats. But there exists amongsome of these same persons the linger-ing doubt of whether or not he canbe elected.

Why is Stevenson such a favorite?What accounts for his enduring ap-peal to so many thoughtful men andwomen? He is not so liberal as Hum-phrey. He lacks the handsome youth-fulness of Kennedy. He cannot match

the political skill of Lyndon Johnson.He has many more overt handicaps—his divorce, for example—thanSymington. He is not currently inhigh elective office like GovernorsRobert Meyner of New Jersey or G.Mennen (Soapy) Williams of Mich-igan. Yet mere mention of Stevenson'sname can inspire and thrill many agathering of Democrats.

I have tried to locate the secret ofStevenson's appeal to intellectual andthoughtful voters. I think one of hisstrengths is a trait which most ortho-dox politicians regard as virtually hisprincipal weakness—what they de-scribe as his indecisiveness, his tend-ency to see both sides of a difficultquestion, his melancholy and pro-longed grappling with highly com-plex issues.

Of some of these things there canbe no doubt. In 1952 Stevensonthrashed about like a salmon in a fishladder, trying to make up his mindwhether to run for the Presidencyor for reelection as governor of Ill-inois. His attitude on farm price sup-ports has never quite satisfied thosewho favor a continuation of big ag-ricultural subsidies; nor are public-power groups content that he is 100per cent committed to their side. Ihave heard criticisms from certainlabor leaders that Stevenson hasseemed to encounter "difficulty" mak-ing up his mind about amendmentsto the Taft-Hartley Act.

Yet these very qualities, so disturb-ing to some groups, are a factor inendearing Stevenson to the intellec-tuals, teachers, ami writers who pre-dominate in quite a few Democraticcircles. Here is a man who does notpose as having a pat solution for everyproblem of these troubled times. Herarely indulges in the glib sloganswhich pretend to offer such easy rem-edies for grim maladies. He reserveshis doubts about ready answers tomonumental problems like farm sur-pluses, competing with the Soviets, orraising the necessary funds to finance

government in the Twentieth Cen-tury. This, in the minds of manypeople, is a welcome contrast to Pres-ident Eisenhower's bland promises of100 per cent of parity, liberation ofthe satellite nations, and the "unleash-ing" of Chiang Kai-shek. Also, theseDemocrats occasionally recall that cer-tain prominent members of their ownparty have heralded, with much fan-fare, the unveiling of a marvelousnew farm program—a program whichthey have not yet produced.

Stevenson Weakest When He

Listens to Campaign Strategists

To extreme Democratic partisans,Stevenson at times can be somewhatless than satisfying. This is probablytrue of any political figure whobroods extensively and who often ap-pears indecisive. Lincoln, also a mel-ancholy brooder, was not sufficientlyhard toward the South to please theRepublican radicals who unsuccess-fully plotted his defeat for reelectionin 1864. Indeed, Judge Samuel I.Rosenman of New York, former con-fidant of Franklin D. Roosevelt andan intimate of President Truman,has said somewhat disparagingly ofStevenson:

"I don't think his views are those ofa liberal, but more of a middle-of-the-roader. On domestic issues, there'snot much difference between Steven-son's ideas and those of PresidentEisenhower."

This is undoubtedly an over-simpli-fication of Stevenson's reluctance toaccept felicitous answers merely be-cause they have voter appeal. Anyperson who has read his book WhatI Think will know there is a gulf,vast and wide, between Stevenson'sideas and those of the war hero whohas twice conquered him for the Pres-idency. There also have been thenumerous occasions when Stevensonwas ahead of his time. During the1956 campaign he took the risk ofurging a suspension of nuclear tests.

.

Vice President Nixon called this sug-gestion "extraordinary and appalling,catastrophic nonsense—the height ofirresponsibility . . . " Yet today, near-ly four years later, Nixon himselfhas opposed a resumption of nucleartesting. Nor can it be wholly for-gotten that Judge Rosenman's be-loved patron, Franklin D. Roosevelt,was quite universally looked upon asa conservative among Democrats priorto his brilliant unfurling of the NewDeal.

