DOCSLIB.ORG

Choosing Presidential Candidates How Good Ls the New Way?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Choosing Presidential Candidates How Good Ls the New Way? AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE AEIFORUMS Choosing Presidential Candidates How Good ls the New Way? John Charles Daly, moderator Ken Bode · David S. Broder Austin Ranney Richard M. Scammon The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, established in 1943, is a nonpartisan, nonprofit research and educational organization supported by foundations, corporations, and the public at large. Its purpose is to assist policy makers. scholars, business men and women, the press, and the public by providing objective analysis of national and international issues. Views expressed in the institute's publications are those of the authors and do not necessarily renect the views of the staff. advisorypa nels, officers. or trustees of AEI. Council of Academic Advisers Paul W. McCracken, Chairman, Edmund E:ra Day Universiry Professor of Business Atlmin­ isrration, University of Michigan *Kenneth W. Dam, HaroldJ . and Marion F Green Professor of Law, University of Chicago Donald C. Hellmann, Professor of Political Science and !111emario11a/ Srudies, University of Washingron f D. Gale Johnson, Eliakim Hastings Moore Distinguished Service Professor o Economics and Chairman, Department of Eco110111ics, Universiry of Chicago Robert A. Nisbet, Atlj1111ct Scholar, American E111e1prise Insriture Herbert Stein, A. Willis Roberrson Professor of Economics Emeritus, University of Virginia Murray L. Weidenbaum, Mallinckrodt Disringuished University Professor and Direcror, Cemer for rhe Srudy of American Business, I..Vashingron U11i1•ersiry James Q. Wilson, Henry Lee Shartuck Professor of Govem111e111, Harvard University *On leave for government service. Executive Committee Richard B. Madden, Chairman of the Board Willard C. Butcher William J. Baroody, Jr., Presidenr Pau I F. Oreffice James G. Affleck Richard D. Wood Tait Trussell, Edward Styles. Direcror of Vice Presidem, M111inisrrario11 Publications Joseph J. Brady. Vice Presidenr, Developmenr Program Directors Periodicals Russell Chapin, Legislarive Analyses AEI Economisr, Herbert Stein, Denis P. Doyle, Educarion Policy Studies Editor AEI Foreign Policy and Defense Review, Marvin Esch, Seminars and Programs Evron M. Kirkpatrick, Robert J. Thomas F. Johnson, Economic Policy Srudies Pranger, and Harold H. Saunders, Edirors Marvin H. Kosters, Public Opinion, Seymour Martin Govemme/11 Regularion Studies Lipset and Ben J. Wattenberg, Jack A. Meyer, Health Policy Srudies Co-Edirors; Everett Carll Ladd, Senior Editor; Karlyn H. Keene, Howard R. Penniman/Austin Ranney. Managing Ediror Polirica/ and Social Processes Regulation, Anne Brunsdale. Robert J. Pranger, Inremarional Programs Managing Ediror Choosing Presidential Candidates HowGood ls the New Way? John Charles Daly, moderator Ken Bode David S. Broder Austin Ranney Richard M. Scammon Held on October 18, 1979 and sponsored by the American EnterpriseInstitute for Public Policy Research Washington, D. C. Publication of this pamphlet is an activity of AEI' s project "A Decade of Study of the Constitution," funded in part by a Bicentennial Chal­ lenge Grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. This pamphlet contains the edited transcript of one of a series of AEI forums. These forums offer a medium for informal exchanges of ideas on current policy problems of national and international import. As part of AEI' s program of providing opportunities for the presentation of competing views, they serve to enhance the prospect that decisions within our democracy will be based on a more informed public opinion. AEI forums are also available on audio and color-video cassettes. AEI Forum 35 3 S 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 © 1980 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Re­ search, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved. No part of this pub­ lication may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without permission in writing fromthe American Enterprise Institute except in the case of brief quotations embodied in news articles, critical articles, or reviews. The views expressed in the publications of the American Enterprise Institute are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, advisory panels, officers, or trustees of AEI. "American