March 29, 1966
Page 6955
ADDRESS DELIVERED BY SENATOR MUSKIE AT THE JEFFERSON JACKSON DAY DINNER IN DETROIT, MICH.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, on Saturday, March 26, I had the pleasure of introducing the esteemed junior Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] as principal speaker at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Detroit.
The Senator treated the audience to exactly the sort of amusing and instructive speech that we have all learned to expect from him. Its polish and charm are all the more amazing because much of it he wrote in his hotel room only hours before the dinner.
For the benefit of those many of his Colleagues who enjoy what we recognize as the Muskie style, I ask unanimous consent that his speech be printed at this point in my remarks.
There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
SPEECH DELIVERED BY SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE TO THE JEFFERSON-JACKSON DINNER, DETROIT, MICH.
Chairman Gordon Traye, Toastmaster Nicholas Hood, Mayor Cavanaugh, Governor and Mrs. Williams, Governor and Mrs. Swainson, friends, a summer visitor in Maine tried in vain to strike up a conversation with a native. Finally, in complete frustration, he asked if the town had a law against talking."Not a law," he was told, "but we've got an understanding not to say anything unless it improves on silence.”
This New England story described that old New Englander, PAT McNAMARA -- and I can think of no one who more effectively improves on silence when he speaks. To use a well-worn New England pun -- you can take everything he says for 'granite' -- roughhewn and solid.
I first met PAT and Michigan democracy in 1954 -- a year when he and I were unlikely winners -- but I had already pulled my surprise victory and his was still ahead of him. Ever since my affection and respect for him have steadily grown.
This has been the result in part -- I am sure -- because he reminds me so much of our Maine people.
Consider his retirement statement. It reminds me so much of Annie Buckley's grandfather who isn't much help around the farm anymore because he says pushing 90 is all the exercise he needs.
But this gruff, blunt exterior is only the shell -- the protective covering designed to conceal a warm and generous heart.
PAT is a practical, toughminded, commonsense man. His is the approach of the Maine farmer who rejected a young salesman's effort to sell him an encyclopedia of farming. "Hell, Sonny," he said, "I'm only farming half as good as I know how to now."
It is because he has this practical side that PAT has been able to convert his humane impulses into meaningful, effective legislation -- medical care for the elderly, the education of our young people, civil rights, better wages and working conditions, resource development, the quality of our environment.
On this past St. Patrick's Day, Senator MIKE MANSFIELD said Of PAT:
"PAT McNAMARA is a man of immense heart and a burning sense of justice. He is in my judgment one of the great humanists of Senate history. He has never failed the people of the United States. He has stood for, by and with the most humble of Americans. His absence from subsequent Congresses will be a heavy loss to them -- to the Senate and to the Nation."
MIKE spoke for all of us in the Senateand each of us has a special personal reason for appreciating PAT.
As a member of his Public Works Committee, I have seen the quiet determination of this toughminded, warmhearted son of New England bring out the best in his colleagues.
I have seen him stand like a rock against actions which offended his principles. And I have seen him compromise with grace to achieve his ultimate goals.
I have been the beneficiary of his friendship, his loyalty, and his uncompromising support.
I miss him tonight.
I will miss him when he leaves the Senate.
I must pay my respects to my other colleague from Michigan -- whom I also met for the first time in 1954. I might be tempted to describe him as a jumbo, extra large, giant, or economy-size Senator except that he has persuaded us those labels are deceptive: and there is nothing deceptive about PHIL HART. He is all Senator, scrupulously fair, with an instinct for what is right and sound, and a master of the arts of quiet persuasion which gets things done. He is going to persuade us to pass that truth-in-packaging bill before this session is ended.
It has been a long time -- 12 years since that cold and windy Pulaski Day celebration in Hamtramck which somehow turned into a Democratic rally.
Some of us show a few signs of having aged in the intervening years. We run the risk of being asked the question a delightful old Maine schoolteacher was asked by one of her grandchildren: "Grandmother, what did you look like when you were new?"
It occurs to me that at this beginning of a new election year, we in the Democratic Party might well ask ourselves a comparable question: "What did we look like when we were new?"