Stevenson is not a particularlyadroit politician, and he himselfprobably would be the first to admitit. Eric Sevareid relates how Steven-son, shortly before the Illinois elec-tions of 1948, told him they had writ-ten off Paul Douglas as a possiblewinner and that if he, Stevenson,won at all, it would be by a verynarrow margin. Actually, Douglaswas elected to the Senate overwhelm-ingly, and Stevenson went to^ thegubernatorial mansion at Springfieldby one of the most colossal majoritiesin the history of the state.

In 1952 my wife Maurine and Iwere visiting Governor Stevenson inthe Illinois capital. He then was beingcasually discussed for the DemocraticPresidential nomination. Maurinepleaded with him not to consider thisbecause Eisenhower was sure to bethe Republican nominee. "And no-body could beat Ike," she added.

Stevenson countered with the in-formation that Senator Scott Lucasof Illinois, the Democratic Senateleader, believed Taft had the GOPnomination all wrapped up. "I agreewith Lucas," said Stevenson.

It is probably an irony of our erathat Stevenson, poor politician thoughhe is, suffers the most when he per-mits his political peers to persuadehim to be out of character. This oc-curred in the campaign of 1956. De-parting from the 1952 style which hadinspired and lifted so many Amer-icans, he allowed himself to get downto such narrow specifics as the priceof .hogs or the cost of kilowatts. Thiswas supposed to be shrewd politics incertain states. Some Democratic pol-iticians also felt, with audible relief,that it removed Stevenson from thelofty plane and high ideals which hadcharacterized his 1952 appearances.The metamorphosis didn't work. TheSt. Louis Post-Dispatch has observed:"In 1956 Mr. Stevenson lost the sup-

port of some of his 1952 admirerswhen he followed the advice of cer-tain campaign strategists and devi-ated from his 1952 policy of 'talkingsense to the American people.' "

No person is more thoroughlyaware of this than Adlai Stevenson."If I ever am foolish enough to letmyself run for President again," hetold me one day, "I will run exactlyas my own man. I won't be met atthe Iowa state line or the Oregonstate line by people who will tell methe purportedly appropriate thing tosay to win votes in that particularlocality. I will relate to voters—every-where—the blunt, hard facts aboutour position in the world and aboutthe sacrifices required if we are go-ing to improve it."

Stevenson Works Hard

On His Own Speeches

Kenneth S. Davis, biographer ofStevenson in the book, A Prophet inHis Own Country, has written thatStevenson's counselors in 1956 as-sumed he would delegate the writingof speeches to others while he wasleft free "to concentrate on publicappearances and personal 'politick-ing.' " On many occasions in 1952 lo-cal bigwigs could not see the candi-date because he was busy polishinghis speeches until curtain time. Thenew division of labors in 1956 wasan unhappy one for Stevenson. Ithelps to explain why the genuineStevenson shone through so little ofthe oratory during that campaign.He later explained to Kenneth Davisthat the actual preparation of speech-es, "the 'creative' thing, is what I liketo do. It's the fun of my life."

This, too, may be the key to a gooddeal of the basic Stevenson image.Ours is an age of the synthetic—ofthe ghostwriter, the tele-prompter, ofmakeup to hide the candidate's baldspots. We all know of the advertisingagency which plans a promotionalcampaign for whiskey one day and acrusade for the Presidency the next.Neither is elevating nor meaningful.Candidates in both parties frequentlyhave speech manuscripts thrust intotheir hands at the last moment. Thereis not even time in which to scanthe ghost-writer's product before it ispresented to the waiting audience andto the nation. People sense this andyearn for ithe days in our history

when Lincoln and Jefferson wrote,under crucial stress, what they them-selves felt and believed in. They re-member tales of Jefferson, in rentedlodgings in Philadelphia, drafting thestirring and rhythmical language ofthe Declaration of Independence.