Enterprise Institute" and @) are registered service marks of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. ISBN 0-8447-2172-7 Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 80-80002 Printed in United States of America JOHN CHARLES DALY, forme, ABC News chief and forum mod­ erator: This public policy forum, part of a series presented by the American Enterprise Institute, is concerned with the process by which we nominate presidential candidates and with the impact of this process on the office of the presidency, the general political system, and, ultimately, on the Constitution of the United States. Before reform and the new way of presidential nominations-­ which may roughly be dated from the McGovern Commission re­ forms adopted within the Democratic party in 1969-the old way involved a mixture of state party caucuses and state primaries. The major role and power, however, was vested in state party leaders and elected officials in the national nominating conventions. They could ignore primary results. In 1952, for example, Estes Kefauver swept all the primaries except one, but the leadership of the Dem­ ocratic convention preferred Adlai Stevenson; Stevenson won the nomination. It was also possible to confound the convention leadership. Astute pressure on delegates and wildly enthusiastic, packed galleries stampeded the 1940 Republican convention to produce a surprise candidate, Wendell Willkie. The new way, on the other hand, championing open access to the presidential nominating process by all interested party members, mandated involvement of women, young people, and minority groups, allocated convention delegates among presidential candi­ dates according to proportional representation-no more winner­ take-all-and ruled out the old practice of reserved delegate seats for party leaders. The reformers believed that these changes would as­ sure that the delegates at the national party convention would fairly reflect voters' preferences. The new process of nominating presidential candidates has pro­ duced significant changes, such as a startling rise in state primaries. In 1968, roughly 40 percent of the delegates to the national conven­ tions were chosen in seventeen primaries. In 1976, 75 percent of the 1 delegates were chosen in thirty state primaries. In 1980, 80 percent of the delegates will be chosen in thirty-five state primaries. The new way, however, has not quieted the call for reform. There are those who urge selection of national convention delegates by regional primaries. Others urge a direct national primary, replacing conventions altogether. That is the granddaddy of all reform pro­ posals, first introduced in the Congress in 1911. Of the 250 bills introduced since 1911 dealing with reform of presidential nomina­ tions, about half have proposed some version of the direct national primary. The subject of this forum, therefore, is, "Choosing Presidential Candidates: How Good Is the New Way?" Mr. Bode, as research director of the original McGovern Commis­ sion in 1969, are you satisfied with the results? KEN BODE, political correspondent, NBC News: By and large, I am, yes. I think that the reforms were essentially a moderate and careful response to a series of abuses that were uncovered in 1968, things that had been going on for a long time. I think, basically, that the reforms have gotten a bad rap. There has been a certain amount of historical revisionism about what the reforms have produced, some of which Mr. Daly just stated, to wit: that they created a large number of primaries. The reforms were carefully and thoughtfully written by party lead­ ers, and they headed off more radical responses, such as direct elec­ tion of the president, eradication of the electoral college, and the national primary legislation that has been in Congress since 1968. The reforms have survived two serious reexaminations by reform commissions of the Democratic party, the Mikulski Commission after the 1972 election, and the Winograd Commission after the 1976 elec­ tion. Neither was disposed to take the reforms as gospel when it met, so I think that the survival of the reforms indicates that they are with us to stay. MR. DALY: Mr. Broder, in your book The Party's Over, you argue that the traditional party role in the United States is diminishing because of the new nominating process. Would you explain briefly how and why? DAVID S. BRODER, political correspondent, Washington