Iep Fascicule 2nd Yr 2010

8/8/2019 Iep Fascicule 2nd Yr 2010

1/70

IEP DE LYONAUTOMNE 2007

David Alzapiedi

ANGLAIS

2me anne

Histoire politique des

Etats-Unis aprs 1945

Fascicule de C.D.M.

1

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


2/70

Table of Contents

Text 1: George F. Kennan, The Sources of Soviet Conduct , July, 1947 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Text 2: The Southern Manifesto , March 12, 1956 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Text 3: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address, January 17, 1961 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .

Text 4: John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Text 5: Lyndon B. Johnson, The Great Society Speech, May 22, 1964 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Text 6: Barry Goldwater, Acceptance Speech: Republican National Convention, July 16, 1964 . . . . . . . .

Text 7: Richard Nixon, The Great Silent Minority Speech, November 03, 1969

Text 8: Ronald Reagan, The New Republican Party Speech, February 6, 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Text 9: Jimmy Carter, The Crises of Confidence Speech, July 15, 1979

Text 10: William J. Clinton, The New Covenant Speech, October 23, 1991 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Text 11: George W. Bush, The West Point Graduation Speech, June 1, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2

pg. 3

pg. 13

pg. 16

pg.20

pg. 23

pg. 26

pg. 57

pg. 40

pg.66

pg. 32

pg. 49

45

50

55

60

65

70


3/70

TEXT 1

The Sources of Soviet Conduct

By X(George F. Kennan)

July, 1947

Part I

The political personality of Soviet power as we know it today is the product of ideology andcircumstances: ideology inherited by the present Soviet leaders from the movement in which theyhad their political origin, and circumstances of the power which they now have exercised for nearlythree decades in Russia. There can be few tasks of psychological analysis more difficult than to tryto trace the interaction of these two forces and the relative role of each in the determination of

official Soviet conduct. yet the attempt must be made if that conduct is to be understood andeffectively countered.

It is difficult to summarize the set of ideological concepts with which the Soviet leaders came intopower. Marxian ideology, in its Russian-Communist projection, has always been in process ofsubtle evolution. The materials on which it bases itself are extensive and complex. But theoutstanding features of Communist thought as it existed in 1916 may perhaps be summarized asfollows: (a) that the central factor in the life of man, the factor which determines the character of

public life and the "physiognomy of society," is the system by which material goods are producedand exchanged; (b) that the capitalist system of production is a nefarious one which inevitable leadsto the exploitation of the working class by the capital-owning class and is incapable of developing

adequately the economic resources of society or of distributing fairly the material good produced byhuman labor; (c) that capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction and must, in view of theinability of the capital-owning class to adjust itself to economic change, result eventually andinescapably in a revolutionary transfer of power to the working class; and (d) that imperialism, thefinal phase of capitalism, leads directly to war and revolution.

The rest may be outlined in Lenin's own words: "Unevenness of economic and politicaldevelopment is the inflexible law of capitalism. It follows from this that the victory of Socialismmay come originally in a few capitalist countries or even in a single capitalist country. Thevictorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and having organizedSocialist production at home, would rise against the remaining capitalist world, drawing to itself in

the process the oppressed classes of other countries." It must be noted that there was no assumptionthat capitalism would perish without proletarian revolution. A final push was needed from arevolutionary proletariat movement in order to tip over the tottering structure. But it was regardedas inevitable that sooner of later that push be given.

For 50 years prior to the outbreak of the Revolution, this pattern of thought had exercised greatfascination for the members of the Russian revolutionary movement. Frustrated, discontented,hopeless of finding self-expression -- or too impatient to seek it -- in the confining limits of theTsarist political system, yet lacking wide popular support or their choice of bloody revolution as ameans of social betterment, these revolutionists found in Marxist theory a highly convenientrationalization for their own instinctive desires. It afforded pseudo-scientific justification for theirimpatience, for their categoric denial of all value in the Tsarist system, for their yearning for powerand revenge and for their inclination to cut corners in the pursuit of it. It is therefore no wonder that

3

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110


4/70

they had come to believe implicitly in the truth and soundness of the Marxist-Leninist teachings, socongenial to their own impulses and emotions. Their sincerity need not be impugned. This is a

phenomenon as old as human nature itself. It is has never been more aptly described than byEdward Gibbon, who wrote in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: "From enthusiasm toimposture the step is perilous and slippery; the demon of Socrates affords a memorable instance ofhow a wise man may deceive himself, how a good man may deceive others, how the conscience

may slumber in a mixed and middle state between self-illusion and voluntary fraud." And it waswith this set of conceptions that the members of the Bolshevik Party entered into power.

Now it must be noted that through all the years of preparation for revolution, the attention of thesemen, as indeed of Marx himself, had been centered less on the future form which Socialism wouldtake than on the necessary overthrow of rival power which, in their view, had to precede theintroduction of Socialism. Their views, therefore, on the positive program to be put into effect, once

power was attained, were for the most part nebulous, visionary and impractical. beyond thenationalization of industry and the expropriation of large private capital holdings there was noagreed program. The treatment of the peasantry, which, according to the Marxist formulation wasnot of the proletariat, had always been a vague spot in the pattern of Communist thought: and it

remained an object of controversy and vacillation for the first ten years of Communist power.

The circumstances of the immediate post-revolution period -- the existence in Russia of civil warand foreign intervention, together with the obvious fact that the Communists represented only a tinyminority of the Russian people -- made the establishment of dictatorial power a necessity. Theexperiment with war Communism" and the abrupt attempt to eliminate private production and tradehad unfortunate economic consequences and caused further bitterness against the new revolutionaryregime. While the temporary relaxation of the effort to communize Russia, represented by the NewEconomic Policy, alleviated some of this economic distress and thereby served its purpose, it alsomade it evident that the "capitalistic sector of society" was still prepared to profit at once from anyrelaxation of governmental pressure, and would, if permitted to continue to exist, always constitute

a powerful opposing element to the Soviet regime and a serious rival for influence in the country.Somewhat the same situation prevailed with respect to the individual peasant who, in his own smallway, was also a private producer.

Lenin, had he lived, might have proved a great enough man to reconcile these conflicting forces tothe ultimate benefit of Russian society, thought this is questionable. But be that as it may, Stalin,and those whom he led in the struggle for succession to Lenin's position of leadership, were not themen to tolerate rival political forces in the sphere of power which they coveted. Their sense ofinsecurity was too great. Their particular brand of fanaticism, unmodified by any of the Anglo-Saxon traditions of compromise, was too fierce and too jealous to envisage any permanent sharingof power. From the Russian-Asiatic world out of which they had emerged they carried with them a

skepticism as to the possibilities of permanent and peaceful coexistence of rival forces. Easilypersuaded of their own doctrinaire "rightness," they insisted on the submission or destruction of allcompeting power. Outside the Communist Party, Russian society was to have no rigidity. Therewere to be no forms of collective human activity or association which would not be dominated bythe Party. No other force in Russian society was to be permitted to achieve vitality or integrity. Onlythe Party was to have structure. All else was to be an amorphous mass.