In our era Stevenson, alone amongleaders, seems to respond to thesegleaming chapters from our past.Most topflight politicians make nosecret of the synthetic authorship oftheir speeches. Indeed, they oftenboast of the task force of skilled ex-perts in each field whom they haverecruited for this task. AlthoughStevenson has had at his disposalsome of the most gifted literary talentin the land, he has a hard time rely-ing upon it. Davis, in A Prophet inHis Own Country, has thus describedthe reaction in 1952 of those whomade the pilgrimage to Springfield tofortify the Stevenson cause with theirpens and typewriters:

"All of them became convinced, ifthey were not at the outset, thatStevenson was a far better writer ofStevenson speeches than any of themever could be. Most of them wereinitially perturbed by the fact thatthe final drafts of speeches generallybore little resemblance to the draftsthey had painfully prepared, but . . .with pride and truth they could pro-claim that the speeches as Stevensonfinally gave them—speeches whichwould be gathered into a best-sellingbook months after the campaigninghad ended—were very much Steven-son's own."

I still have my own vivid memoryof Stevenson in the cramped bed-room of Portland's then only unionoperated hotel in October of 1952.It was nearly midnight. He had justcompleted a long airplane flight. Hisdinner consisted of a bowl of cannedvegetable soup and crackers, eaten offa lap tray. While he ate, he reviseda speech on power and conservationwhich he expected to deliver the nextday. His eyes were hollow and gauntwith exhaustion. It all seemed dread-fully inefficient for the candidate thusto drain his energies and strength,especially when I thought of Eisen-hower's smoothly-functioning cam-paign colossus with its troupe of writ-ers and public relations experts. Iknew the General was not polishingspeeches at midnight. And yet whenI came away from Stevenson's room

that night with Jebbie Davidson, As-sistant Secretary of the Interior, therewere tears of pride in our eyes.

Just how liberal is Adlai Stevenson?This question disturbs some Demo-crats, as exemplified by the stricturesand doubts voiced by Judge Rosen-man. When former President Tru-man endorsed Averill Harriman forPresident before the 1956 Democraticconvention, he said candidly thatStevenson was not liberal enough forhim. Yet, by contrast, Mrs. EleanorRoosevelt, whose liberalism has neverbeen diluted, constantly reiterates heradmiration and affection for AdlaiStevenson. So does former SenatorHerbert H. Lehman of New York,another of unquestioned liberality. Itcould even be a matter of tempera-ment. The precinct liberals have rare-ly cottoned to Stevenson. But the in-tellectual liberals consider Adlai theirnonpareil. They are his shock troops.Their allegiance to him seldomwavers.

Stevenson himself is definitely nota doctrinaire liberal. Many of hisearly affiliations, in business and cor-poration law, have helped to anchorhim to rather orthodox economicideas. In the grave crisis of WorldWar II, he was assistant to Secretaryof the Navy Frank Knox, who hadbeen the 1936 Republican running-mate of Alf M. Landon. After Knox'sdeath from a heart attack, brought onby assiduous adherence to duty, Stev-enson said:

"I loved that man. He was braveand honest. And he made a verygreat contribution to his country inher hour of greatest need. It cost hima lot. I'm sure it shortened his life.He was no intellectual, God knows,but he was highly intelligent—whicha whole lot of 'intellectuals' aren't,you know—and he knew his fellowman from a rough and crowded life.His loyalty to President Roosevelt, hispolitical adversary in 1936, had a de-fiant quality, and his admiration andrespect for his chief seemed to growas the going got tougher."

What Kind of President

Would Stevenson Make?