Post: In the old way, whoever wanted to run for president of the United States 2 took a couple months off from public office in the year of the presi­ dential election and presented his credentials to the leaders of his party, who were elected officials, party officials, leaders of allied interest groups, and bosses in some cases. These people had known the candidate over a period of time and had carefully examined his work. In the new way, the first thing a candidate does is get out of public officeso he has nothing to do for two, three, four, or, in some cases, six years, except run for president of the United States. The candidate takes his case not to the professionals who know him or to his political peers, but to the amat�urs who meet him only briefly in their living room or in the town hall and have very little basis on which to make that screening. I think the new way has diminished the kind of careful screening that the office of the presidency requires. MR. DALY: Mr. Scammon, as director of the Elections Research Center, are the substantial reforms of the new way enough reform, or would you consider regional or direct national primaries? RICHARD M. SCAMMON, director, Elections Research Center: I don't think it makes much difference as long as a large percentage of the electorate, whether it is the total electorate or not, can vote at least a preference for president, even if they don't elect delegates, and this fact is available to the leadership so they know what they are doing.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Edmund S. Muskie Papers Tape No. Description
    Edmund S. Muskie Papers Page 1 of 139 Container List for Series XVII.A Sound Recordings: Cassette Tapes Tape No. Description SC1 [Remarks at reception] Length: 10 min. 21 sec. Location: Saint Louis, Missouri. Date: September 10, 1968. Content: ESM remarks at mayor's home on 1968 election campaign. Audio quality: good. SC2 [Speech] Length: 42 min. 3 sec. Date: December 1968. Content: ESM on nemployment and labor concerns, inflation, cost of living, "working people in Me." Audio quality: good. SC3 [Speech] Length: 28 min. 57 sec. Date: January 30, 1969 Content: ESM on “Consumer Assembly." Audio quality: excellent. SC4 [Speech] Length: 24 min. 21 sec. Date: February 19, 1969. Content: ESM speaks before women's group on federal spending, priorities, anti-ballistic missiles, education, school lunch. Audio quality: good. SC5 [Press conference] Length: 5 min. 2 sec. Date: February 19, 1969. Content: Part of ESM press conference with Japanese officials, United States-Pacific Rim relations, arms race, anti-ballistic missile development, U.S-Soviet relations, pollution. Audio quality: good. SC6 [Question and answer session] Length: 58 min. 53 sec. Location: Cleveland Park, Ohio. Date: April 15, 1969. Content: ESM on urban problems with question and answer session, antiballistic missiles. Audio quality: excellent. SC7 [Speech] Length: 8 min. 58 sec. Location: Cleveland High School, Cleveland, Ohio. Date: 1969. Content: ESM on education. Audio quality: poor. SC8 [Interview with Ted Lippman] Length: 35 min. 58 sec. Date: April 24, 1970. Content: ESM on 1972 campaign plans, activities since 1968 election. Audio quality: poor. SC9 [Press conference] Length: 9 min. 59 sec.
    [Show full text]
  • Mock Democratic Convention DEMOCRATIC P
    Don't Moclc the Convention Washington and Lee Courtesy of 'Brud noy's Complaint' University February I 7, I 9 76 by syndicated colu mnist, David Brudnoy They've (Mock Convention students) done remarkably well. Wrong in 1912, '36, '40, '48, and '72- but then, no one else believed Ted Ken ­ nedy's renunciation at that point, either, and my own columns in May of '72 were ablazed with scorn for McGovern's chances - but right on target every other time. A convention, then entirely staged by Southern gentlemen, that could mock-nominate AI Smith in 1928, well, you know the lads went about their business seriously . They (the students) are everywhere these days, pursuing the latest statistics and running Media Coverage up a fierce 'phone bi II'. The pace accellerates The Mock Convention has become the nation's most each week. They are intent upon upstaging noted collegiate political event- primarily because of New York City and telling the world the the continuing emphasis students place on authenticity. Not only does it portray the candidate's strength and Democrats' choice three months before the strategy; most observers see the W&L event as a Democrats meet to choose. Right now the bet­ touchstone for the political role students will play this ting's on Humphrey or Carter; by May they'll summer. have narrowed their focus to a siuation closely The convention also indirectly attempts to answer many resembling that in 50 states. If Spring fever of the questions raised in the press over the campaign. Has the disenchantment surrounding McGovern's overtakes them, I guess they might nominate defeat and the Watergate era linger into '76? How Fred Harris.