LODGE AND LANDIS

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I feel that the CRIMSON committed a double error of judgment in its recent evaluation and endorsement of Senator Lodge. First, you accepted the self-portrait Lodge has designed for public consumption--the portrait of a liberal leader in foreign policy, a cautious semi-conservative on domestic issues, a man of conviction who places principle above party--without due consideration of his record. Second, you played down Lodge's affiliation with McCarthy and his kind while emphasizing the support of Kennedy by a number of groups and individuals whose only motivation is hatred of Lodge, whose only interest is his defeat.

You say that "Lodge is vital, for only he can dampen the wild cries of the neo-isolationist Republicans and assume the role that Vandenberg so ably carried out." But this is not the case. Lodge does not command the respect of his Middle Western Republican colleagues as Vandenberg did. As Time Magazine wrote on December 17, 1951, under the heading, "The Lost Mantle," "When Vandenberg fell ill and retired from active leadership, most observers thought the mantle of Republican leadership in Foreign Policy would fall on Cabot Lodge. But somehow, the mantle never fitted. In 1949, Lodge led 14 liberal Republicans in an attempt to win the Senate G.O.P. leadership, but went down before the Taft regulars. Lodge has never quite succeeded in holding together that band of 14, or in serving as their spokesman . . ." In fact, the Taft faction has repeatedly called for his head, both openly and through the medium of the isolationist press--which is the real reason for the Chicago Tribune's, and Basil Brewer's support of Kennedy. Not only is Lodge distrusted by these men, but he lacks the power or prestige to keep them in line in the Senate.

Taft Domination

If a Republican Senate is elected under Eisenhower, it will be run by Taft, not Lodge. If a Republican Senate is elected under Stevenson, Taft and his mid-western isolationists will effectively shatter any hope of bi-partisanship on foreign affairs. Only if a Democratic Senate is elected will our internationalist policies be continued. Control of the Senate hangs on three seats. For this reason alone, the re-election of Lodge might well be dangerous to the future of our country. If we hope to keep the gains we have made in unifying the free world against Communism, we must return a Democratic Senate. An impotent Lodge enmeshed in a Taft-controlled Senate would be of little use to us.

But there are other chinks in the armor of Senator Lodge. A big one is his endorsement of McCarthyism. Either a candidate is smart enough to see the implications of McCarthy, or he isn't. If he does see them, he is faced with the choice of endorsing them or keeping his mouth shut, not to mention active opposition. Senator Lodge is smart enough to see what McCarthyism means. We must read his support of the Wisconsin Senator as plain-vote-getting expediency, nothing else. The same applies to his happy acceptance of Dick Nixon's praise on platforms throughout Massachusetts. What does this say about the depth of Lodge's convictions? How can we be sure that Lodge will not deal away his convictions on foreign policy to save his political life, as General Eisenhower seems to have done with Senator Taft?

Another of the skeletons in Lodge's closet is his own record of absenteeism--a record he has excused by pleading that he "had himself recorded" most of the time. But this should not obscure the fact that, for example, he was absent from 98 out of 129 Senate roll calls in 1952--the second worse absentee record of any Republican Senator. Nor should it excuse the fact that Lodge was absent from 45 out of 46 roll call votes on price control during 1951 and 1952. Nor the fact that he was absent from the Senate floor when President Truman's veto of the notorious McCarran Immigration Bill came to a vote. The McCarran Act was passed over President Truman's veto by one more vote than was necessary.

Lodge's foreign policy record has not always been as good--or as consistent--as your editorial would indicate. Though he has urged a strengthening of our European defenses repeatedly during his current campaign, it was only last year that he had himself announced (he was absent from the Senate) against the Kefauver-McMahon Amendment to increase European Military Aid. In 1948 and 1949, Lodge voted six times against an extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act without crippling amendments. And in May, 1951, he voted for an amendment which changed the terms of the India Emergency Assistance Bill and made our gift of wheat to India into a loan--thus sacrificing much of the favorable publicity our action would have received in the Far East.

You say that Kennedy "raises the unsettling possibility of Democratic isolationism." This conclusion is apparently based on: 1) the endorsement of Kennedy by a few isolationists, 2) Kennedy's votes to cut ECA by $350 million and Near East Aid by $35 million. As I have indicated above, a fair minded examination of the endorsement will indicate that they were motivated solely by a deep hatred of Lodge, not by any real agreement with Kennedy's ideas on foreign policy. The Taft forces could scarcely agree with a man like Kennedy who voted against a cut of $150 million in foreign aid in 1947; and for $400 million for Greece and Turkey, $350 million for foreign aid, and $597 million for Interim Aid the same year; for the Marshall Plan in 1948; for extension of ECA and for the Mutual Defense Act in 1949; for Aid to Korea (six months before the Korean War), the Far Eastern Assistance Act, and the $3.1 billion Foreign Economic Assistance Bill in 1950.

Vote of Protest

When, in 1951, he voted to cut foreign aid by $350 million, Kennedy had just returned from a trip to Europe. Speaking of what he had seen, he said: "If Europe is to be saved, Europe must commence to make sacrifices . . . commensurate with the danger that threatens to engulf her . . . The plain and brutal fact today is that Europe is not making these sacrifices . . . her military budgets in terms of their proportion of the national income are far below those that we propose for ourselves. Her draft of manpower is less severe than what we suggest should govern us here . . . This effort is clearly not enough."

His vote to cut the foreign aid funds--so clearly opposed to his whole voting record on the subject--was a vote of protest against the weakness of the European effort. And Kennedy's amendment reducing Near Eastern funds from $175 million to $140 million (specifically eliminating any reductions in funds for Israel) was based on his belief that the program was poorly planned. On the floor of the House in June, 1952, he spoke unequivocally in favor of the Point Four Program. He explained this his on-the-scene investigation of underdeveloped areas in Southeast Asia and the Middle East convinced him that Point Four, with its technical assistance projects, is the most effective way of combating communism in those areas.

Your editorial points out that Kennedy's record on domestic issues is a better one than his opponent's. But then you minimize this fact by characterizing Kennedy's record as a "stock party-line vote." It is hard to see how a man can be attacked for voting the right way--even if he happens to share the beliefs of his party. To which must be added the fact that Kennedy did more than parrot the good ideas of others. He fought a brilliant battle for better low-income and veteran's housing; he was the first member of Congress to recognize the necessity for adequate civil defense; he introduced a plan to use money from Tidelands oil for a Federal health program; in 1947 he began a long fight to increase the size of our defense forces; even in the District of Columbia where the sincerity of his efforts is proved by fact that no one in the District can vote for or help him personally.

Wholehearted Support

Kennedy has been endorsed by a number of groups and individuals who could not conscientiously endorse a "mediocrity"--or a neo-isolationist. After hearing both Kennedy and Lodge, the ADA recently decided to support Kennedy and work for his election. The C.I.O. and A.F. of L. have likewise given him their support (in a 1952 compilation of voting records, the C.I.O. and A.F. of L. stated that Lodge had voted 48% liberal, Kennedy 95%). Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Senator Herbert Lehman have come out for Kennedy. And Governor Stevenson, who has said that he will not endorse Democrats whose views he does not approve, last month gave Kennedy his wholehearted support.

Since you support Stevenson, these words from the Illinois Governor are particularly appropriate:--"It becomes more and more apparent to me as the campaign develops that I shall need men like Kennedy in Washington . . . He is the kind of man I can work with . . . Go to work hard to secure Jack Kennedy's election . . ." James M. Landis,   Former Dean, Harvard Law School