It is perhaps a clue to Stevenson'soutlook that he took no cognizanceof the fact that Colonel Knox was nota liberal, but only that he was notan intellectual. In his personal asso-

Justus in The Minneapolis Star

Adlai's Faithful Little Lamb

ciations, Stevenson does not dampenlitmus paper to test if each acquaint-ance is simon-pure on every possiblepublic question. This may accentuatecertain suspicions concerning howfar left-of-center Stevenson reallydwells. Yet F.D.R. kept Jesse Jones inhis Cabinet and he enjoyed cruisingon Vincent Astor's yacht. Nor canHarry Truman be said to savor hisbourbon and branch water exclusive-ly in the company of those who score100 per cent on ADA's voting score-sheet on Capitol Hill.

I first met Adlai E. Stevenson atthe United Nations Conference in SanFrancisco in 1945. We journeyed to-gether to Yosemite's granite cliffs andplumed waterfalls, and we hiked inthe majestic fastnesses of MuirWoods. My impression of him was notnecessarily of a fervent liberal butrather of a fascinating intellect, whoknew not only world diplomacy butalso the subtle differences between aDouglas fir and a Ponderosa pine.

What kind of President wouldStevenson be?

I rather imagine he would be aPresident who tried the patience ofevery special-interest group in thenation. On agricultural legislation Iwould guess that he might be too con-servative to please the National Farm-ers Union and not conservativeenough to satisfy the American FarmBureau. He would be too much of aloyal Democrat to win over partisanRepublicans, but might be too fairand temperate to delight the extrem-ists in his own party. For example,this is Stevenson talking to a Demo-

cratic National Committee dinner inChicago in 1955, slightly later thanmidway between his two Presidentialdefeats:

"Let us be very clear that Republi-cans want a safe and sane world everybit as much as Democrats. And in thisday, when our position is more per-ilous than it has been since Korea, letus also profit from our past mistakes,while we deplore them, and let usthink of foreign policy not as par-tisans but as Americans. Let us, in-deed, remember that he who playspolitics with peace will lose at both."

Noble and stately words, these, butnot the kind to make a partisan audi-ence leap onto its chairs. They tellwhy Stevenson is a greater favoritewith the PTA president than withthe local ward chairman.

Excesses are frequently the fuel ofpolitical fires, but Stevenson cannotbring himself to light such faggots.On the eve of the 1956 campaign hewas finally persuaded to endorse 90per cent price supports on so-called"basics." But he did not quite let goof the lanyard. He made it evidentthat he was approving an expedientand not an ultimate answer:

"While firm price supports keepincome up they don't keep surplusesdown, and I say again, lest the damburst and engulf us, we Democratsmust press on, with Republican help,I hope, to develop the much broadernational farm program which is re-quired to restore the full parity oftotal farm income. At the risk of mis-understanding and misrepresentation,I will say again and again that restor-ing 90 per cent price supports to meetthe present emergency is not to saythey are a solution, but only that itis a better program than sliding sup-ports which slide only one way . . . "

Stevenson's Record As

Governor of Illinois

And there you have it, the strengthof Stevenson intellectually and theweakness of Stevenson politically. Hedid come out for 90 per cent pricesupports to cope with a crisis, but hecould not quite bring himself toclaim for such supports any panaceastatus. Perhaps the statement revealswhy he has never carried a state inthe nation's bread basket. Zealous ad-vocates of 90 per cent price supportsrarely appreciate such gingerly back-

ing. But the statement also revealsthat Adlai Stevenson is a sincere andhonest man in bigtime politics.

This honesty was established for allthe nation to see in August of 1952,when Governor Shivers of Texascalled ostentatiously at Springfieldand asked Stevenson to favor the re-turn of the rich oil tidelands to thestates. This was a major issue in thefour states which stood to profitheavily from such a transfer—Texas,Florida, Louisiana, and California,Many electoral votes were potentiallyat stake. Stevenson could have duckedthe question completely, or he couldhave imitated Eisenhower's ambigu-ous acceptance of the states' rightsposition. Instead, Stevenson crisplyendorsed the majority Supreme Courtopinion that the petroleum-ladentidelands were properly within thecustodianship of the federal govern-ment. Quite obviously, this shut offhis meager campaign exchequer frombenefactions by the powerful oilindustry.