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Insurgent Campaigns Rarely Win the Democratic Presidential Primary in the United States
    Athens Journal of Social Sciences Volume 6, Issue 2 – Pages 139-154 Why Insurgent Campaigns Rarely Win the Democratic Presidential Primary in the United States By L. Jan Reid* The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines insurgent as "one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one’s own political party." In this paper, an "insurgent presidential campaign" is defined as the campaign of a candidate who did not have the support of the United States of America’s (U.S.) Democratic Party establishment. A "populist campaign" is a subset of an insurgent campaign, because although all populist campaigns are insurgent campaigns, not all insurgent campaigns are populist campaigns. This paper defines a "populist campaign" as one that seeks to mobilize an unrepresented segment of the population against an institution or government, usually in defense of the unrepresented. Whether left-wing or right-wing, populist candidates seek to unite the supposedly uncorrupt and unsophis¬ticated unrepresented against supposedly corrupt dominant elites. Insurgent campaigns have rarely been successful in capturing the Democratic Party presidential nomination in the United States. Only three insurgent campaigns have been successful over the past 50 years: the campaigns of George McGovern in 1972, Jimmy Carter in 1976, and Barack Obama in 2008, all of which were populist campaigns. The paper analyzes U.S. presidential campaigns for the period 1968- 2016; reviews books and academic literature; and makes conclusions concerning the success and failure of insurgent campaigns. Finally, the paper recommends ways in which future insurgent campaigns could be more successful. Keywords: Insurgent Campaigns, Populism, Presidential Campaigns.
    [Show full text]
  • Synopsis of American Political Parties
    Synopsis of American Political Parties FEDERALISTS DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICANS Favored strong central gov't emphasized states' rights Social order & stability important Stressed civil liberties & public trust "True patriots vs. the subversive rabble" "Rule of all people vs. the favored few" "Loose" constructionists "Strict" constructionists Promoted business & manufacturing Encouraged agrarian society Favored close ties with Britain Admired the French Strongest in Northeast Supported in South & West Gazette of the United States (John Fenno) National Gazette (Philip Freneau) Directed by Hamilton (+ Washington) Founded by Jefferson (+ Madison) First Two-Party System: 1780s-1801 During most of George Washington's presidency, no real two-party political system existed. The Constitution made no provision whatever for political parties. While its framers recognized that reasonable disagreement and organized debate were healthy components in a democratic society, creation of permanent factions was an extreme to be avoided. (The consensus among the founding fathers was that political parties were potentially dangerous because they divided society, became dominated by narrow special interests, and placed mere party loyalty above concern for the common welfare.) Hence, to identify Washington with the Federalist Party is an ex post facto distinction. Accordingly, Washington's first "election" is more accurately described as a "placement"; his second election was procedural only. The first presidential challenge whereby the citizenry genuinely expressed choice between candidates affiliated with two separate parties occurred in 1896, when John Adams won the honor of following in Washington's footsteps. The cartoon above shows the infamous brawl in House of Representatives between Democratic-Republican Matthew Lyon of Vermont and Federalist Roger Griswold from Connecticut.