And within the Party the same principle was to apply. The mass of Party members might go throughthe motions of election, deliberation, decision and action; but in these motions they were to beanimated not by their own individual wills but by the awesome breath of the Party leadership andthe overbrooding presence of "the word."

Let it be stressed again that subjectively these men probably did not seek absolutism for its own

4

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

155

160


5/70

sake. They doubtless believed -- and found it easy to believe -- that they alone knew what was goodfor society and that they would accomplish that good once their power was secure andunchallengeable. But in seeking that security of their own rule they were prepared to recognize norestrictions, either of God or man, on the character of their methods. And until such time as thatsecurity might be achieved, they placed far down on their scale of operational priorities thecomforts and happiness of the peoples entrusted to their care.

Now the outstanding circumstance concerning the Soviet regime is that down to the present day thisprocess of political consolidation has never been completed and the men in the Kremlin havecontinued to be predominantly absorbed with the struggle to secure and make absolute the powerwhich they seized in November 1917. They have endeavored to secure it primarily against forces athome, within Soviet society itself. But they have also endeavored to secure it against the outsideworld. For ideology, as we have seen, taught them that the outside world was hostile and that it wastheir duty eventually to overthrow the political forces beyond their borders. Then powerful hands ofRussian history and tradition reached up to sustain them in this feeling. Finally, their ownaggressive intransigence with respect to the outside world began to find its own reaction; and theywere soon forced, to use another Gibbonesque phrase, "to chastise the contumacy" which they

themselves had provoked. It is an undeniable privilege of every man to prove himself right in thethesis that the world is his enemy; for if he reiterates it frequently enough and makes it the

background of his conduct he is bound eventually to be right.

Now it lies in the nature of the mental world of the Soviet leaders, as well as in the character of theirideology, that no opposition to them can be officially recognized as having any merit or justificationwhatsoever. Such opposition can flow, in theory, only from the hostile and incorrigible forces ofdying capitalism. As long as remnants of capitalism were officially recognized as existing in Russia,it was possible to place on them, as an internal element, part of the blame for the maintenance of adictatorial form of society. But as these remnants were liquidated, little by little, this justificationfell away, and when it was indicated officially that they had been finally destroyed, it disappeared

altogether. And this fact created one of the most basic of the compulsions which came to act uponthe Soviet regime: since capitalism no longer existed in Russia and since it could not be admittedthat there could be serious or widespread opposition to the Kremlin springing spontaneously fromthe liberated masses under its authority, it became necessary to justify the retention of thedictatorship by stressing the menace of capitalism abroad.

This began at an early date. In 1924 Stalin specifically defended the retention of the "organs ofsuppression," meaning, among others, the army and the secret police, on the ground that "as long asthere is a capitalistic encirclement there will be danger of intervention with all the consequencesthat flow from that danger." In accordance with that theory, and from that time on, all internalopposition forces in Russia have consistently been portrayed as the agents of foreign forces of

reaction antagonistic to Soviet power.

By the same token, tremendous emphasis has been placed on the original Communist thesis of abasic antagonism between the capitalist and Socialist worlds. It is clear, from many indications, thatthis emphasis is not founded in reality. The real facts concerning it have been confused by theexistence abroad of genuine resentment provoked by Soviet philosophy and tactics and occasionally

by the existence of great centers of military power, notably the Nazi regime in Germany and theJapanese Government of the late 1930s, which indeed have aggressive designs against the SovietUnion. But there is ample evidence that the stress laid in Moscow on the menace confronting Sovietsociety from the world outside its borders is founded not in the realities of foreign antagonism butin the necessity of explaining away the maintenance of dictatorial authority at home.

Now the maintenance of this pattern of Soviet power, namely, the pursuit of unlimited authority

5

165

170

175

180

185

190

195

200

205


6/70

domestically, accompanied by the cultivation of the semi-myth of implacable foreign hostility, hasgone far to shape the actual machinery of Soviet power as we know it today. Internal organs ofadministration which did not serve this purpose withered on the vine. Organs which did serve this

purpose became vastly swollen. The security of Soviet power came to rest on the iron discipline ofthe Party, on the severity and ubiquity of the secret police, and on the uncompromising economicmonopolism of the state. The "organs of suppression," in which the Soviet leaders had sought

security from rival forces, became in large measures the masters of those whom they were designedto serve. Today the major part of the structure of Soviet power is committed to the perfection of thedictatorship and to the maintenance of the concept of Russia as in a state of siege, with the enemylowering beyond the walls. And the millions of human beings who form that part of the structure of

power must defend at all costs this concept of Russia's position, for without it they are themselvessuperfluous.

As things stand today, the rulers can no longer dream of parting with these organs of suppression.The quest for absolute power, pursued now for nearly three decades with a ruthlessness unparalleled(in scope at least) in modern times, has again produced internally, as it did externally, its ownreaction. The excesses of the police apparatus have fanned the potential opposition to the regime

into something far greater and more dangerous than it could have been before those excesses began.

But least of all can the rulers dispense with the fiction by which the maintenance of dictatorialpower has been defended. For this fiction has been canonized in Soviet philosophy by the excessesalready committed in its name; and it is now anchored in the Soviet structure of thought by bondsfar greater than those of mere ideology.

Part II

So much for the historical background. What does it spell in terms of the political personality ofSoviet power as we know it today?

Of the original ideology, nothing has been officially junked. Belief is maintained in the basicbadness of capitalism, in the inevitability of its destruction, in the obligation of the proletariat toassist in that destruction and to take power into its own hands. But stress has come to be laid

primarily on those concepts which relate most specifically to the Soviet regime itself: to its positionas the sole truly Socialist regime in a dark and misguided world, and to the relationships of powerwithin it.

The first of these concepts is that of the innate antagonism between capitalism and Socialism. Wehave seen how deeply that concept has become imbedded in foundations of Soviet power. It has

profound implications for Russia's conduct as a member of international society. It means that therecan never be on Moscow's side an sincere assumption of a community of aims between the Soviet

Union and powers which are regarded as capitalist. It must inevitably be assumed in Moscow thatthe aims of the capitalist world are antagonistic to the Soviet regime, and therefore to the interestsof the peoples it controls. If the Soviet government occasionally sets it signature to documentswhich would indicate the contrary, this is to regarded as a tactical maneuver permissible in dealingwith the enemy (who is without honor) and should be taken in the spirit ofcaveat emptor. Basically,the antagonism remains. It is postulated. And from it flow many of the phenomena which we finddisturbing in the Kremlin's conduct of foreign policy: the secretiveness, the lack of frankness, theduplicity, the wary suspiciousness, and the basic unfriendliness of purpose. These phenomena arethere to stay, for the foreseeable future. There can be variations of degree and of emphasis. Whenthere is something the Russians want from us, one or the other of these features of their policy may

be thrust temporarily into the background; and when that happens there will always be Americans

who will leap forward with gleeful announcements that "the Russians have changed," and some

6

210

215

220

225

230

235

240

245

250


7/70

who will even try to take credit for having brought about such "changes." But we should not bemisled by tactical maneuvers. These characteristics of Soviet policy, like the postulate from whichthey flow, are basic to the internal nature of Soviet power, and will be with us, whether in theforeground or the background, until the internal nature of Soviet power is changed.