An issue like the tidelands was noproblem for Stevenson. On some othersubjects, however, it has not beenso simple for him to accept the tra-ditional position of liberal Demo-crats. I have heard him sharply ques-tion several of my Senate colleaguesfrom the Northwest about high inter-est rates. He was definitely not infavor of increasing the cost of borrow-ing money, but he wondered if therewere anything to the claim that thismight be necessary to quench the firesof inflation. I have listened to Steven-son asking the same kind of pene-trating questions on the issue of Hell'sCanyon Dam. He did not instantlyassume the attitude that a federaldam was, ipso facto, better than aprivate utility company dam. He hadto be convinced, with irrefutable fig-ures, that the private dam wouldleave a good deal of the potentialhydroelectricity of the Snake Riverundeveloped. Positions which someliberals take, almost by reflex action,do not come so automatically to AdlaiStevenson. Furthermore, I would clas-sify him as relatively prudent on thebroad issue of federal spending.Deficit financing, which is attractiveto quite a few Congressional liberals,is not found in the Stevenson litany.For example, one of the accomplish-ments of which he boasts as a featureof his service in the Illinois governor-

ship is this: " . . . Kept state expend-itures on a pay-as-you-go basis by end-ing the use of extensive deficiencyappropriations at the end of abiennium."

Some liberals find it easier to pro-pose methods of spending govern-mental funds than in raising revenuesto finance these undertakings. Steven-son's record as chief executive of Ill-inois makes it likely that he wouldnot be in this group, which perhapsaccounts for the questioning of thedegree of his liberality by formerPresident Truman, Judge Rosenman,and others. A sound measuring stickof Stevenson's philosophy might befound in some of the other featuresof his gubernatorial reign which ex-cite his own pride and satisfaction.Here are a few as compiled by Steven-son's staff shortly before he closed hisdesk at Springfield for the last time:

Put the state police force on amerit basis, removing it as an itemof patronage.

Eliminated non-working politicalappointees with whom state pay-rolls had been padded.

Restored many sales-tax evadersto the rolls and insisted on equaltreatment to all on tax collections.

Improved the care and treatmentof the 49,000 patients in state men-tal hospitals, and provided for col-lection by the state of the cost ofsuch care in cases where the patientor his family are able to pay.

Mauidin la The St. Louis Post-Dispatch

"Somehow I Can'tConcentrate with That Guy Around"

Enforced the over-weight trucklaws to protect the deterioratinghighway system, and increased high-way revenues.

Pressed for elimination of chis-elers and cheaters from the publicassistance rolls.

Initiated a program for state fi-nancing of tuberculosis sanitaria.

Avoided new general taxes sothat only two states, on a per capitaincome basis, have lower per capitastate tax collections than Illinois.

Reformed the administration ofparole laws by appointing expertsfree from political pressure.

Brought Illinois from the lowestto one of the highest levels of stateaid for common schools.

A Democratic Ticket of

Stevenson and Kennedy

These acts reveal a man who hasa warm humanitarian heart, who pos-sesses fiscal soundness and prudence,who administers government withoutfear or favor, and who is not afraidof political pressures. They do notinevitably describe an orthodox po-litical liberal in the conventionalmeaning of the term. Such a personmight have tried to do away with thesales tax altogether rather than bringhonesty to its enforcement. I recalltalking to the late Phil Jackson, pub-lisher of the Oregon Daily Journal ofPortland, after his newspaper hadgiven a luncheon in honor of Steven-son, whom the Journal had indorsedin the 1952 campaign.

"All my fat-cat friends at the Ar-lington Club have been telling mewhat a radical this man is," said Jack-son. "Why, he's no radical at all—in fact, he's barely more liberal thanI am, and I'm certainly no New Deal-er, I can tell you that."