    [Show full text]
  • Edmund Muskie
    Edmund Muskie Folder Citation: Collection: Records of the 1976 Campaign Committee to Elect Jimmy Carter; Series: Noel Sterrett Subject File; Folder: Edmund Muskie; Container 89 To See Complete Finding Aid: http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/library/findingaids/Carter-Mondale%20Campaign_1976.pdf -~ MUSKIE News RUSSELL OFFICE BUILDING • WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510 • TELEPHONE (202) 224-5344 CONTACT: Bob Rose FOR P.ELEASE PM Is 'IUESDAY Al From February 3, 1976 MUSIGE INIIDDUCES SPENDING REFORM BILL Sen. Edmund S. Muskie, D-Maine, introduced today (Tuesday) legislation to improve the degree of control Congress exercises over the federal bureaucracy by requiring Virtually every federal program to receive a formal review and reauthori- zation at tl.aast once every four years. The 11 Goverrnnent Econany and Spending Reform Act of 1976 11 would also require so-called zero-based review of the programs. Original cosponsors of the bill are Sens. William V. Roth Jr., R-Del. _, a.uu. John Glenn, r...... Ohio. ·· n ••• Government inefficiency is becoming today's number one villain," Musld.e said in a speech prepared for the Senate. :1Horror stories about bureaucratic .~ungling make good copy, and Pm Sti:;.'"'e that all of us ·at one time or another have ::heen guilty of taking a ride on some well-intentioned government worker's mistake. \)But I think the time has passed when the American people will be satisfied .. with such press release exclamations of outrage. lliey P.re ready for hard evidence and real results that prove we are serious about maldng governnent more productive.!~··: he said. Muskie said he submitted the legislation 11 not as a suggestion that· :we ab~ don our commitment to solving the nation's problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Blurring Fiction with Reality: American Television and Consumerism in the 1950S
    Blurring fiction with reality: American television and consumerism in the 1950s On the evening of 15 October 1958, veteran correspondent Edward R. Murrow stood at the podium and looked out over the attendees of the annual Radio Television Digital News Association gala. He waited until complete silence descended, and then launched into a speech that he had written and typed himself, to be sure that no one could possibly have had any forewarning about its contents. What followed was a scathing attack on the state of the radio and television industries, all the more meaningful coming from a man who was widely acknowledged as not only the architect of broadcast journalism but also a staunch champion of ethics and integrity in broadcasting.1 This was the correspondent who had stood on the rooftops of London with bombs exploding in the background to bring Americans news of the Blitz, whose voice was familiar to millions of Americans. This was the man who had publicly eviscerated the redbaiting Senator Joseph McCarthy, helping to put an end to a shameful period in America’s history (see e.g. Mirkinson, 2014, Sperber, 1986). And it became apparent that evening that this was also a man bitterly disappointed with the “incompatible combination of show business, advertising and news” that the broadcasting industry had become: Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking American Political History Boston University Graduate Student Conference
    Rethinking American Political History Boston University Graduate Student Conference Saturday, March 21 9:00A.M.-10:30 A.M- Panel 1: “Reconsidering the 1972 Election” Chair: Katie Brownell Commentator: Bruce Schulman, Boston University Mark Nevin, University of Virginia. “Outflanking the Antiwar Movement: President Nixon, Polling, and the Battle for Control of Public Opinion.” Ross Nicolson, Oxford University. “Young People and the Democrats” Seth Blumenthal, Boston University. “Reshaping the Democratic Coalition: Frank Mankiewicz and George McGovern’s Presidential Campaign, 1972.” 10:45 A.M.-12:15 P.M.-Panel 2: Knowledge and Power: Expertise in American Foreign Policy Chair: David Atkinson Commentator: Andrew Preston, Cambridge University Anna Armentrout, U.C. Berkeley. “Experience, Expertise, and American Political Culture: Vietnam Veterans and American Students Abroad in the 1960s and 1970s.” D.J. Cash, Boston University. “’History has begun a new chapter’: The American Intellectual Community and the Outbreak of the Korean War” Simon Stevens, Columbia University. “Interdependence, World Order, and the Intellectual Origins of Jimmy Carter’s Foreign Policy” 1:15 P.M.- 2:45 P.M.- Panel 3- Race and Political Identity in the 1970s Chair: Lily Geismer Commentator: David Quigley, Boston College Joe Merton, Oxford University. “Ethnic Power! The Rise and Fall of the Politics of White Ethnicity” Leah M. Wright, Princeton University. “Black Republicans” Drew Meyers, University of Michigan. The Politics of Peace and Quiet: Senior Rights and the Battle over Age-Restricted Housing in Arizona, 1974-1989 3:00 P.M.- 4:00 P.M.- Keynote Address by Matthew Lassiter University of Michigan, “Political History beyond the Red-Blue Divide.” Sunday, March 22 9:00 A.M.-10:30 A.M.- Panel 4: Expanding the Civil War: Race, Violence, Women, and Abolition Chair: Jonathan Koefoed Commentator: William Leeman, Providence College Kellie Carter Jackson, Columbia University.
