October 27, 1964

Individual, National Interests Balanced by Republican Party

As we approach the end of a bitter election campaign, we cannot escape the feeling that Americans have reached the “point of no return” on the course to wherever we are going in history.

The basic conflict between the philosophy of individual liberty and that of centralized planning, republicanism versus socialism, is likely to be decided next week at the polls.

In our opinion, this is the paramount issue that the presidential candidates have touched on but lightly.

Both Johnson and Goldwater assure us they are four-square for peace and prosperity. But there is a world of difference in the methods used to achieve these worthy goals.

How much personal freedom and private property must be given up for the common good?

This is the perplexing question crying for an answer. Obviously, in a complex society, the individual cannot be free to injure his neighbor or monopolize the nation’s wealth.

On the other hand, the human spirit rebels at regimentation and servitude. Somewhere between these two poles is a proper balance.

Republicans traditionally have resisted the encroachment of the federal government on constitutional rights of the individual and his local political institutions.

Northern Democrats since Franklin D. Roosevelt have held that the fulfillment of society transcends selfish desires and regional interests.

We admit to the persuasiveness of both philosophies. We are thankful for the rights and freedom we still enjoy. We admire the advances we have made in helping the poor, indigent, sick and aged.

However, we have heavily mortgaged our future to finance our present generosity.

Prudence demands a slowing of the socialistic trend until the possibility of a costly war is dissipated, until our flow of gold abroad is reversed, until our national debt is reduced, until our gifts of money to foreign nations is stopped, until our subsidies for non-production can be turned into expansion capital, until the earners can organize to support the non-producers.

If all this seems abstract, consider this one chilling fact: we have today 15 billion dollars worth of gold in our treasury, but we owe foreigners 22 billion dollars payable in gold.

Our domestic debts - paper money, social security, savings bonds, treasury notes - are backed up only by the promise of the government to pay them from money it plans to collect in the years ahead.

Would you like to predict the impact on this country of the financial crisis resulting from a major war or world depression?

We have made breath-taking progress in building the good life. It is not unreasonable to take a little time to consolidate our gains and gird our defenses against the risks ahead. It is not sensible to lose all in noble experiments.

Our very survival is at stake in the continuing cold war. The weapons are gold and credit, not tanks and ballistic missiles. The prize is freedom.

We believe strongly that the Republican party by experience and philosophy is best equipped to lead this nation in the critical times ahead. It is best able to balance individual and national interests.

We urge a vote, therefore, for Goldwater, Miller, and all Republican congressional candidates.

The key races in this or any other election are those for Congress - senators and representatives.

There have been some attempts by “liberals” to transfer to the chief executive many powers reserved to the legislative branch of federal government. But Congress still makes the laws, levies the taxes, spends the money and declares war.

Though the powers of the president are great, final decisions rest with our representatives. Those voters who worry about the integrity of Johnson, or the impulsiveness of Goldwater, are wandering on detours.

With good men in Congress, the president couldn’t line his own pockets or start a war - even if by the wildest stretch of imagination he was so disposed.

The “Democrats for Goldwater” and “Republicans for Johnson” are the lost souls of this election. While immobilized by personality dislikes, they are allowing the philosophy of their party to be diluted by contrary partisans.

We urge voters to disregard charges that Johnson is an immoral crook and Goldwater a dangerous madman. These are baseless insults designed only to frighten.

Both men are honorable, trustworthy and dedicated. Each will carefully weigh his every action, if elected, WITHIN THE PHILOSOPHICAL FRAMEWORK OF HIS PARTY.

It is to the latter emphasis which citizens should address themselves. If you are not confident of the candidate, grit your teeth and vote for the party that your judgment recommends.

For those who disagree with us as to the basic issue of this campaign, we offer a few observations on the issues the candidates have chosen to debate.

EXTREMISM - Both parties are guilty of this new political sin, but the Democrats more so. Humphrey is an active member of the extreme left-wing Americans for Democratic Action.

Neither Goldwater nor Miller have even remote connections with right-wing organizations and have publicly repudiated the support of the one most hated by the liberals, the John Birch Society.

NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY- Another irrelevant issue. No one man has, or can have, his finger on the atom trigger. Elaborate committee arrangements control these terrible new weapons. A Congress liberally sprinkled with both Democrats and Republicans is our best insurance against accidental war.

MORALITY IN GOVERNMENT - There is a general decline in morals all over the world. It is a real and pressing problem that Goldwater has brought to the conscience of Americans.

However, it wasn’t fostered by any Democrat character weakness. Riots, violent crimes and juvenile delinquency are world-wide diseases.

On the matter of political ethics, however, Johnson stands condemned. He first came into public office by a few hundred rigged votes, he has blocked the investigation of Bobby Baker, and he failed to explain how he amassed a multi-million dollar fortune during a lifetime in public office.

FOREIGN POLICY - Russian soldiers, missiles and submarines in Cuba are only 90 miles from our southern shore. However, the Bay of Pigs defeat - which opened the door to the communists - and failure to carry out the ultimatum to Russia to leave Cuba, are personal Kennedy blunders for which Johnson is not accountable.

Neither Johnson or Goldwater have spelled out what they will do about Russians on our doorsteps.

Abroad, we are hopelessly entangled in Viet Nam. It’s nobody’s fault and nobody knows what to do.

SOCIAL SECURITY - Senator Goldwater said once he thought social security should be voluntary. Candidate Goldwater says he believes in social security and did vote for increases in benefits.

Johnson says social security is vital to the nation, but jeopardized the finances of the plan by attaching hospital care for the aged to it. When a senate committee cut out medicare, the President allowed the proposed new social security benefits to go by the boards.

CIVIL RIGHTS - This is the unspoken issue of the campaign. Both candidates have properly avoided the subject. Northern negroes and southern whites, however, made it a real issue.

As a senator, Johnson preached segregation. Goldwater has voted for every civil rights bill to come before him except the most recent one. On this one, he and one of two federal courts held certain sections to be unconstitutional.

As candidates, both men have allowed their supporters to attribute to them positions contrary to their records. Each thinks there is political advantage in the situation.

COMMUNISM - Goldwater advocates a firm policy toward world communism and points to the failures of appeasement. Johnson advocates negotiation and co-existence.

We see grave risks in both approaches, but finally must conclude the waning resolve of free people to stick to unpleasant tasks will enable unchallenged communists to nibble us to death.

There are many other issues mentioned by the candidates, of course, but those above should suffice to reach a reasoned conclusion.

When we throw out the phony issues and analyze those with substance, we find a small balance of merit in Goldwater’s favor.

In lieu of any clearly superior program of action by either presidential candidate, we fall back on the responsibility of the political parties.

On this basis, we feel the Republicans have the best chance to meet the challenges ahead, while preserving our hard-won freedoms.

By Lindsey Wilger Williams, retired newspaper publisher and syndicated columnist