Similar episodes may have occurredelsewhere in the nation, serving toexplain why some flaming liberalscool off when confronted with a thirdcandidacy for Stevenson. Still, athoughtful man's performance in theAmerican Presidency never can bepredicted in advance with supremesafety and confidence. Walter Lipp-mann might hope to expunge the col-umn which he wrote on January 8,1932, about the man who was subse-quently to become the Democraticnominee that year: "Franklin D.Roosevelt is no crusader. He is no

tribune of the people. He is no enemyof entrenched privilege. He is a pleas-ant man who, without any importantqualifications for the office, wouldvery much like to be President." Itmay just be possible that the prophe-cies of F.D.R.'s amanuensis, JudgeSam Rosenman, could prove equal-ly inaccurate about Adlai EwingStevenson.

Stevenson, grandson of GroverCleveland's Vice President, will be 60years old this February. This year,1960, is virtually the last call for him.He either will be nominated in Julyat Los Angeles, the city of his birth,or he never again will be consideredseriously for an office which manypeople regard as die natural nichefor his talents of intellect, originality,and temperament.

I refuse to pass upon the dilemmaof whether or not Stevenson's two pre-vious defeats at the hands of Eisen-hower stamp him indelibly as doomedto failure in quest of the Presidency.Onlv a seventh son of a seventh soncou.d answer this question. It lendsitself no more to authentic assessmentprior to the event than does the wholequestion of the religion of SenatorJohn F. Kennedy and California'sGovernor Pat Brown. We only canhope that the bigotry which plaguedAl Smith in 1928 is no more. But canthis actually be determined until it isput to the test? A casual inquiry atthe front door fails to duplicate theemotions of an election in whichhysteria and fanaticism might runwild. Intolerance cannot be measuredapart from the conditions and at-mosphere which tend to create it. TheStevenson riddle may not be quite sodifficult to unlock, and yet surely theimpact of previous failures is a gen-erally unknown quantity in mostelections.

I personally favor a Democraticticket of Stevenson and Kennedy. Des-pite all the current flyspecking as tohis record in the Senate, I look uponJack Kennedy as one of the superiorSenators of our era. Courage is aprime requisite in politics. Certain-ly it required courage to tackle theinflammable issue of labor reform.Regardless of the course he followed,Kennedy was damned if he did anddamned if he didn't. This has beendemonstrated by the fact that, al-though Kennedy strived successfullyto pull some of the sharpest fangs in

the Landrum-Griffin Bill, he never-theless now is enduring bitter criti-cism from some politicians with closelabor alliances. At 42, Kennedy'syouthful magnetism and personalitymight also be a useful foil to whatsome look upon as Stevenson's lackof lure to the distaff vote.

Why Stevenson for President?Franklin Roosevelt once describedthe Presidency as "preeminently aposition of moral leadership." If ithad not been that in Lincoln's time,would the 16th President have beenable to persuade his countrymen toaccept the first military conscriptionand the first income taxes in Ameri-can history, so that the nation mightbe kept united? Stevenson, to me,possesses Lincolnesque qualities ofsoul-searching, of personal innerdoubts, of a brooding awareness thatthe way ahead is stern and hard. Ifsomebody were to ask what I think isthe vital difference between Steven-son and all other candidates in bothparties, I would answer that it wasan almost indefinable ingredientwhich might be called "stature."Within Stevenson, I believe, are theessentials to be a great President.This is quite different from being agood President or a successful Presi-dent, as a number of the other aspir-ants unquestionably could become.

America today desperately needsa great President.

Foreign policy is the supreme chal-lenge. With his flourishes of world-wide travel and pilgrimaging, Eisen-hower has substituted the appearanceof a policy for policy itself, in theview of James Reston of the NewYork Times. After the cheering isover, the enigma of a divided Berlinor Soviet space supremacy still re-mains. Stevenson has persisted inrecognizing that good-will journeys orvague platitudes are seldom substi-tutes for "generosity and decency inhuman relationships, and equality inhuman opportunities."

