ustxtxb_obs_1962_10_12_50_00005-00000_000.pdf

CONNALLY LEFT OF COX, BOTH RIGHT OF CENT ER Comparing The Democratic, GOP Platforms AUSTIN Savoring the possibility of a Republican governor, the Texas GOP took more pains with their platform at Fort Worth than has been their custom. The result is an opportunity for voters to compare, subject by subject, the professed programs of the Connally Democrats and the Cox Republicans. In general, the Connally platform contemplates an expanding state that will necessarily entail some expansion of government in such areas as health, welfare, and parks. The Cox platform is friendly to government action that will help business, but does not anywhere mention health, welfare, or parks at the state level. JOHN CONNALLY originally took a no-new-taxes line, but his platform does not, and in recent public statements by the Democratic nominee, this former position has diminished to a “hope.” The Cox platform says, “We favor a reduction in taxes through decreased government expenditures.” The platforms contain many platitudes and generalities that are similar; they are barely distinguishable on taxation, economy, oil and gas, tourism, and new industry. Connally’s labor plank favors the right-to-work law, but would provide an industrial safety program, a Bureau of Labor, and more vocational education. Cox’s platform upholds the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively and proposes a labor-management desk in state government, but opposes the closed shop, which is what the right-to-work law in effect prohibits. Neither the Connally Democrats nor the Cox Republicans mention integration, civil rights, civil liberties, natural resources taxation, the Wheatleys’ conditional gift of 5,000 acres for a state park, or legislative approval of the Congreis-approved Padre Island national seashore area. Programs supported by the Connally group, not mentioned by the Republicans, include support for “constitutional programs authorizing the creation of local hospital districts .. . and increased state spending for needy aged, needy children, blind, and disabled”; Continued outpatient care for mental cases; expanded vocational rehabilitation for the disabled ; assistance to the aged ; more officers for the juvenile parole system; Loan shark control; rehabilitation and development of existing state parks, providing “utility, sanitation, and shelter facilities adequate to accommodate Texans and tourists,” consideration for long range park needs, and increases in roadside parks and boat launching ramps. The Texas Republicans associate themselves with the far-right on many national and international issues. On such issues the Connally platform is silent. The Republican convention adopted en toto Senator Tower’s eight points for conservatives : “complete and clear-cut victory over communism,” states’ rights, a labor anti-trust law, a free farm market without controls, the selling of government businesses that compete with free enterprise, opposition to the freer trade bill, taxation of cooperatives the same as private corporations, and a mandatory balanced federal budget. I N ADDITION, the Republicans upheld the status quo in medical care and opposed Medicare; favored “resignation from the UN,” passage of the Bricker amendment, opposed “the transfer of our armed forces to any world government authority,” and were so little disposed to entertain thoughts of disarmament they condemned the requiring of the THE TEXAS OBSERVER Page 5 October 12, 1962 registration of small arms because this would “pave the way toward total disarmament.” They proposed the dismantling, in effect, of federal regulatory agencies to eliminate “the meddling of bureaucrats in the American Free Enterprise System.” Specifically they advocated “removal of the regulation of natural gas prices from the authority of the Federal Power Commission.” Their resolution on Cuba can be read as advocacy of war on Cuba. “We urge,” they said, “an aggressive, positive, and immediate action to remove from the Western Hemisphere the Russian threat to hemispheric security.” Senator Goldwater, endorsed by the convention for President, “exemplifies the principles of the Republican Party of Texas,” they said; he “is the leader of the true Republican cause.” Cox, they resolved, gives voters a choice “as between the socialist ADA, New Frontier on the one hand, and constitutional government on the other.” The Connally Democrats’ generalizations sound more liberal than the general drift of their programs; there is a consistent right-wing ring to the Republicans’ generalizations and particulars. THE REPUBLICANS in their platform’s preamble speak of “our founding fathers,” “individual liberty,” “thrift, incentive, and free enterprise.” It is short and simple. The Democrats preamble all over the place. “In 1970,” they say, “we must provide almost 800,000 new jobs for our rapidly growing population. To make this growth possible, we must provide a favorable climate for business, industry, agriculture, and labor” \(a .variation on Gov. Daniel’s cient government, they say, “is essential to effective services in such areas as education, health, sanitation, resource development, roads, recreation, and law enforcement. Most of all, the government must be responsive to the people, their needs, their hopes, their progress.” The closest thing to a national reference in the Democratic platform are the sentences, “The Democratic Party is the party of the people. This is its greatest claim to its continued stewardship.” The Democrats’ plank on local self government is a rewrite of the original Stevenson simplicity that states’ rights entail states’ responsibilities. Arguing that the lowest unit of government that can handle a problem, should, the platform adds, “A positive and active approach is necessary to guarantee this principle. In those areas of state responsibility, such as health, education, welfare, etc., where action is needed, we must act decisively and effectively. Only by such