    [Show full text]
  • An Open Letter to My Democratic Colleagues and Party Leaders
    An Open Letter to My Democratic Colleagues and Party Leaders I became involved with our delegate selection Chisolm, the Convention elected George McGovern process as a delegate to the 1972 National Democratic as our Presidential nominee. Convention and President of the South Carolina My day job at the time was Executive Young Democrats 1971 – 1973. I have been Assistant to South Carolina Governor John West. He intricately involved with the process ever since. and other elected officials and party leaders felt that Some of you may recall the chaos our party the rules undermined their relationships with their endured in 1964 when challenges to a state delegate staffs and constituents. They felt it unseemly to resulted in a 50-50 split between the challenges and challenge a staffer, campaign worker, or constituent the official delegation, and a state delegation being to be a delegate and many of them disengaged from ousted in 1968. After the 1968 Convention the the process and the campaign. Subsequently, Democratic National Committee established the McGovern carried only one state and the District of Democratic Commission on Party Structure and Columbia. Delegate Selection, and named Senator George Following the 1972 Convention, I was named McGovern of South Dakota its Chairman. In 1969, to the newly created DNC Delegate Selection they published a report titled “Mandate for Change.” Commission. We were tasked with reviewing the rules and making recommendations for the 1976 The 1972 Convention: elections. Central to our discussions was how to keep McGovern resigned from the Commission in Governors, Congressional members, and other elected 1971 to run for President, and Representative Donald officials and party leaders engaged in the process Fraser replaced him.
    [Show full text]
  • Wall, James Mckendree, 1928
    441 Freedom Parkway NE Atlanta, GA 30307 http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov James Wall Papers: A Guide to His Papers at the Jimmy Carter Library Collection Summary Creator: Wall, James McKendree, 1928 Title: James Wall Papers Dates: 1968-1981 Quantity: 6 linear feet, 2 linear inches, 14 containers Identification: Accession Number: 90-02 National Archives Identifier: 591145 Scope and Content: The material in the collection represents the files of the Reverend James M. Wall. The collection contains correspondence, voting statistics, recommendations, press clippings, newspapers, magazines, invitations, brochures, delegate lists, and photographs. The material relates primarily to Wall’s role as the director of the 1976 and 1980 Carter/Mondale campaigns in Illinois as well as the 1972 George McGovern campaign in Illinois. Also included is material regarding Wall’s interactions with the White House and politics in general such as Democratic conventions, Democratic conferences, and the White House Fellowship program. Creator Information: James Wall James M. Wall served as the director of the 1976 and 1980 Carter/Mondale campaigns in Illinois. He was editor and publisher of the Christian Century magazine from 1972-1999. He also was an ordained United Methodist clergy person. Restrictions: Restrictions on Access: These papers contain documents restricted in accordance with applicable executive order(s), which governs National Security policies, applicable statutes/agency restrictions, and material which has been closed in accordance with the donor’s deed of gift. Terms Governing Use and Reproduction: Copyright interest in these papers has been donated to the United States Government. Some of the records may be subject to copyright restrictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Reagan Regains Definite Lead Over Mondale
    The Harris Survey For Release: Thursday AM, August 16th, 1984 1984 no ISSN 0273-1037 REAGAN REGAINS DEFINITE LEAD OVER MONDALE By Louis Harris As the Democratic convention faded into past memory, the Olympics took over, and now as the Republican convention approaches, the presidential race has shifted once again. President Reagan now enjoys a clear 54-42 percent lead over Walter Mondale. Immediately following the successful Democratic convention, the race narrowed sharply, with a previous 8 point Reagan lead dropping to no better than 50-48 percent. With the GOP taking over center stage next week in Dallas, there is every likelihood this current 12 point Reagan lead will hold or increase. There are three ironies in these latest Harris Survey results, taken by tele­ phone between August 5th and 9th, among a cross sect~on of 1,287 likely voters nat~onwide: --First, the wave of patriotiSM that swept the country during the Olymp~cs added 2 points to President Reagan's vote total and took 2 points away from Mondale. W~th the spate of gold medals and the playing of the national anthem absorbing the attentlon of 51 percent of the voters, the criticisms of the president that seemed so effective at the Democratic convention faded from memory and there was a perceptible rallying behind the man in the White House, Ronald Reagan. Among just those who said they were "very ~nterested" in the Olympics, Reagan leads Mondale by a decisive 61-36 percent. More Republicans and independents than Democrats followed the Olympics closely, and when this skew is corrected it m~ght be expected that av~d Olympic fans would have gone for Rea0ar.
