Compiled and Edited by: Randy McNutt
Selections from this book follow. The book may be purchased at amazon.com.
I was privileged to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives with John Ashbrook during the last eleven years of his term of service. John’s twenty-one years in the House, from 1961 to 1982, coincided almost perfectly with the birth and maturity of the conservative political movement in the United States, from the nomination of Barry Goldwater to the Presidency of Ronald Reagan. It is fair to say that he was the movement’s first nationally elected figure.
Nothing is easier than calling yourself a conservative in the Reagan era. It was much different in the Kennedy-Johnson years, however, when liberalism had reached its zenith of self-confidence with the Great Society and the beginning of the war in Southeast Asia. John Ashbrook was a proud, self-proclaimed conservative even then.
He was also one of the earliest conservative activists. John was the first conservative president of the Young Republicans. He played a major role in setting up the Draft Goldwater movement and in persuading the Senator to run for the Presidency in 1964. Later, John founded the Conservative Victory Fund and cofounded the American Conservative Union.
In reading the speeches and writings collected in this volume, one should not be surprised by John’s feisty, combative style. His candor reflected those early years when conservatives were a tiny, besieged minority on Capitol Hill. He was adamant against compromising his beliefs just to seem like a centrist and to earn an occasional chance to vote on some marginal conservative issue. “All you find in the middle of the road are yellow lines and dead snakes,” he’d say. In those days if a conservative wanted to be heard, he had to speak up.
John was an iconoclast; he disliked pretense, among his colleagues or in the media or on the legal bench. The claim, for instance, that some social program’s intention was compassionate did not convince him that the results necessarily were. John described himself as “an intransigent believer that the liberal programs ostensibly set up to help the poor guarantee that the poor will stay where they are”—four years before Charles Murray’s bookLosing Ground, statistically vindicated John’s skepticism about liberal welfare’s effects. I think he would have agreed with the saying of the Jewish philosopher Maimonides which I frequently quote: the highest form of charity is to prevent the poor from having to take charity.
Few people, reviewing the conservative debacle of 1964, could have imagined that a fundamental political realignment might be taking place just sixteen years later. During the mid to late 1970s, John and a handful of conservative Republican representatives provided an essential element in the eventual success of the conservative realignment. Their activism on the House floor delayed and sometimes defeated extravagant liberal-left proposals, and by working closely together these representatives forged genuine unity among Republicans by the end of the Carter Administration.
I sincerely believe that without that Republican unity of the late 1970s the Reagan Presidency and the political realignment might not have happened, or at least not so swiftly. And when you consider that the growing military power and adventurism of the Soviet Union went practically unchallenged by the U.S. under President Carter, it is not impossible that a delayed realignment beyond 1980 might have come too late to restore America’s defenses and preserve the freedom of the West. John Ashbrook’s unflinching stand for conservative principles in the 1970s surely influenced—and perhaps helped reverse—the final outcome of the global drama of totalitarianism versus freedom which marks our century.
John had enormous courage. He was willing to risk everything for an idea, even undertaking what he surely knew was a hopeless presidential campaign against Richard Nixon in 1972. Still, John believed that the campaign had to be fought to pull the President back to the right-center of the spectrum, and to demonstrate that there were many Americans, particularly Republicans, who wanted a greater conservative presence in setting the Administration’s foreign and domestic policies. He ran knowing he risked the loss of his national base in the House. He was, characteristically, the first House Republican to call for President Nixon’s resignation.
Yet the true measure of a man’s dedication to an idea really depends upon the quality of that idea, doesn’t it? Marxism and National Socialism are “ideas,” and so is liberal democracy. Totalitarian leaders who dedicate themselves to the triumph of their tyrannical ideas also have a kind of courage, but they are not praiseworthy. On the other hand, the greatest American statesmen were those men of daring who risked all they had “pledging to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor” for an idea.
John’s courage had that character. Randy McNutt, the editor of this handbook, captured something of John’s priorities and the depth of his commitments in the book’s design. Because John strongly believed that the military security of the United States was the essential precondition for preserving freedom and opportunity, he continuously addressed the issues of defense and foreign policy, which take up the opening chapters here. The central chapters ascend from economic to social and legal issues, culminating in the last chapters on the problem of the federal courts and the interpretation of the Federal Constitution. Above all, I think, John loved that Constitution as the deepest expression of the principles Americans live by: equality, liberty, opportunity, limited government, and self-rule. These were the ideas to which he dedicated his whole career.
John could not tolerate government agencies and institutions that claim a right to govern without the consent of the people. This led him to clash with the Supreme Court and its elitist liberal defenders, who thought the Constitution was whatever the Court said it was. “But the meaning of the Constitution is the Constitution,” he wrote. “If a court has any powers it says it has, its power is unlimitable.” By calling the next to last chapter “A New Beginning,” the editor has stressed John’s overriding hope that the Reagan Administration would reform the federal courts and turn that branch of government, as well as the executive and legislative branches, back to the American people. That would truly mark a phase in American conservative realignment. Federal court reform is not yet complete at this writing, but I believe John would have been pleased with President Reagan’s appointments to the bench so far.
John Ashbrook was nothing if not a “populist conservative” in a day when populist conservatives were rarer than the proverbial hen’s teeth, and populist conservatism was thought to be a self-contradiction.
It’s worth remembering that John’s father served as a Congressman for 19 years as a Democrat. One of John’s greatest strengths was his capacity to work with Democrats, not by agreeing with the liberal agenda but by moving them to the conservative side. He frequently debated Democrats in academic forums such as Harvard University. He built successful House coalitions on veterans’ issues, housing, pro-life, anti-gun control, and strong defense measures. In 1976 a liberal Democrat in John’s 17th District of Ohio approached the local Democratic Party chairman for the party’s Congressional nomination. “Sorry,” the chairman said, “but I’m a John Ashbrook Democrat.” John’s populism was ahead of his time.