action and a positive approach can we prevent the extension of federal power in areas of state responsibility.” The platforms further compared: EDUCATION Democrats Increase excellence in all areas. Attract more nationally eminent college professors. A separate board of trustees for each teachers’ college, rather than the present one board for all six of them, to let each trustee be more conversant with his school’s problems. Develop fully the gifted child. Emphasize communicationsreading, writing, and speakingin the early grades. Expand foreign language programs; encourage participation in pre-school English classes for Latin-American students, “affording them an equal start in English when they begin school in the first grade.” Republicans Continued progress, with schools protected from “federal interference.” Affirmative support for higher education. “Revision of the economic index pertaining to the Foundation School Program so that Agriculture, the Oil & Mining Industries, Manufacturing, and General Busihess are all considered on an equal basis.” “Teachers are entitled to exercise rights of citizenship in participating in political affairs.” LABOR Democrats Retain the right to work law. Set minimum standards for industrial safety; educate labor and business on the subject. Correct any inequities in the prevailing wage program. Create a Bureau of Labor, abolishing the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Increase job opportunities for people forty and older. Expand adult night school programs, academie and vocational ; expand vocational education programs in general. Republicans “No person should be forced to join any organization as a requirement for employment.” \(That is, no closed Strict adherence to the law giving labor a man on the Texas Employment Commission. A desk for labor-management problems in the Attorney General’s office. “Labor Antitrust Law.Union activities which lessen competition or establish monopolies in the marketplace should be prohibited by law.” TAXATION Democrats Retain the sales tax. Simplify it for businessmen, clarify it, and “eliminate inequities.” Republicans “We oppose vehemently a state income tax.” THOUGTHS communists set up puppet governas the CIA mistakenly thought it to be in 1960, for a “liberation” of the Cubans? Ronald Hilton, director of the Institute of Hispanic American and Luso-Brasilian Studies at Stanford University, writing in the Sept. 29 issue of The Nation, doesn’t think so. After admittng the difficulty ‘ of assessing the opinion of the Cuban nation due to strict censorship, he says: “Yet we feel fairly safe in saying that, at this juncture, only a small minority of Cubans in Cuba would accept Senator Dodd’s branding of Castro as the Cuban Quisling. The recent war scare has undoubtedly enhanced his prestige in the island. . . . Whether or not it is a good thing, whether we like it or not, Fidel Castro still holds the imagination of the Cuban masses. His regime has more popular support than those of most of the other Latin American . Caribbean republics. . . .” Are we willing, therefore, to ex-‘ plode a nuclear device in Cuba to rid the island quickly and efficiently of Castro sympathizers? Or, if not, are we willing to occupy the country with enough troops to “Americanize” the GOVERNMENT ECONOMY Democrats A constitutional requirement for pay-as-you-go. Deficit financing opposed. Efficiency and economy. Centralize capitol area housekeeping. Create a commission on executive organization like the Hoover Cornmission. Republicans End deficit spending. Balance the budget. A bipartisan little Hoover COmmission on economy. POLITICS Democrats Limit a governor to two consecutive two-year terms. Remove him from certain state boards. Give him more budget authority. Eliminate the poll tax ; substitute a stronger voter registration law. Require run-offs so that winners must get majorities. Relieve absentee voters of “undue financial burdens.” Honest elections. Republicans A secret ballot ; prevent fraud. Submit a constitutional amendment, whether to abolish the poll tax ; but reject the federal constitutional amendment to abolish it. Let no man run for more than one office at once. “A responsible two-party system.” Redistrict the Texas House “to establish individual legislative districts within counties whose population justifies more than one legislator.” MISCELLANEOUS PARALLEL ISSUES Democrats “Equal legal rights” for women. Appoint women in areas of government “in which the moral tone of the community is directly affected.” Retain the oil depletion allowance; strict oil import quotas. “Fiscal responsibility.” Republicans “Full legal rights” for women. Retain the oil depletion allowance; Get more of the national oil market for Texas producers. “Fiscal responsibility.” I N SUMMARY, if their factions’ platforms represent their views, Connally is left of Cox ; they are both right of center. R.D. ON CUBA Cubans ? Before we say yes to this last question, it might be well to observe the shortcomings of such a program in other parts of the world. Mr. Ulbricht could probably give some interesting insights into the problem, if he dared. FINALLY, are we willing to engage in a nuclear war with Russia over Cuba? Many informed people say, of course, that Russia will back down over the matter. Perhaps. But we must remember that many “informed” Russians in the spring of 1961 apparently thought that the U.S. would back down from its position in Berlin. I, being a layman, am not aware of what the odds are of Russia’s backing down, but I feel safe in saying that we run a not negligible risk of provoking, if not immediate war, at least a retaliatory gesture from Russia which could lead fairly quickly to war. Here, then, are at least some of the major issues involved in the present crisis over Cuba. It might be well for the American public to remember that the era of Teddy Roosevelt is gone. In this year of precarious peace, 1962, the concept of “the splendid little war” is, to say the least, obsolete. C.D.