The Democratic Party is, after all, the oldest organized -- or disorganized -- political party in the world. We have come a long way since Jefferson and Madison started the party under the guise of a botanical cruise up the Hudson. Our Nation has changed from a struggling band of States along the eastern seaboard to a mighty world power.
It wouldn't be surprising if we showed our age. After all -- a party much younger than ours has tottered a bit in recent years.
A political party must, of course, renew itself constantly if it is to be vigorous, dynamic, and progressive. This requires new ideas and new blood; and it requires the continued contribution of those who remain young and fresh in ideas and spirit.
This has been the great quality of PAT McNAMARA. He has retained a fresh view of life. Undiscouraged in the hard years and unflagging in the easier years -- he has kept the spirit of youth.
The look Of PAT McNAMARA today is the same as when he was "new": A man who looks ahead and not behind; concerned with the worth of men and their perfectibility; a man of optimism and enthusiasm and deep-seated belief in our country and her capacity to meet the future.
And what of our country and our party? What did they look like when they were "new" -- and let us never forget that the founders of our party were also among the founders of the Republic.
The Great Society was actually launched 177 years ago when a new Government -- under a new Constitution -- took office armed with two great mandates: (1) to preserve freedom and (2) to discharge effectively the responsibilities arising out of the needs and problems of its people.
The underlying assumption and goal was that a society would truly achieve fulfillment when it encourages and stimulates the fulfillment of the talents, the aspirations, the moral and intellectual capacity of each of its members.
This is what we looked like when we were new.
This is what we looked like in 1960 when we renewed our compact as a party with the American people.
This is what we have looked like in this 89th Congress -- through which the American people have worked their will in dealing with a long-accumulating agenda of public business, designed to help individual Americans achieve dignity, opportunity, and fulfillment.
The statistical evidence of our economic growth over the past 5 years is impressive and without parallel: The longest unbroken period of expansion and growth in our peacetime history; an increase of 35 percent in Gross National Product and a projected further increase of 8.9 percent -- $60 billion in this year 1966 -- an incredible and awesome performance; record increases in farm income; reduction of unemployment from 5.6 to 3.7 percent. Even in Maine, that rock-ribbed Republican State of old, we are facing labor shortages -- and a Republican Governor eager to take credit for this invigorating Democratic prosperity.
I understand that is not unlike your experience here in Michigan.
It has been said that there is never an ultimate answer to a political problem -- that, as old problems are met, new ones emerge.
Sometimes out of the answers to the old ones.
And so prosperity -- which has reversed the downward trend of prices and wages of the 1960 recession -- has generated upward pressures on both which must be carefully watched and restrained. However, the party which successfully handled the deflationary pressures of the recession which it inherited can and will successfully manage the upward pressures of the prosperity which its policies and programs produced.
We have not been content with sheer economic growth -- important as it is in producing opportunity for our people and the resources needed to perform essential public chores.
We have made bold new advances in civil rights, in attacking discrimination and in fighting poverty.
We have moved against threats of blight and pollution.
We have expanded educational opportunities at all levels.
We are working to make our cities vital and healthy urban centers -- places of opportunity and not of despair.
And around the world, we are meeting our commitments to freedom in the struggle against tyranny and aggression.
We have done all this -- and more -- because, from the time of our beginning -- when we were new -- we have believed and we believe that only the fulfillment of man can bring justice, order, stability, and peace.
What of the future? Are we up to it?
We have so much of what so many sought and failed to achieve. Unmatched economic and military power. An unprecedented standard of living. Unequaled opportunities for most of our people. And freedom.
And still we have pressing and critical problems -- at home and abroad.
Both at home and abroad. Ironically, most of the problems with which we are struggling spring from the simple fact that most of God's children have too little of food, of shelter, of care, of opportunity, of love and of friendship.
And so they react, as we should expect, to the frustrations of hopeless dreams.
And others, as we should expect, exploit their frustrations and restlessness.
And still others choose to ignore the problem.
Confronted by such critical and serious problems -- at home and abroad -- what do we do?
Do we retreat? Do we stand still? Or do we advance; and, if so, in what direction?