Discussing the unrest among theteeming millions of Asia and Africa,Stevenson has said, "Underneath therecriminations of diplomats and theconflicts of nation-states, there boilsup today the hopes, resentments, andaspirations not just of leaders but ofgreat masses of people seeking forthemselves and their children therights and privileges which, [Wood-rowl Wilson said, 'all normal men

desire and must have if they are tobe contented and within reach ofhappiness.'"

It is easy to be superficial aboutforeign policy because the guide-posts are frequently so far away. Thetest of a farm program may be inthe price of hogs, only 25 miles off atthe railhead. The test of foreign poli-cy may be in the sprouting seeds ofa war which Americans a decadehence might have to fight on the op-posite side of the globe. Not even20/20 vision can discern these meas-urements. That is why it is so easyto promise ultimate liberation fortheir relatives to foreign-languagevoters in large American cities, orto hint that eventually the Sovietswill be overthrown by revolutionand thus we do not need to worryabout Russia's spectacular shot at themoon or its satellites in far orbit.

Adlai Stevenson Is

America's Hairshirt

Stevenson has never indulged him-self in these luxuries. He is the prag-matist who threatens his own politicalchances by reminding audiences thatwe cannot thumb our noses even atcountries which occasionally offendour precious sensibilities. "I knowsome politicians tell us that we don'tneed allies," Stevenson has observed."Life would certainly be much sim-pler if that were so, for our friendscan be highly irritating. But it is notso. We need allies because we haveonly six per cent of the world's popu-lation. We need them because theoverseas air bases essential to our ownsecurity are on their territory. Weneed allies because they are thesource of indispensable strategic ma-terials. We need, above all, the moralstrength that the solidarity of theworld community alone can bring toour cause. Let us never underestimatethe weight of moral opinion. It canbe more penetrating than bullets,more durable than steel . . ."

Stevenson is America's hairshirt.He is the man who offers "blood,sweat, toil, and tears" when othersare hinting temptingly at tax reduc-tion or more federal subsidies andbenefactions. Indeed, people havecome to expect candor of Stevenson.One of the highest tributes which hereceived was when he strayed brieflyfrom this role during the 1956 Presi-

dential campaign. Men and womeninstantly complained that he was outof character, that the 1956 campaignproduct was definitely not the au-thentic Stevenson. Somehow, AdlaiStevenson has come to epitomize inmany minds a political figure whotells the truth, irrespective of politi-cal consequences.

Nikita Khrushchev's doorstep hasbecome a favorite platform for Ameri-can political hopefuls. It has intro-duced a jarring and even frighteningelement into our political life. TheCommunist Party is unable to poll afraction of one per cent of the voteat American ballot boxes. Yet theworld's top Communist, Khrushchev,may possess the power to shape anAmerican election simply by rattlingthe nuclear sword or fluttering thedove of peace at appropriate mo-ments. Bismarck did this as a calcu-lated policy in Prussia to influenceFrench politics. What if Khrushchevfinds that the mailed fist or thegloved hand, on his part, can stam-pede American voters into favoringone party or the other as an in-strument of supposed peace?

I think this is one of the truly dis-turbing developments of our era.That is why the visits of leadingAmericans with Khrushchev must bereported faithfully and realistically,and without self-serving embellish-ments. If public opinion in ourcountry is to be unmoved bySoviet bombast or blandishments,then American statesmen must be en-tirely candid in analyzing their im-pressions of Khrushchev's motivesand aspirations. Stevenson, as I see it,has come closer to such a goal than

ADLAI STEVENSON:LAST CHANCEby RICHARD L. NEUBERGER

each reprint:single copy 15 centsfive copies 50 centsfifteen copies $1reduced prices onlarger quantitiesSend your order or inquiry toReprint Department

The ProgressiveMadison, Wisconsin

any other important visitor to theSoviet dictator.