    [Show full text]
  • Adlai Stevenson III
    Adlai Stevenson III Folder Citation: Collection: Records of the 1976 Campaign Committee to Elect Jimmy Carter; Series: Noel Sterrett Subject File; Folder: Adlai Stevenson III; Container 93 To See Complete Finding Aid: http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/library/findingaids/Carter-Mondale%20Campaign_1976.pdf OC--+• ,The further spread of nuclear reactors seems inevitable and AMERICA MUST ACT cduld be desirable. The world's energy demands will intensify; By Adlai E. Stevenson Ill 1'17'f f.ossil fuel resources are depleting. Particularly in the last year, oil costs are adding billions to balance-of-payments deficits and ~ 1954 the United States began, innocently enough, to share causing widespread shortages. Nuclear power offers a source of Its nuclear resources with the world. Since the start of the energy, independent of foreign oil supplies. For countries like I , Atoms for Peace program we have supplied nuclear tech­ India, oil imports consume foreign-exchange earnings needed nology and materials to 29 countries in an effort to extend the for such essential imports as food. Understandably, nations seek­ benefits of peaceful atomic power to all mankind. In the inter­ ing reliable al tern a ti vcs to expensive oil sec n uclca r power as the vening years, other nations have developed their own nuclear answer. capabilities, or have received assistance from U.S. licensees in They are aided and abetted by the nuclear-exporting states, other countries, such as France, or through sharing arrange­ which are scrambling to pay their own oil bills. Salesmen from ments such as Euratom and the International Atomic Energy Canada, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and the Agency ( IAEA).
    [Show full text]
  • MUNDT VS. Mcgovern: the 1960 SENATE ELECTION
    32 MUNDT VS. McGOVERN: THE 1960 SENATE ELECTION by lde a belief in life after death I Gerald Lange lracters takes it very seriously. frequently, in the Cheyenne , of human beings and na ture in "Upon this one-hundredth anniversary of the election of Abraham when he adds "we had all been Lincoln as the first Republican president. we, the Republican party of ; no separations" (Littie J2!g South Dakota, rededicate ourselves to the belief that public office is a sacred trust. This trust must be administered in behalf of all of the peo­ ple of our great state.without fear or favor of special-interest or pressure ishinq American, p. 163, argues groups and with the conviction that 'Under God The People Rule'." but in fact, Crabb's narrative of his life, and he is thus The 1960 Democratic Platform Preamble was equally embracing )f his tale (and of existence) . pledging that: "The Democratic Party serves the interests of all our peo­ In the psychiatric ward of the pIe. Its membership is drawn from Dakota farms, busines s establishments, is largely directed at the modem offices, and homes. East river and West river, whites and Indians, farms rabb has adroitly worked himself and cities are a11 represented." The Preambie continues asserting that: 3. secure place in his old age. "This multi-interest approach has won the confidence of an increasing number of our citizens in recent years. ., ...The result has been the restoration of a two-party government to South Dakota ..... "I Few could argue that the revival of the Democrats was principally due to the herculean efforts of a certain idealist history professor from Dakota Wesleyan University.
    [Show full text]