Last fall I was privileged to travel with Senator MANSFIELD and three other colleagues from the Senate on a Presidential mission to 15 countries in Europe, the Middle East, and the Far East.
We engaged in some 50 formal discussions with the leaders of the countries we visited and with our representatives in those countries.
We traveled more than 30,000 miles in 37 days and 50 flying hours. Such a sweeping and swift bird's-eye view clearly presented the picture of a world of great diversity of geography, of climate, of peoples, of opportunities, of resources, of poverty, of wealth of political systems, of languages, of history, of tradition, of hopes, and of dreams.
Technology has made the world smaller, but in the process, has made the world's problems greater.
It is by no means "one world" except in the sense that the stability of the whole is now inevitably affected by instability in any part of it.
We cannot escape such a world; we cannot ignore such a world; we cannot avoid influencing such a world; we are inevitably a force in such a world -- good, we hope, rather than evil. But we cannot hope to run such a world exactly to our own specifications.
Whether we like it or not, countries and peoples, friendly and unfriendly, will pursue their own interests, and seek their own destinies, in ways of their own choosing.
Our concern is that, in the process, they do not make it unsafe for others to do likewise.
There is a wonderful story about a tourist who was traveling through our picturesque Maine towns. He was fascinated by the sturdy down-to-earth quality of the people he met. In one town, he met an old timer who was obviously very ancient, though vigorous. He asked him: "Sir, how old are you?" The old gentleman replied that this happened to be his 100th birthday. "Well," said the tourist, "Congratulations, I don't suppose you expect to see another hundred?"
"Don't be too sure, young fella," the old timer replied. "I am much stronger now than I was at the beginning of the first hundred."
And so it is with us. We are much stronger than we were in 1961, or 1954, or 1932, or 1800; and we have lost none of the qualities which made us a new, strange and wonderful force in the world,
There is no problem which poses a greater challenge, in this year of 1966, for our leaders, the candidates, and every citizen than that of southeast Asia,
Should we withdraw?
Should we launch an unrestrained and unlimited military effort?
Should we simply hang on, in the hope that our adversary will eventually tire and quit?
Or should we continue to apply unremitting pressure in a carefully measured response to the aggression of the enemy?
The last is my choice. It is the choice which, in my judgment, can command the greatest support in the Senate. It is the President's course.
The supporters of this course argue that it is the only realistic alternative to withdrawal; that only in this way can Hanoi be made to feel the pressure which will force it to the conference table; that there is a ceiling on Hanoi's ability to respond effectively without direct Chinese intervention; and that, although we should not overlook the risk of direct Chinese involvement, that risk can be avoided so long as the Chinese do not consider that our effort is a direct threat to their security interests.
It is not our objective to conquer any country or to destroy any regime. It is to stop aggression in South Vietnam. Why?
The reasons include the same reasons which prompted us to take a stand in Iran, immediately following World War II, in Greece and Turkey, in Berlin, in Korea, and in Cuba.
We believe that freedom is at stake. We believe that the right of small nations to work out their own destinies in their own way is at stake. We believe that containment of expansionist communism regrettably involves direct confrontation from time to time, and that to retreat from it is to undermine the prospects for stability and peace. We believe that the credibility of our word and our purpose as a nation is at stake; and that its loss would be an enormous setback for the forces of freedom. This assessment was underscored this past week in England and Germany where I found strong support for our basic policies in Vietnam.
What is happening in South Vietnam, in southeast Asia, and its outcome, will exert a strong influence on the shape of the next Asia and its impact upon the lives of hundreds of millions of Asian people and the stability of the world as a whole.
Hedley Donovan, editor in chief of Time, Inc., put it this way recently: "If southeast Asia, instead of being a temptation to aggression and a threat to world peace, became a strong point of economically vigorous and fully independent states, the beneficial effects would spread well beyond the peninsula itself. Communist China would be "contained" in the best sense, not just in military positions but in terms of performance, by the dynamism of Japan on the northeast and this healthy new growth center to the south. South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Burma, Indonesia would all benefit to some degree; even India's staggering problems would look a little less hopeless."
Is it in our interest to try to contribute to such an objective? I believe so.