Because John’s understanding of the Constitution was so profoundly “populist” or democratic, we are indebted to Randy McNutt for compiling this book at a perfect time, just as we begin to celebrate the bicentennial of the world’s oldest living constitution. Brief though the book is, it is far more than just an interesting piece of history. The reader doesn’t need to agree with everything John Ashbrook ever said; but from his speeches and writings we can learn much about how we should approach and solve the problems of a free society, in the spirit of that generation of founders who drafted the Constitution and made freedom synonymous with the American dream.
I regret his untimely passing at fifty-three years of age, in the middle of a hard-fought Senate campaign. As a U.S. Senator he would have made the entire State of Ohio proud—as proud as the 17th District has every right to be for his years of loyal and devoted service.
His legacy lives on in the ideas for which he worked so hard throughout his life.
Member of Congress
It was an experience, meeting Congressman John M. Ashbrook on the road in rural Ohio. Mr. Pinchpenny—as some conservative legislators used to jokingly call the 17th District Representative—had come to Washington Court House on a cool autumn day in 1981 to address supporters of a candidate for the state legislature. I had decided to make the two-hour trip from Hamilton to write a feature story on Ashbrook for The Cincinnati Enquirer. Never mind that I had to be in Washington Court House at 7:30 a.m. that day. I did not care. John Ashbrook was, after all, a man in whom I had always believed. I saw him as one of our nation’s true statesmen, a compliment I can give to only a few of our officials. Ashbrook was just different: A congressman who was not afraid to say what he really thought. This conservative was not about to change his views to suit the times. On that we could depend.
After he had spoken, Ashbrook shook my hand and I presented him with a Butler County Ashbrook For President Committee card. I printed it in 1972, when I was in college, but I’m afraid it was a committee of one. Ashbrook looked at the card, listened to what I said, and roared. Then we walked to a country restaurant to eat breakfast and talk. Somehow that morning I managed to take notes as I ate pancakes.
Ashbrook always had a lot to say. He was articulate and intelligent; the kind of spokesman the conservative movement needed in the 1960s and ’70s. During our pleasant breakfast I determined that, despite his two decades in the House, this man was still in love with politics. Although he had won only a few major battles in the earlier years, he still kept a special enthusiasm for life and his beloved principles. Perhaps the most important thing about Ashbrook, however, was his honesty. Liberals have since written that they appreciated his lack of vindictiveness in the face of defeat, but what I liked was that philosophical honesty.
Ashbrook’s fascination with politics seemed almost genetic. John Milan Ashbrook was born September 21, 1928, in Johnstown, Ohio, the son of Congressman William A. Ashbrook. As a boy growing up in rural Licking County, Ashbrook was surrounded by all things public. The seed was planted deeply.
In 1946 he was graduated from Johnstown High School, and soon after he entered the Navy and took part in the Byrd Antarctic Expedition. In two years he returned home and decided to attend Harvard College, where he earned a degree with honors. The next few years were busy ones. Ashbrook married Jean Spencer of Newark, and the couple had three daughters: Barbara, Laura and Madeleine.
In 1953 Ashbrook was named publisher of theJohnstown Independent, a weekly newspaper, and a short time later he published three other weeklies in central Ohio. He told me he always had wanted to be a reporter, but somehow he always kept finding other interesting jobs. His interest in the law and politics led him to Ohio State University, where he received a law degree in 1955. He then served two years as a special counsel to the Ohio attorney general.
Somehow, he found the time to serve as chairman of the board of deacons of the Johnstown Baptist Church, join numerous other fraternal and civic groups, and write a history of his high school.
But the political life continued to fascinate him. He sought and won a seat in the 102nd Ohio General Assembly in 1956, and won a second term in 1958.
By 1960, he wanted a voice in national politics. He entered a Congressional race and won that, too, but his election came at a dark time for conservatives. Richard Nixon had just been defeated by John F. Kennedy, and a period of liberalism was about to settle over Washington.
Perhaps this was fortunate for Ashbrook because he quickly developed a reputation as a strong conservative leader. He did not duck, either. He assisted in founding the Draft Goldwater organization in 1963 and sat on the steering committee of the Committee of One Million Against the Admission of Red China to the United Nations. He even helped organize the American Conservative Union and the Young Americans for Freedom, a major youth group.
A poll taken in 1970 showed Ashbrook was one of the five most respected conservative leaders in America.
That respect no doubt came because Ashbrook was not tentative on the issues. He was not afraid to lead unpopular causes. He assumed the chairmanship of the American Conservative Union in 1966, the same year he survived a redistricting by defeating twenty-two-year veteran Congressman Bob Secrest.
Through the years, Ashbrook refused to compromise his beliefs. Liberals referred to him as a conservative guerrilla fighter, adding his own amendments to their important legislation and fighting a rear guard action. But his finest hour came later.
In 1972, conservatives seemed at a low point. Richard Nixon had served one Term—he had campaigned as a conservative, by the way—and ignored most of the promises he had made. Yet he was immensely popular with most Republicans, especially in Ohio.
Ashbrook felt he had to demonstrate his dissatisfaction with the President, so the congressman entered selected Republican primaries as Nixon’s opponent. Conservatives rejoiced; the party people sneered. Ashbrook flew off around the nation, saying Nixon was weakening an already weakened national defense.
I remember the headlines: “Can’t Pardon Draft Evaders—Ashbrook”; “Naïve To Place Faith In Soviets, Ashbrook Says”; “Arms Treaty Boosts Ashbrook Race.” And finally, this one: “Ashbrook’s Fall Leaves President With Tight Hold.”
Ashbrook did not enter these primaries to gain anything politically for himself. In fact, he stood to lose, if anything. Many Republicans were outraged by his outspoken opinions of Nixon. They saw Ashbrook as an insolent ideologist. Of course, they misunderstood him entirely, for he was not an insolent man. Nor, was he a political pragmatist, like Nixon. Ashbrook simply believed in risking everything over a matter of principle.
And in seeking the Presidency, he was left to standalone. The big-name conservatives, including Senator Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, supported Nixon. Only a few hard-line conservatives in the house dared speak out for Ashbrook.
After the Republicans had again crowned Richard Nixon king at their convention in Miami Beach, I read a story that quoted Ashbrook as saying he would go ahead and vote for Nixon in the November election. I promptly wrote and told him this statement was inconsistent with the typical Ashbrook thinking.
“I do not know what you read,” Ashbrook replied. “I have come not to pay much attention to news broadcasts at present time. At no time have I said I would endorse, work for or even vote for Richard Nixon—or any other candidate from that standpoint. On several occasions reporters have categorically made this assertion despite my statements to the contrary. I guess it is normally assumed that this is done, so they really don’t bother to ask me. I could not support McGovern, and if it were ultimately Nixon, it would be very reluctantly.”
I will not stop to contemplate history. Let us just say that the years came and went, but John Ashbrook still held on to that seat in the Congress. That feat alone was enough to surprise him. “When the tide is rolling,” he explained, “it is very unpopular to stand up. Big government was in its prime in the ’60s, and I decided to stand up against it, no matter what. And for me to throw the Nixon thing again too…well, I was swimming upstream. In retrospect, though, running against an incumbent isn’t all that bad. I did get 10% of the vote in California, Nixon’s home state. I spread my message. So I guess you do not have to be on the winning side to be victorious.”
Ashbrook eventually saw himself go from beleaguered defender of the conservative cause to one of the leaders of the new Right during the Reagan victory of 1980. Ashbrook felt that his side had finally achieved some success, but he wanted one more political prize: a seat in the U.S. Senate. To get it, he worked long hours. His calendar looked like an old-fashioned train schedule. He drove all over Ohio in his van, stopping at every tea and reception he could find. He was determined to defeat liberal Senator Howard Metzenbaum in 1982, and, considering the mood of the nation and Ohio, nobody was laughing at him for trying.
But Ashbrook never got the chance to participate in what he called a classical political contest of liberalism versus conservatism. He died in his office in Johnstown in April, 1982.
Americans of every political opinion praised him for his service to his country. President Reagan said, “John Ashbrook was a man of courage and principle.” Congressman Philip M. Crane of Illinois said, “As a man governed by a set of ideals and values that were consistent with personal liberty, free enterprise, limited constitutional government, and a strong national defense, John could always join battle with those who disagreed with him. But his arguments focused on the issues and he did not challenge opponents’ sincerity and equal conviction that they were right. Thus, he was on friendly terms with even his most ardent political foes.”
Now a new library at Ashland College in Ohio bears the name of the John M. Ashbrook Memorial Library and Center for Public Affairs. Ashbrook’s desk, office furniture and books are displayed on the top floor of the beautiful building. The conservative research center will serve scholars interested in understanding the policies of Ashbrook.
In years to come, I hope they will understand this: John Ashbrook was real. He meant what he said, stuck to his conservative principles, and voted as he believed—even if it meant risking everything. After all, he said, he could lose nothing but a seat in the Congress. He could always go home to his newspaper.
The experts always seemed to miss the point about Ashbrook. They said they could find no greater record of political futility. They said his twenty-one-year career was a continuing triumph of idealism over practicality, of principle over effectiveness. But even the editors of The Almanac of American Politics didn’t understand.
John M. Ashbrook had deep ideals. He didn’t believe anybody should be guaranteed a public office for a lifetime. I believe he was a political success, despite the record. As he wrote on my Ashbrook for President membership card that autumn day in 1981: We were not losers! — Randy McNutt
1. American Power
Events of the past few months have literally forced many Americans to reassess our posture in the world. They have had to examine again some of the policy decisions of the past two decades which have made our current crisis a basic demonstration of the dangers inherent in the decline in our power.
Probably no word is more misunderstood than the word power. For the last twenty years, I believe there has been a conscious effort mad to convince Americans that somehow or another it is dangerous and immoral for us to be so powerful.
At the outset, let me say that in no way do I feel threatened by the United States being the most powerful nation in the world. Quite the opposite. I feel threatened if we are not. Amazingly enough, this country is full of intelligent and concerned citizens who look upon our power as a threat to world peace. They have been working strenuously to cut back and limit the power of the United States of America.
History clearly shows that, like it or not, regardless of any idealism we would espouse, power exists and has been exercised by whatever country or force which had it at the time. The only question facing Americans, as I see it, is whether we remain the most powerful nation in the world and endeavor to use that power for noble and peaceful ends or whether we allow lesser powers to assume positions of world leadership and use their power for less noble or, in the case of the communists, obviously evil ends.
That fundamental issue is rarely discussed. In fact, apologists used the anti-war movement in the 1960s and a subsequent spade of anti-military, anti-CIA, anti-FBI reaction to limit vital American power in dozens of ways. They have traveled the length and breadth of this country telling of the international dangers of a strong America, and paraded our sins and shortcomings with derisive glee. Frankly, I always wonder about these people who on a clear day can see all of our sins but do not have one breath of anger left to castigate the communist genocide in Cambodia or Soviet incursions into Ethiopia, Yemen and Afghanistan.
The acquisition of, maintaining and expanding of American power is at once a proper, moral issue. It is more than that. It is a military, political, economic and diplomatic issue. It is also an issue of survival which is rarely discussed by the summer soldiers in American political debate.
I have always been an advocate of military superiority. I always will be. I will always be an advocate of the use of American military might for noble ends in a world which may either welcome or hate our involvement. While might does not necessarily make right, it is very obvious to me in the context of our present world situation that right will never triumph in the world without the might of the United States of America.
Recently there was a great debate on the limits of power. Inaction is often viewed as a virtue or “restraint.” The decline of American power is a fundamental political issue and should be debated openly and honestly. What is happening in the Mid East is based in large measure on that decline of our power and the diminishing influence which results from it. Certainly, it will be a sad generation of Americans fifty years from now which look back on this year of our testing when the Soviet Union marched into yet another country to overrun and occupy it. And the Soviets ponder the feeble response of a nation heralded the most powerful nation in the world. That response is a long debate on whether we should send our athletes to the Olympics.
I picked up a recent newspaper and it had a banner headline which proclaimed that President Carter told the Russians to get out of Afghanistan or else. Or else what? Only a truly powerful nation can issue ultimatums like that. We have long since passed from a capability to do so.
So the Soviets invaded Afghanistan with a major military move. Of all things, think about that! Isn’t it shocking? Why, the President got on television and said it was disturbing and he had misjudged them. He had trusted them up to now, and here they go off on a military adventure which wasn’t even in the State Department’s program of events.
I usually don’t like to say I told you so, but this time I am going to say it. No issue is more vital to the future survival of this nation and the free world than our historic confrontation with world communism. We simply haven’t been in the race for a number of years. The president’s policy has bordered on pacifism and appeasement. The McGovernites who lost the election in 1972 took over the foreign policy of this nation in 1977. We are reaping that whirlwind.
To start with, there is no doubt in my mind that the Soviets are acting precisely as they have always acted. They have reacted to the Afghanistan opportunity precisely as they have always reacted when their own self-interest was involved. They will continue to act this way in the future. The only thing new is that our leaders choose to notice it now.
Soviet adventurism is based on two propositions which must be known at the outset. First, they have properly understood us as withdrawing from world leadership. They see us as an emerging paper tiger. They see President Carter as a person who has cancelled the B-1 bomber, delayed Trident submarines, cancelled the neutron bomb and MX missile and made a host of other strategic blunders. They see that they can proceed with anti-satellite devices and a range of new generation weaponry with little more than a whimper from Washington. In fact, our leaders try to tell the American people about the supposed peaceful inventions which we know the Soviets do not have.
Add to that their involvement last year in Ethiopia, Yemen and the whole horn of Africa. If I were sitting in the Kremlin, I would be laughing out loud. Last year, the Soviets were directly involved in Afghanistan and little was said in protest. They were involved in the assassination of our own American ambassador, Mr. Dubs. The State Department knew it. The White House knew it and chose to cover it up. Why? Probably to help SALT pass and to further their one-sided efforts at “peace.”
No one has ever accused the Soviet Union of being dumb. The Kremlin has been exploiting its opportunity.
Proposition two is even more ominous. Their direct invasion of Afghanistan is based on their appraisal of the temper of the leadership in this country but, more importantly, on their own strength. The simple, basic truth is that they have achieved the military capability to proceed regardless of what response they get from this country. This doesn’t mean they would risk all-out war at the present, but it does mean they have the dimension of their own military force to calculate present and future moves.
Probably the greatest tragedy of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan was the shock that it brought to many Americans who should have known better. To use a George Romney phrase, we had been brainwashed by the media and our own politicians to believe that the Russians had changed. For the President to say that the Soviet Union had let him down and that he had believed them shows why we are in trouble.
When Soviet interests dictate, the Soviets move. They use a propaganda drive to influence world opinion that they are saving a friendly neighbor from imperialism, or that they are asked to come in. They would hardly be asked in by a government to overthrow it, but those facts don’t deter them a bit. They set up their puppet leaders, like the ones in Eastern Europe. They execute by the hundreds their opponents, just as they did in Warsaw, the Katyn Forest and in every other satellite country. That we do know. They act as they have always acted. But what do we do?
On a scale of one to ten, the President’s response to the invasion was a weak one and one-half. It may fool many Americans into thinking we are getting tough when we are not, but not one Russian strategist will be fooled. Withdrawing a SALT treaty that already was politically bereft of support, cutting some wheat and tapping the Soviets on the wrists by withholding some technology is tantamount to doing nothing. This same administration fought to send our most advanced computer, Cyber 76, to the Soviets on the pretext that it would be used for weather forecasting. Yes, it could be used for that, but it could also be used for the most advanced intelligence work, for military use and for other strategic purposes. Mr. Carter advocates building steel and truck plants which are used in the communist military-industrial complex. We shouldn’t have been doing this in the first place, so it is hardly a bold move to now impose temporary and peripheral limits on that trade.
Defense Secretary Brown goes to China to see if we can enlist the support of the communists there to help us in our supine and groping response to a bold Russian move. The Soviets have thrown the ball in our field. We chose to punt.
2. Rewriting History
The American left and the television news apparatus have now embarked on what I believe to be one of the most significant propaganda crusades in recent history: underplaying the brutal communist takeovers and hailing the conquering tyrants as an “improvement” over their former regimes. This blatant rewriting of history overlooks the clear, tragic and barbarian record of communism in dealing with conquered peoples throughout the world. The New York Times has taken an early lead with such reporting as Sydney Schanberg’s April 13, 1975 lead article “Indo-China Without Americans; For Most, a Better Life,” and Fox Butterfield’s piece, “Communist Rule Will Be Disciplined, Moralistic.” The latter story sets the tone in a heading in the April 27, 1975 edition.
It is hard to blame these reporters, however, for The Times has had a clear line in the last twenty-five years: reporting ranging from a soft to an approving approach. Who can forget their articles by Herbert Matthews on good old Fidel Castro in the late 1950s?
The news morgues of these reporters must contain the same clips and records of former and present communist atrocities that are available to you and me, so why don’t they use them?
Consider this brief summation of recent communist genocide and brutality which many reporters conveniently overlook: First, it is necessary to point out that the numerous communist bloodbaths—I use this term quite literally, although I realize it is only a matter of semantics to some people—do not necessarily happen the day, week or month after a country falls to communism. As was so often illustrated in China, there may have been “speak out” sessions where simple people were urged to air their gripes, point the finger and complain. All complaints were recorded for proper retribution at a later time. Those taking over villages, cities and governments often spoke of conciliation and working with the old order in the early part of their reorganizing efforts. The brutality came later. Re-education was a code term to mark someone for brainwashing or execution.
In the Soviet union, the most conservative estimate of people killed by the Reds during the various purges which followed the revolution is in excess of twenty million.
In communist China, at least thirty million people were slaughtered in political liquidation campaigns from 1949 to 1958.
In Tibet, one of the most horrendous genocides was inflicted on a small nation, resulting in the extermination of 300,000 people.
The list goes on: North Vietnam, at least 50,000 countrymen killed to solidify the hold of the communists; South Vietnam, civilian victims of communist terror reached 36,000 in the years from 1957 to 1971.
The records do not stop there. The loss of life extends from Cuba to Eastern Europe to Cambodia. It is a broad picture that liberal reporters overlook in their effort to rewrite history sympathetically for communist butchers.
What normally happens is twofold: First, communist executions, re-education programs, concentration camps, repressions and attacks are done outside the coverage of television cameras and the sight of the newspaper reporters, who do not want to admit these things happen anyway. Second, a silence, a cold-blooded calm, comes over the country whose borders are sealed, whose communications with the rest of the world are curtailed. The result of this is that the suppliant reporters will call this silence “peace.”
I cite here just some of the normal, not abnormal, record of communism around the world. While it always can be hoped the communists will turn from their bloodthirsty ways, it is irresponsible to rewrite history in this way, especially when communists have their anti-American knives whetted so sharply.
This effort of the American left to rewrite history in a way favorable to communism is not new. It requires, however, that those of us not blinded by détente, accommodation with our enemies, or liberal myopia on world communism must see to it that the record is set straight.
The present tragic events now unfolding in Cambodia and South Vietnam raise ominous signs once again of the prospects of a communist-style bloodbath in Southwest Asia. It is urgent that the on-going controversy over the fact or fiction of bloodbaths not be allowed to place in jeopardy the lives of those marked for extinction by the North Vietnamese, the Vietcong and the Khmer Rouge.
The liberal press and those apologists who blindly belittle the possibility of large-scale reprisals against the South Vietnamese and Cambodians, whose only crime was their quest for freedom, must not be permitted to forget the mass slaughter at Hue or Dak Son, or the estimated 36,000 civilians killed by communist terrorists between 1957 and 1971. Those are parts of recent history. The liberal, of course, sneers that the Stalinist purges or even the Chinese mass executions of the early 1950s are no longer communist policy.
While some people may argue over the semantics of the term bloodbath, the sad case of Hue certainly meets my definition of the term. Some bodies were mutilated and others were found in conditions indicating that death had been caused by being buried alive.
Among those found were Mr. Tran Dien, a senator in South Vietnam’s National Assembly; four officials of the Vietnam Nationalist Party; hamlet chiefs; wives, teachers, shopkeepers, students and children.
Dak Son, a hamlet of 2,000 Montagnard people consisting mostly of unarmed women and children and defended by a small militia, was attacked by the Vietcong with machine guns, mortars, and rockets—and sixty flamethrowers.
The militiamen were surrounded and isolated, and for the rest of the night ignored by the marauders. The Vietcong were not intent on a military victory but on a cold-blooded, monumental massacre of the Dak Son inhabitants. Houses and residents were set afire by the Vietcong, along with everything in sight. Structures that withstood the fiery attack were leveled by grenades. According to a Senate report, 252 of the unarmed Montagnards were murdered and another 100 captured; 500 were missing. The victims were almost all women and children.
To be sure, efforts were made by publications such as theU.S. News & World Report, Reader’s Digest, National Observer and the I>Chicago Tribune to publicize the hard-to-believe brutality of the Vietnamese communists.
In his book, The Vietcong Strategy of Terror, Douglas Pike predicted that if the communists won decisively in South Vietnam they would clear out the foreign newsmen and put up a curtain of ignorance. In this way, Pike stated, the communists in Vietnam would create a silence and the world would call it peace.
On a broader scale, in Russia, in Red China—wherever communism reigns—the communists create the silence of the grave, and a decaying, shrinking free world calls it peace.
3. Deadly Illusions
There is really only one basic political issue facing our nation. It is also a social issue and at the same time, a moral one. It affects each of us. That issue is the survival of America. This is far more important than those issues which dominate our news and our thought, as well as the debates of Congress. Minimum wage, the price of wheat, interest rates, energy and the price of oil—all are important, of course, but they pale into insignificance when you consider the basic issue confronting us—the survival of our great nation.
For more than three decades I have been intimately involved in the issue of our national security and world communism. I served on the Un-American Activities Committee, which ultimately lost in its confrontation with the American left. I am now on the Intelligence Committee of the House, which has oversight of the FBI, CIA, and all of our intelligence operations. These judgments I make are based on more than casual consideration of the issues, our policies, and our enemies. I have written hundreds of articles, made hundreds of speeches, and appeared on several hundred campus forums on the issue of national security and communism. I am a military hawk, an anti-communist, and I am proud to be called a super-patriot.
My considered judgment is that America is in grave danger. We are rapidly becoming a paper tiger confronting a dangerous Russian bear. Unless we change our policies, the alternatives we will face within a few years are too awesome to discuss. Probably that simple fact is why the American left is so successful in our country. Everyone wants to think peace is just around the corner, that our leaders know what is going on, and that they are doing those things which are right and best. If it were only so.