This means we are going to continue for long time to find the Russians difficult to deal with. It does

not mean that they should be considered as embarked upon a do-or-die program to overthrow oursociety by a given date. The theory of the inevitability of the eventual fall of capitalism has thefortunate connotation that there is no hurry about it. The forces of progress can take their time in

preparing the final coup de grce. meanwhile, what is vital is that the "Socialist fatherland" -- thatoasis of power which has already been won for Socialism in the person of the Soviet Union --should be cherished and defended by all good Communists at home and abroad, its fortunes

promoted, its enemies badgered and confounded. The promotion of premature, "adventuristic"revolutionary projects abroad which might embarrass Soviet power in any way would be aninexcusable, even a counter-revolutionary act. The cause of Socialism is the support and promotionof Soviet power, as defined in Moscow.

This brings us to the second of the concepts important to contemporary Soviet outlook. That is theinfallibility of the Kremlin. The Soviet concept of power, which permits no focal points oforganization outside the Party itself, requires that the Party leadership remain in theory the solerepository of truth. For if truth were to be found elsewhere, there would be justification for itsexpression in organized activity. But it is precisely that which the Kremlin cannot and will not

permit.

The leadership of the Communist Party is therefore always right, and has been always right eversince in 1929 Stalin formalized his personal power by announcing that decisions of the Politburowere being taken unanimously.

On the principle of infallibility there rests the iron discipline of the Communist Party. In fact, the

two concepts are mutually self-supporting. Perfect discipline requires recognition of infallibility.Infallibility requires the observance of discipline. And the two go far to determine the behaviorismof the entire Soviet apparatus of power. But their effect cannot be understood unless a third factor

be taken into account: namely, the fact that the leadership is at liberty to put forward for tacticalpurposes any particular thesis which it finds useful to the cause at any particular moment and torequire the faithful and unquestioning acceptance of that thesis by the members of the movement asa whole. This means that truth is not a constant but is actually created, for all intents and purposes,

by the Soviet leaders themselves. It may vary from week to week, from month to month. It isnothing absolute and immutable -- nothing which flows from objective reality. It is only the mostrecent manifestation of the wisdom of those in whom the ultimate wisdom is supposed to reside,

because they represent the logic of history. The accumulative effect of these factors is to give to thewhole subordinate apparatus of Soviet power an unshakable stubbornness and steadfastness in itsorientation. This orientation can be changed at will by the Kremlin but by no other power. Once agiven party line has been laid down on a given issue of current policy, the whole Sovietgovernmental machine, including the mechanism of diplomacy, moves inexorably along the

prescribed path, like a persistent toy automobile wound up and headed in a given direction, stoppingonly when it meets with some unanswerable force. The individuals who are the components of thismachine are unamenable to argument or reason, which comes to them from outside sources. Theirwhole training has taught them to mistrust and discount the glib persuasiveness of the outsideworld. Like the white dog before the phonograph, they hear only the "master's voice." And if theyare to be called off from the purposes last dictated to them, it is the master who must call them off.

Thus the foreign representative cannot hope that his words will make any impression on them. The

7

255

260

265

270

275

280

285

290

295

300


8/70

most that he can hope is that they will be transmitted to those at the top, who are capable ofchanging the party line. But even those are not likely to be swayed by any normal logic in the wordsof the bourgeois representative. Since there can be no appeal to common purposes, there can be noappeal to common mental approaches. For this reason, facts speak louder than words to the ears ofthe Kremlin; and words carry the greatest weight when they have the ring of reflecting, or being

backed up by, facts of unchallengeable validity.

But we have seen that the Kremlin is under no ideological compulsion to accomplish its purposes ina hurry. Like the Church, it is dealing in ideological concepts which are of long-term validity, and itcan afford to be patient. It has no right to risk the existing achievements of the revolution for thesake of vain baubles of the future. The very teachings of Lenin himself require great caution andflexibility in the pursuit of Communist purposes. Again, these precepts are fortified by the lessonsof Russian history: of centuries of obscure battles between nomadic forces over the stretches of avast unfortified plain. Here caution, circumspection, flexibility and deception are the valuablequalities; and their value finds a natural appreciation in the Russian or the oriental mind. Thus theKremlin has no compunction about retreating in the face of superior forces. And being under thecompulsion of no timetable, it does not get panicky under the necessity for such retreat. Its political

action is a fluid stream which moves constantly, wherever it is permitted to move, toward a givengoal. Its main concern is to make sure that it has filled every nook and cranny available to it in the

basin of world power. But if it finds unassailable barriers in its path, it accepts these philosophicallyand accommodates itself to them. The main thing is that there should always be pressure, unceasingconstant pressure, toward the desired goal. There is no trace of any feeling in Soviet psychologythat that goal must be reached at any given time.

These considerations make Soviet diplomacy at once easier and more difficult to deal with than thediplomacy of individual aggressive leaders like Napoleon and Hitler. On the one hand it is moresensitive to contrary force, more ready to yield on individual sectors of the diplomatic front whenthat force is felt to be too strong, and thus more rational in the logic and rhetoric of power. On the

other hand it cannot be easily defeated or discouraged by a single victory on the part of itsopponents. And the patient persistence by which it is animated means that it can be effectivelycountered not by sporadic acts which represent the momentary whims of democratic opinion butonly be intelligent long-range policies on the part of Russia's adversaries -- policies no less steadyin their purpose, and no less variegated and resourceful in their application, than those of the SovietUnion itself.

In these circumstances it is clear that the main element of any United States policy toward theSoviet Union must be that of long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russianexpansive tendencies. It is important to note, however, that such a policy has nothing to do withoutward histrionics: with threats or blustering or superfluous gestures of outward "toughness."

While the Kremlin is basically flexible in its reaction to political realities, it is by no meansunamenable to considerations of prestige. Like almost any other government, it can be placed bytactless and threatening gestures in a position where it cannot afford to yield even though this might

be dictated by its sense of realism. The Russian leaders are keen judges of human psychology, andas such they are highly conscious that loss of temper and of self-control is never a source of strengthin political affairs. They are quick to exploit such evidences of weakness. For these reasons it is a

sine qua non of successful dealing with Russia that the foreign government in question shouldremain at all times cool and collected and that its demands on Russian policy should be put forwardin such a manner as to leave the way open for a compliance not too detrimental to Russian prestige.

Part III

In the light of the above, it will be clearly seen that the Soviet pressure against the free institutions

8

305

310

315

320

325

330

335

340

345


9/70

of the western world is something that can be contained by the adroit and vigilant application ofcounter-force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding tothe shifts and maneuvers of Soviet policy, but which cannot be charmed or talked out of existence.The Russians look forward to a duel of infinite duration, and they see that already they have scoredgreat successes. It must be borne in mind that there was a time when the Communist Partyrepresented far more of a minority in the sphere of Russian national life than Soviet power today

represents in the world community.

But if the ideology convinces the rulers of Russia that truth is on their side and they they cantherefore afford to wait, those of us on whom that ideology has no claim are free to examineobjectively the validity of that premise. The Soviet thesis not only implies complete lack of control

by the west over its own economic destiny, it likewise assumes Russian unity, discipline andpatience over an infinite period. Let us bring this apocalyptic vision down to earth, and suppose thatthe western world finds the strength and resourcefulness to contain Soviet power over a period often to fifteen years. What does that spell for Russia itself?

The Soviet leaders, taking advantage of the contributions of modern techniques to the arts of

despotism, have solved the question of obedience within the confines of their power. Few challengetheir authority; and even those who do are unable to make that challenge valid as against the organsof suppression of the state.

The Kremlin has also proved able to accomplish its purpose of building up Russia, regardless of theinterests of the inhabitants, and industrial foundation of heavy metallurgy, which is, to be sure, notyet complete but which is nevertheless continuing to grow and is approaching those of the othermajor industrial countries. All of this, however, both the maintenance of internal political securityand the building of heavy industry, has been carried out at a terrible cost in human life and in humanhopes and energies. It has necessitated the use of forced labor on a scale unprecedented in moderntimes under conditions of peace. It has involved the neglect or abuse of other phases of Sovieteconomic life, particularly agriculture, consumers' goods production, housing and transportation.

To all that, the war has added its tremendous toll of destruction, death and human exhaustion. Inconsequence of this, we have in Russia today a population which is physically and spiritually tired.The mass of the people are disillusioned, skeptical and no longer as accessible as they once were tothe magical attraction which Soviet power still radiates to its followers abroad. The avidity withwhich people seized upon the slight respite accorded to the Church for tactical reasons during thewar was eloquent testimony to the fact that their capacity for faith and devotion found littleexpression in the purposes of the regime.

In these circumstances, there are limits to the physical and nervous strength of people themselves.These limits are absolute ones, and are binding even for the cruelest dictatorship, because beyond

them people cannot be driven. The forced labor camps and the other agencies of constraint providetemporary means of compelling people to work longer hours than their own volition or mereeconomic pressure would dictate; but if people survive them at all they become old before their timeand must be considered as human casualties to the demands of dictatorship. In either case their best

powers are no longer available to society and can no longer be enlisted in the service of the state.

Here only the younger generations can help. The younger generation, despite all vicissitudes andsufferings, is numerous and vigorous; and the Russians are a talented people. But it still remains to

be seen what will be the effects on mature performance of the abnormal emotional strains ofchildhood which Soviet dictatorship created and which were enormously increased by the war. Suchthings as normal security and placidity of home environment have practically ceased to exist in the

Soviet Union outside of the most remote farms and villages. And observers are not yet sure whether

9

350

355

360

365

370

375

380

385

390


10/70

that is not going to leave its mark on the over-all capacity of the generation now coming intomaturity.

In addition to this, we have the fact that Soviet economic development, while it can list certainformidable achievements, has been precariously spotty and uneven. Russian Communists whospeak of the "uneven development of capitalism" should blush at the contemplation of their own

national economy. Here certain branches of economic life, such as the metallurgical and machineindustries, have been pushed out of all proportion to other sectors of economy. Here is a nationstriving to become in a short period one of the great industrial nations of the world while it still hasno highway network worthy of the name and only a relatively primitive network of railways. Muchhas been done to increase efficiency of labor and to teach primitive peasants something about theoperation of machines. But maintenance is still a crying deficiency of all Soviet economy.Construction is hasty and poor in quality. Depreciation must be enormous. And in vast sectors ofeconomic life it has not yet been possible to instill into labor anything like that general culture of

production and technical self-respect which characterizes the skilled worker of the west.

It is difficult to see how these deficiencies can be corrected at an early date by a tired and dispirited

population working largely under the shadow of fear and compulsion. And as long as they are notovercome, Russia will remain economically as vulnerable, and in a certain sense an impotent,nation, capable of exporting its enthusiasms and of radiating the strange charm of its primitive

political vitality but unable to back up those articles of export by the real evidences of materialpower and prosperity.

Meanwhile, a great uncertainty hangs over the political life of the Soviet Union. That is theuncertainty involved in the transfer of power from one individual or group of individuals to others.

This is, of course, outstandingly the problem of the personal position of Stalin. We must rememberthat his succession to Lenin's pinnacle of pre-eminence in the Communist movement was the onlysuch transfer of individual authority which the Soviet Union has experienced. That transfer took 12

years to consolidate. It cost the lives of millions of people and shook the state to its foundations.The attendant tremors were felt all through the international revolutionary movement, to thedisadvantage of the Kremlin itself.

It is always possible that another transfer of pre-eminent power may take place quietly andinconspicuously, with no repercussions anywhere. But again, it is possible that the questionsinvolved may unleash, to use some of Lenin's words, one of those "incredibly swift transitions"from "delicate deceit" to "wild violence" which characterize Russian history, and may shake Soviet

power to its foundations.

But this is not only a question of Stalin himself. There has been, since 1938, a dangerous

congealment of political life in the higher circles of Soviet power. The All-Union Congress ofSoviets, in theory the supreme body of the Party, is supposed to meet not less often than once inthree years. It will soon be eight full years since its last meeting. During this period membership inthe Party has numerically doubled. Party mortality during the war was enormous; and today wellover half of the Party members are persons who have entered since the last Party congress was held.meanwhile, the same small group of men has carried on at the top through an amazing series ofnational vicissitudes. Surely there is some reason why the experiences of the war brought basic

political changes to every one of the great governments of the west. Surely the causes of thatphenomenon are basic enough to be present somewhere in the obscurity of Soviet political life, aswell. And yet no recognition has been given to these causes in Russia.

It must be surmised from this that even within so highly disciplined an organization as the

10

395

400

405

410

415

420

425

430

435


11/70

Communist Party there must be a growing divergence in age, outlook and interest between the greatmass of Party members, only so recently recruited into the movement, and the little self-

perpetuating clique of men at the top, whom most of these Party members have never met, withwhom they have never conversed, and with whom they can have no political intimacy.

Who can say whether, in these circumstances, the eventual rejuvenation of the higher spheres of

authority (which can only be a matter of time) can take place smoothly and peacefully, or whetherrivals in the quest for higher power will not eventually reach down into these politically immatureand inexperienced masses in order to find support for their respective claims? If this were ever tohappen, strange consequences could flow for the Communist Party: for the membership at large has

been exercised only in the practices of iron discipline and obedience and not in the arts ofcompromise and accommodation. And if disunity were ever to seize and paralyze the Party, thechaos and weakness of Russian society would be revealed in forms beyond description. For we haveseen that Soviet power is only concealing an amorphous mass of human beings among whom noindependent organizational structure is tolerated. In Russia there is not even such a thing as localgovernment. The present generation of Russians have never known spontaneity of collective action.If, consequently, anything were ever to occur to disrupt the unity and efficacy of the Party as a

political instrument, Soviet Russia might be changed overnight from one of the strongest to one ofthe weakest and most pitiable of national societies.

