News

HMS Is Facing a Deficit. Under Trump, Some Fear It May Get Worse.

News

Cambridge Police Respond to Three Armed Robberies Over Holiday Weekend

News

What’s Next for Harvard’s Legacy of Slavery Initiative?

News

MassDOT Adds Unpopular Train Layover to Allston I-90 Project in Sudden Reversal

News

Denied Winter Campus Housing, International Students Scramble to Find Alternative Options

Vote--for Stevenson

NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED

The day is at hand. Today voting America will decide whether its faith in the likeable personality is not after all stronger than its faith in conscious leadership. For this is how the campaign has shaped up. On the one hand, there has been good old Ike, with beaming countenance and sincere reassurance. On the other hand, there has been Adlai, looking not quite so All-American, but better informed and offering a few comprehensive plans for a New America and a chaotic world.

President Eisenhower's leadership through amiability and accomdation has had its advantages. McCarthy has been silenced, the Republican Party has been partially brought up to date, and co-existence with the Soviets has apparently become a policy as well as a fact.

But the ideal of accomodation has had its drawbacks--having no other goal than team cooperation and holding the line, the Eisenhower administration has lacked information, planning, and drive. The President's trust in simple trust resulted in none of the constructive planning which might have eased integration. Disbelief in the value of planning has caused the dismemberment of federal power development and flood control. Because he seems to have no aim except to avoid--to avoid socialism, to avoid war, to avoid trouble with the team--he has lacked push. Crucial aid to schools fell through largely because the President trusted his team and did not drive it. The testing of hydrogen bombs has continued because Eisenhower has been stopped by the untenable technical point of inspection. In Suez, the President was content merely to prove America's good intentions; if he and Dulles had any settlement which would satisfy the British and French and retain a respect for Egypt's rights, they certainly did not press it.

The lack of energy and planning in the President's handling of national and international affairs has been explained in several ways. His health has perhaps had some connection with a few issues, notably the failure of the school bill. But generally the flaw is in attitude. This attitude is what makes either of the two possibilities of another Republican administration distasteful. Neither an Eisenhower nor a Nixon-turned-Eisenhower (which is the best that can be hoped for) is adequate. For leadership by team spirit alone is not enough, either in the nation or in the world.

The need for energetic planning has become especially apparent in the last week with the collapse of American foreign policy in the Middle East. But while the crisis of the moment reveals one weakness, it has temporarily obscured others. The world may seem a butchery at the moment, but there is equally dangerous, though less dramatic, chaos in American public education, in power development, in defense planning.

The conflict in Suez and the oppression of the satellites has been depressing. But chaos can have a bright aspect, provided some attempt is made to shape better forms from it. The world has been quickened for the first time since the onset of the Cold War by the satellite revolts. It is ripe for a conscious, artistic leadership, which will mold the world into a new form.

In his campaign Stevenson has given notice of his ability to provide this leadership. Through his New America reports--on education, health, the aged, natural resources, and economy--he has revealed that he has the information, and specific plans based on information. Stevenson has carefully worked out his proposals on the hydrogen bomb, so that the end of the test explosions need not mean the end of defense development.

Stevenson's concern for dealing with the facts in internal matters has had its counterpart in his understanding of foreign affairs. His understanding of Asian neutralism, of Red China, of African independence, and of economic backwardness in these areas will result in policies attuned to a world in flux.

Stevenson will bring intelligence, energy, and some definite programs to the White House. At no time has the United States needed this kind of leadership more. Eisenhower has been "good" but he has not been energetic. Like a good nurse, he has made everyone feel better. But there are deep ills in America and the world which require more than soothing. Only Stevenson seems able to provide the necessary prescription.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags