Lodge & Landis

Stretching out below, almost the entire length of today's editorial column, is a careful appraisal of Senator Lodge, written by former Dean of Harvard Law School, former Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board, and leader of Cambridge's Plan E crusade, James M. Landis. Despite its thoroughness, though, and despite the distinction of its author, this letter has many weak points.

One, for instance, is the statement that Lodge could wield nothing but his one vote. Following this by several paragraphs is the assertion that the Old Guard Republicans' enthusiasm for Kennedy is no more than a fanatic attempt to purge Lodge. The first statement seems plausible, the second unexceptionable, yet together they clash. If Lodge is the cipher Mr. Landis claims he is, why should the Taftites strain themselves so for his defeat? Surely, the Republican irresponsible would not brave the derision inevitably attending their support of a party-line Democrat unless Lodge threatened their power.

Presently, Lodge has reached the point where his record and opinions are a menace to the GOP's neanderthal leaders, but are not sufficiently distinguished, like Vandenberg's were, to shield him from an intra-party vendetta. If, however, Eisenhower (whose ideas on foreign policy are, after all, closer to Lodge's than to Taft's) wins the presidency, Lodge will presumably become his agent in the Senate. With the political strength of a president behind him, the Massachusetts Senator would undoubtedly vitiate, if not destroy, Taft's control over Republican foreign policy.

Another weak point in this letter is Mr. Landis' clarion for party regularity. Control of the Senate, he says, depends on three seats; sound foreign policy demands a Democratic Senate; vote Democratic. This bit of logic ignores an important fact: Lodge has voted with Democrats on foreign policy as often as Kennedy, and each foolish Lodge vote can be matched with a Kennedy blunder.

If Stevenson, as president, tries to fulfill his promise of bi-partisanship--regrettably, a requirement, as the past four years have indicated, of any successfully executed foreign policy--Lodge will be far more useful to him than a freshman Democrat, and a none too dependable Democrat at that, for Lodge is the only Republican with the record and ability to assume Vandenberg's position. Perhaps, as Dean Landis and Kennedy alike insist, Lodge could not harmonize his Party with an intelligent foreign policy. There is no point, though, in purging the GOP of its ablest specialist on foreign affairs, of one of its few remaining vestiges of responsibility, simply because bi-partisanship is not inevitable.

These two points are the core of Mr. Landis' letter. There remains, however, a somewhat embarrassing side-issue, Lodge's needless, off-hand, and stupid espousel of McCarthy. Yet, even this is not the damning flaw Mr. Landis considers it. Lodge, according to a current and valid cliche, usually votes wisely in Washington and apologizes for his wisdom in Massachusetts. When you compare Lodge's 1950 minority report on McCarthy's early charges and his recent ill-advised statement, you see this old cliche proven. If this was a single incident, Mr. Landis' charges would be more than embarrassing, but since it is only another instance of the Lodge campaign technique of self-apologia, we feel justified in considering it deplorable but minor. The genuine test of Lodge's convictions is his voting record, and the Senator's consistent bolting of his party to vote for Democratic foreign policies should prove the depth of his beliefs.

Lastly, Mr. Landis excoriates Lodge's record of absenteeism, a very strange issue for a Democrat to raise. While Lodge's record might not be the best in the Senate, Kennedy's is undeniably the worst in the House. Kennedy has maintained an average absentee record of 29% over the last six years, and in 1951-52 (with the aid of a malaria attack, admittedly) he was absent in well over 40% of the roll calls.

In short, Mr. Landis' letter is hardly convincing. We still believe that defeating Lodge, thus depriving Stevenson or Eisenhower, as the case may be, of a useful and able Republican Senator, just to elect another freshman Democrat, makes no sense. Because it is probable that several of the most objectionable Republicans are due for retirement, there is all the more reason for retaining what is best in the GOP. We still believe, then, that Massachusetts should reelect Senator Lodge.