Thus the future of Soviet power may not be by any means as secure as Russian capacity for self-delusion would make it appear to the men of the Kremlin. That they can quietly and easily turn itover to others remains to be proved. Meanwhile, the hardships of their rule and the vicissitudes ofinternational life have taken a heavy toll of the strength and hopes of the great people on whomtheir power rests. It is curious to note that the ideological power of Soviet authority is strongesttoday in areas beyond the frontiers of Russia, beyond the reach of its police power. This

phenomenon brings to mind a comparison used by Thomas Mann in his great novelBuddenbrooks.Observing that human institutions often show the greatest outward brilliance at a moment when

inner decay is in reality farthest advanced, he compared one of those stars whose light shines mostbrightly on this world when in reality it has long since ceased to exist. And who can say withassurance that the strong light still cast by the Kremlin on the dissatisfied peoples of the westernworld is not the powerful afterglow of a constellation which is in actuality on the wane? This cannot

be proved. And it cannot be disproved. But the possibility remains (and in the opinion of this writerit is a strong one) that Soviet power, like the capitalist world of its conception, bears within it theseeds of its own decay, and that the sprouting of these seeds is well advanced.

Part IV

It is clear that the United States cannot expect in the foreseeable future to enjoy political intimacywith the Soviet regime. It must continue to regard the Soviet Union as a rival, not a partner, in the

political arena. It must continue to expect that Soviet policies will reflect no abstract love of peaceand stability, no real faith in the possibility of a permanent happy coexistence of the Socialist andcapitalist worlds, but rather a cautious, persistent pressure toward the disruption and, weakening ofall rival influence and rival power.

Balanced against this are the facts that Russia, as opposed to the western world in general, is still byfar the weaker party, that Soviet policy is highly flexible, and that Soviet society may well containdeficiencies which will eventually weaken its own total potential. This would of itself warrant theUnited States entering with reasonable confidence upon a policy of firm containment, designed toconfront the Russians with unalterable counter-force at every point where they show signs ofencroaching upon he interests of a peaceful and stable world.

11

440

445

450

455

460

465

470

475

480

485


12/70

But in actuality the possibilities for American policy are by no means limited to holding the line andhoping for the best. It is entirely possible for the United States to influence by its actions theinternal developments, both within Russia and throughout the international Communist movement,

by which Russian policy is largely determined. This is not only a question of the modest measure ofinformational activity which this government can conduct in the Soviet Union and elsewhere,although that, too, is important. It is rather a question of the degree to which the United States can

create among the peoples of the world generally the impression of a country which knows what itwants, which is coping successfully with the problem of its internal life and with the responsibilitiesof a World Power, and which has a spiritual vitality capable of holding its own among the majorideological currents of the time. To the extent that such an impression can be created andmaintained, the aims of Russian Communism must appear sterile and quixotic, the hopes andenthusiasm of Moscow's supporters must wane, and added strain must be imposed on the Kremlin'sforeign policies. For the palsied decrepitude of the capitalist world is the keystone of Communist

philosophy. Even the failure of the United States to experience the early economic depression whichthe ravens of the Red Square have been predicting with such complacent confidence since hostilitiesceased would have deep and important repercussions throughout the Communist world.

By the same token, exhibitions of indecision, disunity and internal disintegration within this countryhave an exhilarating effect on the whole Communist movement. At each evidence of thesetendencies, a thrill of hope and excitement goes through the Communist world; a new jauntiness can

be noted in the Moscow tread; new groups of foreign supporters climb on to what they can onlyview as the band wagon of international politics; and Russian pressure increases all along the line ininternational affairs.

It would be an exaggeration to say that American behavior unassisted and alone could exercise apower of life and death over the Communist movement and bring about the early fall of Sovietpower in Russia. But the United States has it in its power to increase enormously the strains underwhich Soviet policy must operate, to force upon the Kremlin a far greater degree of moderation and

circumspection than it has had to observe in recent years, and in this way to promote tendencieswhich must eventually find their outlet in either the breakup or the gradual mellowing of Soviet

power. For no mystical, Messianic movement -- and particularly not that of the Kremlin -- can facefrustration indefinitely without eventually adjusting itself in one way or another to the logic of thatstate of affairs.

Thus the decision will really fall in large measure in this country itself. The issue of Soviet-American relations is in essence a test of the overall worth of the United States as a nation amongnations. To avoid destruction the United States need only measure up to its own best traditions and

prove itself worthy of preservation as a great nation.

Surely, there was never a fairer test of national quality than this. In the light of these circumstances,the thoughtful observer of Russian-American relations will find no cause for complaint in theKremlin's challenge to American society. He will rather experience a certain gratitude to aProvidence which, by providing the American people with this implacable challenge, has made theirentire security as a nation dependent on their pulling themselves together and accepting theresponsibilities of moral and political leadership that history plainly intended them to bear.

12

490

495

500

505

510

515

520

525


13/70

TEXT 2

The Southern Manifesto

March 12, 1956

THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE SCHOOL CASES

DECLARATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES

Mr. [Walter F.] GEORGE. Mr. President, the increasing gravity of the situation followingthe decision of the Supreme Court in the so-called segregation cases, and the peculiar stressin sections of the country where this decision has created many difficulties, unknown andunappreciated, perhaps, by many people residing in other parts of the country, have led someSenators and some Members of the House of Representatives to prepare a statement of the

position which they have felt and now feel to be imperative.

I now wish to present to the Senate a statement on behalf of 19 Senators, representing 11States, and 77 House Members, representing a considerable number of States likewise. . . .

DECLARATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES

The unwarranted decision of the Supreme Court in the public school cases is now bearingthe fruit always produced when men substitute naked power for established law.

The Founding Fathers gave us a Constitution of checks and balances because they realizedthe inescapable lesson of history that no man or group of men can be safely entrusted withunlimited power. They framed this Constitution with its provisions for change by

amendment in order to secure the fundamentals of government against the dangers oftemporary popular passion or the personal predilections of public officeholders.

We regard the decisions of the Supreme Court in the school cases as a clear abuse of judicialpower. It climaxes a trend in the Federal Judiciary undertaking to legislate, in derogation ofthe authority of Congress, and to encroach upon the reserved rights of the States and the

people.

The original Constitution does not mention education. Neither does the 14th Amendmentnor any other amendment. The debates preceding the submission of the 14th Amendmentclearly show that there was no intent that it should affect the system of education maintained

by the States.

The very Congress which proposed the amendment subsequently provided for segregatedschools in the District of Columbia.

When the amendment was adopted in 1868, there were 37 States of the Union. . . .

Every one of the 26 States that had any substantial racial differences among its people,either approved the operation of segregated schools already in existence or subsequentlyestablished such schools by action of the same law-making body which considered the 14thAmendment.

As admitted by the Supreme Court in the public school case (Brown v.Board of Education),

13

530

535

540

545

550

555

560

565


14/70

the doctrine of separate but equal schools "apparently originated inRoberts v. City of Boston(1849), upholding school segregation against attack as being violative of a Stateconstitutional guarantee of equality." This constitutional doctrine began in the North, not inthe South, and it was followed not only in Massachusetts, but in Connecticut, New York,Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and other northernstates until they, exercising their rights as states through the constitutional processes of local

self-government, changed their school systems.

In the case ofPlessy v.Ferguson in 1896 the Supreme Court expressly declared that underthe 14th Amendment no person was denied any of his rights if the States provided separate

but equal facilities. This decision has been followed in many other cases. It is notable thatthe Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Taft, a former President of the UnitedStates, unanimously declared in 1927 inLum v.Rice that the "separate but equal" principleis "within the discretion of the State in regulating its public schools and does not conflictwith the 14th Amendment."

This interpretation, restated time and again, became a part of the life of the people of many

of the States and confirmed their habits, traditions, and way of life. It is founded onelemental humanity and commonsense, for parents should not be deprived by Governmentof the right to direct the lives and education of their own children.

Though there has been no constitutional amendment or act of Congress changing thisestablished legal principle almost a century old, the Supreme Court of the United States,with no legal basis for such action, undertook to exercise their naked judicial power andsubstituted their personal political and social ideas for the established law of the land.

This unwarranted exercise of power by the Court, contrary to the Constitution, is creatingchaos and confusion in the States principally affected. It is destroying the amicable relations

between the white and Negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort

by the good people of both races. It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has beenheretofore friendship and understanding.

Without regard to the consent of the governed, outside mediators are threatening immediateand revolutionary changes in our public schools systems. If done, this is certain to destroythe system of public education in some of the States.

With the gravest concern for the explosive and dangerous condition created by this decisionand inflamed by outside meddlers:

We reaffirm our reliance on the Constitution as the fundamental law of the land.

We decry the Supreme Court's encroachment on the rights reserved to the States and to thepeople, contrary to established law, and to the Constitution.

We commend the motives of those States which have declared the intention to resist forcedintegration by any lawful means.

We appeal to the States and people who are not directly affected by these decisions toconsider the constitutional principles involved against the time when they too, on issuesvital to them may be the victims of judicial encroachment.

Even though we constitute a minority in the present Congress, we have full faith that a

majority of the American people believe in the dual system of government which has

14

570

575

580

585

590

595

600

605


15/70

enabled us to achieve our greatness and will in time demand that the reserved rights of theStates and of the people be made secure against judicial usurpation.

We pledge ourselves to use all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision whichis contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation.

In this trying period, as we all seek to right this wrong, we appeal to our people not to be

provoked by the agitators and troublemakers invading our States and to scrupulously refrainfrom disorder and lawless acts.

Signed by:

MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE

Walter F. George, Richard B. Russell, John Stennis, Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Strom Thurmond,Harry F. Byrd, A. Willis Robertson, John L. McClellan, Allen J. Ellender, Russell B. Long,Lister Hill, James O. Eastland, W. Kerr Scott, John Sparkman, Olin D. Johnston, PriceDaniel, J.W. Fulbright, George A. Smathers, Spessard L. Holland.

MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Alabama: Frank W. Boykin, George M. Grant, George W. Andrews, Kenneth A. Roberts,Albert Rains, Armistead I. Selden, Jr., Carl Elliott, Robert E. Jones, George Huddleston, Jr.

Arkansas: E.C. Gathings, Wilbur D. Mills, James W. Trimble, Oren Harris, Brooks Hays,W.F. Norrell.

Florida: Charles E. Bennett, Robert L.F. Sikes, A.S. Herlong, Jr., Paul G. Rogers, James A.

Haley, D.R. Matthews.Georgia: Prince H. Preston, John L. Pilcher, E.L. Forrester, John James Flynt, Jr., James C.Davis, Carl Vinson, Henderson Lanham, Iris F. Blitch, Phil M. Landrum, Paul Brown.

Louisiana: F. Edward Hebert, Hale Boggs, Edwin E. Willis, Overton Brooks, Otto E.Passman, James H. Morrison, T. Ashton Thompson, George S. Long.

Mississippi: Thomas G. Abernathy, Jamie L. Whitten, Frank E. Smith, John Bell Williams,Arthur Winstead, William M. Colmer.

North Carolina: Herbert C. Bonner, L.H. Fountain, Graham A. Barden, Carl T. Durham, F.

Ertel Carlyle, Hugh Q. Alexander, Woodrow W. Jones, George A. Shuford.

South Carolina: L. Mendel Rivers, John J. Riley, W.J. Bryan Dorn, Robert T. Ashmore,James P. Richards, John L. McMillan.

Tennessee: James B. Frazier, Jr., Tom Murray, Jere Cooper, Clifford Davis.

15

610

615

620

625

630

635

640


16/70

TEXT 3

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Farewell Address

January 17, 1961

Good evening, my fellow Americans.

First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunitiesthey have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanksgo to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.

Three days from now, after half century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the

responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency isvested in my successor. This evening, I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell,and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other -- Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor withhim, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of greatmoment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation. My own relationswith the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of theSenate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate

post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years. In thisfinal relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well,to serve the nation good, rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of thenation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling -- on my

part -- of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars amonggreat nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts, America is todaythe strongest, the most influential, and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proudof this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely uponour unmatched material progress, riches, and military strength, but on how we use our power in the

interests of world peace and human betterment.Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the

peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity amongpeoples and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Anyfailure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension, or readiness to sacrifice would inflictupon us grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing theworld. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology globalin scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insiduous [insidious] in method. Unhappily,the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for,

not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to

16

645

650

655

660

665

670

675

680


17/70

carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complexstruggle with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our chartedcourse toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, thereis a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the

miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defenses;development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basicand applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may besuggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintainbalance in and among national programs, balance between the private and the public economy,balance between the cost and hoped for advantages, balance between the clearly necessary and thecomfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the dutiesimposed by the nation upon the individual, balance between actions of the moment and the nationalwelfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress. Lack of it eventually finds

imbalance and frustration. The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and theirGovernment have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the faceof threat and stress.

But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. Of these, I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, readyfor instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Ourmilitary organization today bears little relation to that known of any of my predecessors in

peacetime, or, indeed, by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American

makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longerrisk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanentarmaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women aredirectly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone morethan the net income of all United States cooperations -- corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in theAmerican experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city,every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for thisdevelopment. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, andlivelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence,whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous riseof misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combinationendanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alertand knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and militarymachinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prospertogether.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, hasbeen the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become

central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is

17

685

690

695

700

705

710

715

720

725


18/70

conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces ofscientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically thefountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct ofresearch. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a

substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of newelectronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment,project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert tothe equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new andold, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of ourfree society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future,we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering forour own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage thematerial assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritualheritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent

phantom of tomorrow.

During the long lane of the history yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours, evergrowing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a

proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. Theweakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are

by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many fast frustrations-- past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of disarmament -- of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we mustlearn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Becausethis need is so sharp and apparent, I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this fieldwith a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingeringsadness of war, as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has

been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years, I wish I could say tonight that a lastingpeace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has beenmade. But so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little Ican to help the world advance along that road.

So, in this, my last good night to you as your President, I thank you for the many opportunities youhave given me for public service in war and in peace. I trust in that -- in that -- in that service youfind some things worthy. As for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance inthe future.

You and I, my fellow citizens, need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reachthe goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident buthumble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals.

18

730

735

740

745

750

755

760

765


19/70

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuingaspiration: We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great humanneeds satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all whoyearn for freedom may experience its few spiritual blessings. Those who have freedom willunderstand, also, its heavy responsibility; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others willlearn charity; and that the sources -- scourges of poverty, disease, and ignorance will be made [to]

disappear from the earth; and that in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in apeace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.

Thank you, and good night.

19

770

775

780


20/70

TEXT 4

John F. Kennedy

Inaugural Address

January 20, 1961

Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice PresidentNixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party,but a celebration of freedom--symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning--signifying renewal, aswell as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears

prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of

human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which ourforebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not fromthe generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth fromthis time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation ofAmericans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud ofour ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights towhich this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home andaround the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden,meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and thesuccess of liberty.

This much we pledge--and more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithfulfriends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is littlewe can do--for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one formof colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We

shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find themstrongly supporting their own freedom--and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishlysought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of massmisery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required--not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it isright. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge--to convert our good wordsinto good deeds--in a new alliance for progress--to assist free men and free governments in casting

off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile

20

785

790

795

800

805

810

815


21/70

powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversionanywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remainthe master of its own house.

To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age wherethe instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of

support--to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective--to strengthen its shield of thenew and the weak--and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but arequest: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destructionunleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can webe certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course--both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread

of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand ofmankind's final war.

So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, andsincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear tonegotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divideus.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection andcontrol of arms--and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control ofall nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explorethe stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts andcommerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah--to "undo the heavyburdens ... and to let the oppressed go free."

And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join increating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are

just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, norin the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of ourcourse. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to givetestimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to servicesurround the globe.

Now the trumpet summons us again--not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a callto battle, though embattled we are--but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in

and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"--a struggle against the common enemies of

21

820

825

830

835

840

845

850

855

860


22/70

man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West,that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defendingfreedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility--I welcome it. I do

not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. Theenergy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all whoserve it--and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do foryour country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can dofor the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high

standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only surereward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking Hisblessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

22

865

870

875


23/70

TEXT 5

Lyndon B. Johnson

The Great Society

May 22, 1964

President Hatcher, Governor Romney, Senators McNamara and Hart, Congressmen Meader andStaebler, and other members of the fine Michigan delegation, members of the graduating class, myfellow Americans:

It is a great pleasure to be here today. Thisuniversity has been coeducational since 1870, but I donot believe it was on the basis of your accomplishments that a Detroit high school girl said (and Iquote), "In choosing a college, you first have to decide whether you want a coeducational school oran educational school." Well, we can find both here at Michigan, although perhaps at different

hours. I came out here today very anxious to meet the Michigan student whose father told a friendof mine that his son's education had been a real value. It stopped his mother from bragging abouthim.

I have come today from the turmoil of your capital to the tranquility of your campus to speak aboutthe future of your country. The purpose of protecting the life of our Nation and preserving theliberty of our citizens is to pursue the happiness of our people. Our success in that pursuit is the testof our success as a Nation.

For a century we labored to settle and to subdue a continent. For half a century we called uponunbounded invention and untiring industry to create an order of plenty for all of our people. The

challenge of the next half century is whether we have the wisdom to use that wealth to enrich andelevate our national life, and to advance the quality of our American civilization.

Your imagination and your initiative and your indignation will determine whether we build asociety where progress is the servant of our needs, or a society where old values and new visionsare buried under unbridled growth. For in your time we have the opportunity to move not onlytoward the rich society and the powerful society, but upward to the Great Society.

The Great Society rests on abundance and liberty for all. It demands an end to poverty and racialinjustice, to which we are totally committed in our time. But that is just the beginning.

The Great Society is a place where every child can find knowledge to enrich his mind and toenlarge his talents. It is a place where leisure is a welcome chance to build and reflect, not a fearedcause of boredom and restlessness. It is a place where the city of man serves not only the needs ofthe body and the demands of commerce but the desire for beauty and the hunger for community. Itis a place where man can renew contact with nature. It is a place which honors creation for its ownsake and for what is adds to the understanding of the race. It is a place where men are moreconcerned with the quality of their goals than the quantity of their goods.

But most of all, the Great Society is not a safe harbor, a resting place, a final objective, a finishedwork. It is a challenge constantly renewed, beckoning us toward a destiny where the meaning of ourlives matches the marvelous products of our labor.

So I want to talk to you today about three places where we begin to build the Great Society -- in our

23

880

885

890

895

900

905

910

915
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/lbjthegreatsociety.htmhttp://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/lbjthegreatsociety.htmhttp://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/lbjthegreatsociety.htmhttp://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/lbjthegreatsociety.htmhttp://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/lbjthegreatsociety.htm


24/70

cities, in our countryside, and in our classrooms.

Many of you will live to see the day, perhaps 50 years from now, when there will be 400 millionAmericans -- four-fifths of them in urban areas. In the remainder of this century urban populationwill double, city land will double, and we will have to build homes and highways and facilitiesequal to all those built since this country was first settled. So in the next 40 years we must re-build

the entire urban United States.Aristotle said: "Men come together in cities in order to live, but they remain together in order to livethe good life." It is harder and harder to live the good life in American cities today. The catalog ofills is long: there is the decay of the centers and the despoiling of the suburbs. There is not enoughhousing for our people or transportation for our traffic. Open land is vanishing and old landmarksare violated. Worst of all expansion is eroding these precious and time honored values ofcommunity with neighbors and communion with nature. The loss of these values breeds lonelinessand boredom and indifference.

And our society will never be great until our cities are great. Today the frontier of imagination andinnovation is inside those cities and not beyond their borders. New experiments are already going

on. It will be the task of your generation to make the American city a place where future generationswill come, not only to live, but to live the good life. And I understand that if I stayed here tonight Iwould see that Michigan students are really doing their best to live the good life.

This is the place where the Peace Corps was started. It is inspiring to see how all of you, while youare in this country, are trying so hard to live at the level of the people.

A second place where we begin to build the Great Society is in our countryside. We have alwaysprided ourselves on being not only America the strong and America the free, but America thebeautiful. Today that beauty is in danger. The water we drink, the food we eat, the very air that webreathe, are threatened with pollution. Our parks are overcrowded, our seashores overburdened.

Green fields and dense forests are disappearing.

A few years ago we were greatly concerned about the "Ugly American." Today we must act toprevent an ugly America. For once the battle is lost, once our natural splendor is destroyed, it cannever be recaptured. And once man can no longer walk with beauty or wonder at nature his spiritwill wither and his sustenance be wasted.

A third place to build the Great Society is in the classrooms of America. There your children's liveswill be shaped. Our society will not be great until every young mind is set free to scan the farthestreaches of thought and imagination. We are still far from that goal. Today, 8 million adultAmericans, more than the entire population of Michigan, have not finished 5 years ofschool.

Nearly 20 million have not finished 8 years of school. Nearly 54 million -- more than one quarter ofall America -- have not even finished high school.

Each year more than 100,000 high school graduates, with proved ability, do not enter collegebecause they cannot afford it. And if we cannot educate today's youth, what will we do in 1970when elementary school enrollment will be 5 million greater than 1960? And high schoolenrollment will rise by 5 million. And college enrollment will increase by more than 3 million.

In many places, classrooms are overcrowded and curricula are outdated. Most of our qualifiedteachers are underpaid and many of our paid teachers are unqualified. So we must give every child a

place to sit and a teacher to learn from. Poverty must not be a bar to learning, and learning mustoffer an escape from poverty.

24

920

925

930

935

940

945

950

955
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/lbjthegreatsociety.htmhttp://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/lbjthegreatsociety.htmhttp://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/lbjthegreatsociety.htmhttp://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/lbjthegreatsociety.htmhttp://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/lbjthegreatsociety.htmhttp://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/lbjthegreatsociety.htmhttp://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/lbjthegreatsociety.htm


25/70

But more classrooms and more teachers are not enough. We must seek an educational system whichgrows in excellence as it grows in size. This means bettertraining for our teachers. It means

preparing youth to enjoy their hours of leisure as well as their hours of labor. It means exploringnew techniques of teaching, to find new ways to stimulate the love of learning and the capacity forcreation.

These are three of the central issues of the Great Society. While our Government has manyprograms directed at those issues, I do not pretend that we have the full answer to those problems.But I do promise this: We are going to assemble the best thought and the broadest knowledge fromall over the world to find those answers for America.

I intend to establish working groups to prepare a series of White House conferences and meetings --on the cities, on natural beauty, on the quality of education, and on other emerging challenges. Andfrom these meetings and from this inspiration and from these studies we will begin to set our coursetoward the Great Society.

The solution to these problems does not rest on a massive program in Washington, nor can it relysolely on the strained resources of local authority. They require us to create new concepts of

cooperation, a creative federalism, between the National Capital and the leaders of localcommunities.

Woodrow Wilson once wrote: "Every man sent out from his university should be a man of hisNation as well as a man of his time."

Within your lifetime powerful forces, already loosed, will take us toward a way of life beyond therealm of our experience, almost beyond the bounds of our imagination.

For better or for worse, your generation has been appointed by history to deal with those problemsand to lead America toward a new age. You have the chance never before afforded to any people in

any age. You can help build a society where the demands of morality, and the needs of the spirit,can be realized in the life of the Nation.

So, will you join in the battle to give every citizen the full equality which God enjoins and the lawrequires, whatever his belief, or race, or the color of his skin?

Will you join in the battle to give every citizen an escape from the crushing weight of poverty?

Will you join in the battle to make it possible for all nations to live in enduring peace -- asneighbors and not as mortal enemies?

Will you join in the battle to build the Great Society, to prove that our material progress is only the

foundation on which we will build a richer life of mind and spirit?

There are those timid souls that say this battle cannot be won; that we are condemned to a soullesswealth. I do not agree. We have the power to shape the civilization that we want. But we need yourwill and your labor and your hearts, if we are to build that kind of society.

Those who came to this land sought to build more than just a new country. They sought a newworld. So I have come here today to your campus to say that you can make their vision our reality.So let us from this moment begin our work so that in the future men will look back and say: It wasthen, after a long and weary way, that man turned the exploits of his genius to the full enrichment ofhis life.

Thank you. Good-bye.

25

960

965

970

975

980

985

990

995

1000
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/lbjthegreatsociety.htmhttp://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/lbjthegreatsociety.htm


26/70

TEXT 6

Barry Goldwater

Acceptance Speech: Republican National Convention

July 16, 1964

My good friend and great Republican, Dick Nixon, and your charming wife, Pat; my running mate,that wonderful Republican who has served us so well for so long, Bill Miller and his wife,Stephanie; to Thurston Morton who's done such a commendable job in chairmaning thisConvention; to Mr. Herbert Hoover, who I hope is watching; and to that -- that great American andhis wife, General and Mrs. Eisenhower; to my own wife, my family, and to all of my fellowRepublicans here assembled, and Americans across this great Nation.

From this moment, united and determined, we will go forward together, dedicated to the ultimate

and undeniable greatness of the whole man. Together -- Together we will win.

I accept your nomination with a deep sense of humility. I accept, too, the responsibility that goeswith it, and I seek your continued help and your continued guidance. My fellow Republicans, ourcause is too great for any man to feel worthy of it. Our task would be too great for any man, did henot have with him the hearts and the hands of this great Republican Party, and I promise you tonightthat every fiber of my being is consecrated to our cause; that nothing shall be lacking from thestruggle that can be brought to it by enthusiasm, by devotion, and plain hard work.

In this world no person, no Party can guarantee anything, but what we can do and what we shall dois to deserve victory, and victory will be ours.

The good Lord raised this mighty Republic to be a home for the brave and to flourish as the land ofthe free -- not to stagnate in the swampland of collectivism, not to cringe before the bullying ofcommunism.

Now, my fellow Americans, the tide has been running against freedom. Our people have followedfalse prophets. We must, and we shall, return to proven ways -- not because they are old, but

because they are true. We must, and we shall, set the tides running again in the cause of freedom.And this party, with its every action, every word, every breath, and every heartbeat, has but a singleresolve, and that is freedom -- freedom made orderly for this Nation by our constitutionalgovernment; freedom under a government limited by the laws of nature and of nature's God;

freedom balanced so that order lacking liberty [sic] will not become the slavery of the prison shell[cell]; balanced so that liberty lacking order will not become the license of the mob and of thejungle.

Now, we Americans understand freedom. We have earned it; we have lived for it, and we have diedfor it. This Nation and its people are freedom's model in a searching world. We can be freedom'smissionaries in a doubting world. But, ladies and gentlemen, first we must renew freedom's missionin our own hearts and in our own homes.

During four futile y

Iep Fascicule 2nd Yr 2010

Documents

Transcript of Iep Fascicule 2nd Yr 2010