For example, in interviews withThe Progressive and the New YorkTimes on Khrushchev's disarmamentaddress at the United Nations, Stev-enson exclaimed: "This is the firsttime I have ever felt encouraged onthe subject of disarmament. His re-plies to my questions left me with theclear understanding that in his viewan international control body shouldhave the power and facilities to con-trol and inspect each step of the dis-armament process to the extent nec-essary to insure compliance with thestep, such power and facilities to varyaccording to the needs of eachphase . . .

"While I wish I were more san-guine that something positive mightcome of Mr. Khrushchev's sweepingdisarmament proposal, he certainlygave me new hope that they meantbusiness this time. And above all, weshould not hastily and cynically dis-miss his proposals as 'clumsy propa-ganda,' 'old stuff,' or 'utopian non-sense.' For thereby we only redoublethe propaganda impact—if that is allit is—of Russia's posture as the peacemaker—the mighty Russia which firstput a satellite in orbit and has justpinned her colors to the moon.

"We must pay attention, cautiouslybut carefully, to what Mr. Khrush-chev says about disarmament becausehe has a lot to say about the life anddeath of all of us. And I wish wecould learn that with the Communiststhe important thing is not alwayswhether they are sincere but whetherthey are serious."

Stevenson Would Shape

A Time of Greatness

Stevenson has a nobility of spiritwhich is rare in politics. Lincoln said,"I shall do nothing through malice.What I deal with is too vast formalice." Alas, this counsel of re-straint is frequently honored farmore in the breach than in the ob-servance. Many men in politics, flat-tered beyond belief and the object ofconstant sycophancy, whine and wailwhenever matters do not suit theirfancy. After a defeat at the polls,they blame everyone except them-selves. I have sat beside former gover-nors and former Senators, listeningto hours of abuse against those re-

sponsible for their political downfall.Stevenson is a different kind of

bird from the usual political breed.He was twice vanquished for thePresidency under the most trying anddifficult circumstances. He broughttears to millions of eyes besides hisown on the night of his defeat in1952, when he told those who hadworked in his losing cause:

"Someone asked me, as I camedown the street, how I felt, and Iwas reminded of a story that a fellowtownsman of ours in Springfield usedto tell—Abraham Lincoln. Theyasked him how he felt once after anunsuccessful election. He said thathe felt like a little boy who hadstubbed his toe,in the dark. He saidthat he was too old to cry, but ithurt too much to laugh."

I have never heard Stevenson be-wail his political fortunes. I havenever heard Stevenson deride his con-queror or speak poorly of those whofailed to support the Stevenson cam-paigns. His references to the Presi-dent of the United States, whetherspoken in public or in private, arealways in terms of personal respect.This is not usual in American poli-tics. One should listen to formerSenators commenting on those whooccupy their chairs.

One night at a dinner party inWashington, my wife and I heard theDean Achesons ridiculing and de-nouncing Stevenson. The vilificationcontinued for a long time and wasobviously no secret. They seemedanxious to make known their uttercontempt and dislike for the Demo-cratic Party's unsuccessful nomineeof 1952 and 1956. Some weeks laterwe mentioned this episode to Steven-son. He shook his head sadly with awry smile. "Dean was a fine Secre-tary of State," he said. "I only wishhe and. Mrs. Acheson thought betterof me." And there the topic ended.

I do not know whether Adlai Stev-enson ever will become President ofthe United States. The path ahead ofa two-time loser is pocked with perils,and 1960 is undoubtedly his lastchance. Destiny often foils those whoseem most prepared for destiny's cli-mactic events. But what I do knowis this—if Stevenson does not go tothe White House, millions of hisfellow Americans will feel they havebeen robbed of their opportunity tolive in a time of greatness.