Through the years the liberals have had a number of stock answers to those of us who warned of communism’s aggressive plans. Just the other day I read an article by Charles Yost, former United Nations ambassador and one of the countless numbers of liberals who have made our disastrous policy what is has been for the past thirty years. The heading on the article read, “War Would Not Be In Best Interest of Soviets.” Think about that one for minute. Add it to these specious arguments that have been propounded by the liberals since the close of World War Two:
- Nuclear War is unthinkable.
- Clausewitz is dead; war is no longer an instrument of foreign policy.
- Communism is no longer expansionist; the Soviet Union has become a status quo nation, just like the United States.
- U.S.-Soviet disagreements are the product of misunderstandings and natural friction between great powers, not any underlying irreconcilable difference.
- Within the U.S.S.R., the advocates of consumer goods are winning over the military hawks.
- Both sides have an interest in saving the world from nuclear holocaust.
- Both sides have enough missiles to destroy the world several times over, so we really don’t need any more weapons.
- The U.S. is as culpable for the cold war as the U.S.S.R.
- Our fear of communism has been inordinate; besides, they are mellowing.
- The Soviets actually fear us, and this accounts for most of their aggressive actions and military buildup.
- Build bridges of peace with trade and cultural exchange.
- Communists look at détente and arms negotiations in the same way we do.
- They don’t want superiority—just parity.
- SALT stopped the momentum of the Soviet rush toward military superiority.
- When all is done, they are just people like we are, with the same hopes, aspirations, fears, goals and desire for peace.
I have heard these arguments many times from some well-meaning clergyman, professor or peace activist in my travels throughout the country. With ardor and enthusiasm they have embraced each one of these panaceas.
But liberals are guilty of mirror imaging. They create the “facts” as they see them and then structure their policies on the mirror image of our adversary that they have created. These policies become their hopes, and these hopes become the bedrock to deal with the Soviet Union. No amount of hard facts deter them in their tenacity to see in the mirror a different communist state than which truly exists.
Is nuclear war unthinkable? How can you be absolutelysure? I don’t like the thought but there is no doubt in my mind that nuclear war is thinkable to the Soviets. They calculate that they would kill 100 million Americans by a first-rate strike, and we would kill only 10 million Russians in retaliation. They have spent billions on civil defense, dispersed their industry, buried their key facilities under tons of protective concrete. For what? It should be obvious.
Do the communists look at détente, peace, war, negotiations and co-existence the way we do? Of course not. And I need not repeat again their history of broken treaties and aggressive acts.
Has trade brought peace? Quite the opposite. The Soviets don’t want our consumer products; they want computers and highly sophisticated tools, planning equipment, heavy tooling equipment, geophysical equipment, heavy tooling machines, instruments and superior products.
The Carter administration almost agreed to sell them our most advanced computers. Technology and capital are flowing to our enemies. Stupidity and greed must be at the heart of this building of our enemy’s industrial-military complex by American industry!
Are the Russian people “just like we are?” Their history is not our history. Russia is not America. They have had a history of internal repression from the time of the Czars through the 60 years of communist tyranny. The hardest thing for the liberal to understand is why the Soviets would want to move ahead of us militarily. Secretary of Defense McNamara continually based his disastrous policies on the notion that they did not want to be superior. In fact, during those days he often said that our superiority was a cause of tension. “Let them catch up with us,” I heard him say, “and that will bring stability.” What he couldn’t understand was when they caught up with us, they would not stop but forge ahead. That is what they are doing today.
A liberal cliché that is surfacing regularly now gives another of their handy-dandy answers, this time to the rising specter of communism in Western Europe. We hear the term Eurocommunism and the apologists for the Reds are quick to tell you that this is something special. Unlike Asia or Eastern Europe, communism will work within the system, with western concepts of democracy, etc. Nonsense. Communists historically work within the system until they can kill off enough people to control the state. They have always sought coalition governments first, absolute control after. Yet these apologists throw the word Eurocommunism around as if it is something to comfort you if you worry.
Don’t they ever learn? Check the record. Every communist party boss in Eastern Europe gave the solemn promise that parliamentary government would be assured and that their brand of communism would be different. Look at what exists there today. They came to understand the Russian commitment to their “independence” when the tanks rolled into Hungary in 1956 and into Czechoslovakia in 1968.
The fact that these policy declarations are untrue at minimum and foolish and dangerous at worst have had little impact on the professors, clergymen, anti-war activists and other liberals who walk in lock step with those who declare they can negotiate with the communists.
Propaganda is the better and more accurate word for all this. The American people have been successfully propagandized by the left for twenty-five years. The anti-communists are now the radicals who endanger peace. The apologists are the true forward-looking leaders who will bring peace. Up is down, down is up. Fair is foul, safe is out. Subtly the liberal has downgraded America, changed the true face of our communist enemy, and brought us to a position in 1978 where we face a clear and present danger.
In no area can we more clearly trace the decline of U.S. military superiority than in our basic declaratory policy—that is, statements of our government leaders over the past twenty-five years on military policy toward the Soviet threat and our own capabilities. Trace this decline in declaratory policy:
- MASSIVE RETALIATION—In the 1950s, our avowed policy was for a massive retaliation against an enemy, whether we were confronted with regional or local aggression of any type. We were clearly superior. In 1954 we had no throw weight in missiles, but we had 1,500 B-47s and 500 B-42s. The U.S.S.R. had few bombers and few missiles, and that nation could not stand up in any type of confrontation. All this began to change with the McNamara policies of the 1960s.
- SURE DESTRUCTION POLICY—This came in 1965. The U.S.S.R. deployed missile forces after the Cuban missile crisis a few years before. The United States talked for the first time in terms of damage to our own population. Secretary McNamara began the phase-out of our bombers, and, at this point, our superiority began to deteriorate.
- MUTUAL ASSURED DESTRUCTION (announced by Secretary McNamara in 1967)—The Soviets gained parity and for the first time they had more deployed throw weight in missiles than the United States. The U.S.S.R. clearly had momentum, and we lost it. At this point the U.S.S.R. sought a SALT agreement on the grounds that they could stop our ABM and MIRV, while the liberals in the Congress were scuttling both and telling our people we could hold down the U.S.S.R. momentum by a SALT accord. Our imbalance got worse, so we again changed our policies.
- STRATEGIC SUFFICIENCY (announced by President Nixon in 1969 at the United Nations)—Suddenly we had passed to “sufficiency,” whatever that was, while the U.S.S.R. was rapidly moving ahead.
- ESSENTIAL EQUIVALENCE (Secretary Schlesinger, 1974)—This was the beginning of the whistling in the dark. The U.S.S.R. in the meantime had started a massive civil defense program, spending billions of dollars and circumventing the avowed purposes of the ABM treaty.
- ROUGH EQUIVALENCE (Secretary Rumsfeld, 1976)—This policy was vague and couched in terms of hopes of what the U.S. could do, rather than a firm statement of our ability to deter an aggressor.
- MORE OR LESS EQUAL (Secretary Harold Brown, May, 1977)—At this point, the Soviet Union is clearly superior. Its leaders believe their civil defense is successful and that there is no way that we can deter them.
What I am saying is that we have gone from a position of superiority to a situation where the U.S. has no real declaratory policy today. A bluff will not work with the Soviets in 1978. It is fair to say that our declaratory policies have followed our military realities. The military realities today are that we are falling behind and that we are in a very precarious position. Today the U.S.S.R. would go into a confrontation with superiority in throw weight and megatonnage. We have some superiority in number of warheads and possibly in accuracy. Above all, however, the Soviets do not think a nuclear war is unthinkable, and they think they can win. They see us retreating everywhere—Panama, the United Nations, Africa—and believe their historical prophecies are correct.
In the late 1950s, our early defenses were based on our bombers and the clear superiority we had. We had no real early warning system because we didn’t need one. We had massive retaliation and that was adequate. Sputnik then led to the series of ICBMs. The Soviets had forged ahead of us in this race. Now, in the late 1970s, we are in a very different position. Unless it is turned around, the 1980s will find us subject to the alternatives of blackmail or ceding to the Soviet Union hegemony throughout most of the world. If not war.
Indeed, we have gone from the position of superiority to where we must base our security on perceived friendly intentions of the Soviets. In the United States, it is fair to say that politically, economically and socially it is a bad risk to reverse the trend. President Carter gives no indication of reversing this trend. We continually hear statements of hoping for the best, wishing for the best, and hoping that the Soviets’ intentions are honorable. Soon we will be hoping that they leave us alone.
The so-called Carter initiative is based on the strange and dangerous notion that if we can but assuage Russian fear of the United States by self-imposed restraint, we may some day, somehow, induce like behavior from the Russians. I never thought the Nixon-Ford administrations were tough enough, but the Carter initiatives to date have been unbelievably weak.
In 1964, we proposed a freeze on nuclear weapons. The Soviets said nyet. It would freeze them into inferiority. We gave up on on-sight verification and other major points and now they are ahead of us and can make their own proposals in all areas of military negotiation.
In 1968, their aim was parity. They did not foresee that we would allow them to achieve superiority. They also didn’t estimate the impact of the Vietnamese war on our foreign policy and public attitudes.
During the 1950s and ’60s, overt influence was limited to the Eastern bloc with their clandestine subversive operations worldwide. Not so now. They use their proxy nations to fight wars as before, but they surface in the Horn of Africa, the Middle East and even in Southern Africa. The Soviets have always applied military means to every problem, and with their increasing strength and superiority they are now in a position to influence almost any situation anywhere in the world. The 1980s will be different—the Soviets think things will be on their terms and we will back down. All of this projection of Soviet Forces into sensitive areas is based on their ascending military power.
As a Broadway critic once wrote after viewing a play, “A creeping paralysis set in which turned out to be the plot.” Time after time, our liberal dominated State Department analysts underestimate Soviet technological breakthroughs. Sound military advice is blue penciled, muzzled by the State Department, the disarmament clique and the liberal anti-war crowd which dominates Washington. The paralysis is real. Time is short.
Today we are in the position of not having a realistic alternative to détente except a massive buildup of our military forces. The liberals have us on the détente track and yet we cannot bargain without strategic superiority—something we do not now have. It’s a sad fact that the United States is not facing the critical defense shortcomings we have but will negotiate from weakness. Our leaders will not face the tough alternatives and warn the American people.
If we are to make nuclear war more unthinkable, then we must have a superior defense. We must have anti-satellite missiles. We must not yield the technological advantage to our enemies.
Above all, we must start to look at the facts. Theories, ideas, policies can be debated. Facts are neutral and do not vary. The fact is clear: the Soviets have continued in their announced plan for world domination. Through our negligence, they have moved from a position of inferiority to one in which they are becoming the number one military power in the world. Even those who do not believe they have passed us agree that their movement has been upward, ever upward. No one doubts the fact that the Soviets have conducted a massive buildup in the last decade. The only argument is over why.
Whatever their faults, the Soviets have been quite candid. They faithfully preached their party line to the peasants and workers in Russia. It is there for everyone to read. It calls for their victory over us. Yet our liberal friends look the other way and base their policies on what some diplomat told them over caviar or while sharing a drink at the United Nations.
Historically, it looks like it was stupid for the Japanese to attack us or for Hitler to attack the West. Why did they do it? Their perceptions of the strength and will of their adversaries! The Japanese have told us since 1945 that they thought we were at a weakened position. Our nation was isolationist, anti-military. What if the Soviets make the same assessment in the future?
As a people we are too tolerant. We truly believe other societies—even atheistic communism—are friendly, like ours. We have a native arrogance that holds we can always avert disaster at the last minute. Ours is an open society; the Soviet Union is a closed one. They can penetrate our colleges, news media, political circles. We cannot do the same.
It is not pleasant to tell you that, short of a reversal of our present policies and leadership which will bring us back to military superiority, we face the awesome choices between war and blackmail. These are surely the alternatives. We are gradually acquiescing under pressure to the Soviets. Their grand strategy has not changed. It is on course. To ignore their true intentions and capabilities can be disastrous. Former safety in time, distance and superiority has vanished. We stand at a crossroads in history with only one course really available—a return to American superiority.
I believe the Soviets are ahead of us in all too many strategic areas. The politics of regaining superiority is not pleasant to consider. It will call for sacrifice. I may be wrong, you argue. Yes, I may be. If I am wrong we will have spent billions of dollars and be strong militarily. On the other hand, if those who lead us toward détente are wrong, you and your children will be counting in Russian rubles.
America is in danger and we are rapidly reaching a place where it will be too late to turn back toward the policies which can make us superior and insure our ability to keep the peace. We should at least think of this most important issue—survival—while there is still time.
4. How We Built Soviet Might
Korea, Hungary, Cuba, Vietnam, Czechoslovakia, the Middle East – the presence of the Soviet Union has be felt in all these and many other places. In none of them has the Soviet Union been a promoter of peace. Soviet space shots, Soviet missiles, Soviet invasions, and Soviet aid to other aggressive countries have all depended on their ability to produce weapons of war, and on their technology.
Perhaps as much as 90% to 95% of Soviet technology came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. Now this may sound incredible, but the facts substantiate the claim. Soviet aggression is dependent upon American-made and Western-made technology. In effect, the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union its industrial and military capabilities. This massive construction job has taken fifty years. Since the Russian Revolution in 1917, this job has been carried out through trade and the sale of plants, equipment and technical assistance.
By listening to administration spokesmen or some newspaper pundits, you get the impression that trade with Soviets in 1973 is some new miracle cure for the world’s—and particularly America’s—problems.
That is not quite accurate.
Peace through trade?
The idea that trade with the Soviets might bring peace goes back to 1917. The earliest proposal is dated December, 1917, just a few weeks after the start of the Bolshevik Revolution. It was implemented in 1920, while the Bolsheviks held power. They needed foreign supplies to survive.
Last year, the Soviets needed wheat. They only had one place to purchase that wheat—the United States. Did our government use that Soviet need to extract something for the United States in return? Our government did not. Instead, the American taxpayers were forced to subsidize the Soviet wheat deal with several hundred million dollars of their tax money.
Seemingly not learning anything from the wheat deal, the administration has now asked for the most-favored nation status and other concessions for the Soviets. When some have suggested that the Soviets should also give something in return, the State Department’s reply has been that we cannot get involved in the internal affairs of the Soviet Union. There seems to be no similar prohibition about getting involved in the internal affairs of Rhodesia and other friendly nations.
The American financial newspapers give their accounts of further credits from the Export-Import Bank, American government agencies and American banks. An estimated $200 million in validated claims is owed by the Kremlin to United States citizens.
The history of our construction of the Soviet Union has been blacked out—much of the key information is still classified—along with the other mistakes of the Washington bureaucracy.
Fifty years of dealing with the Soviets has been an economic success for the USSR and a political and economic disaster for the United States. It has not stopped war, it has not given us peace. It has given the Soviets increased industrial and military power and the ability to accomplish its never-ceasing goal of world domination.
The United States is spending billions of dollars a year on defense; a defense that is made necessary by the threat and aggression of the Soviet Union and other communist countries. While we are spending billions on defense, we still help build that enemy we are defending against.
Let us take a look at a statement made by Stalin to Ambassador Averell Harriman. This is what Harriman told the State Department that Stalin said to him: “About two-thirds of all the large industrial enterprises in the Soviet Union had been built with United States help or technical assistance.”
That is right. In Stalin’s own words, two-thirds of the Soviet large industry was made with U.S. help. By the way, today Harriman is still in favor of trade with the Soviet Union. Another interesting point is that the remaining third was built with considerable help from firms in Europe, including Germany, Britain, France and Italy.
Stalin could have also said that explosive and ammunition plants originated in the United States. From 1930 to 1945, only two major items, SK-B synthetic rubber and the Ramzin once-through boiler, and a handful of lesser designs can be accurately considered the result of Soviet technology. Almost ever other important technological advance and skill was transferred from the West.
At least 218 firms from the West were involved in the building of Soviet industry and military capability from 1930 to 1945. Of this number, 139 were American. The Western buildup of Soviet technology helped make possible Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe, the Berlin blockade, and Soviet aid to North Korea and Communist China while they were fighting in the United States. The massive technological assistance continues right down to the present day.
Now the Soviet Union has the ability to create any kind of military machine, to ship missiles to Cuba, to supply arms to North Vietnam or to the foes of Israel. And all this depends on its domestic industry. In the Soviet Union about three-fourths of the military budget goes on purchases from the Soviet Union.
This expenditure in Soviet industry makes sense. No army has a machine that churns out tanks. Tanks are made from alloy steel, plastics, rubber and other materials. The alloy steel, plastics and rubber are made in Soviet factories to military specifications, just like in the United States.
Missiles are not produced on missile-making machines. Missiles are fabricated from aluminum alloys, stainless steel, electrical wiring, pumps and so forth. Those things are made in Soviet factories too.
In other words, the Soviet military gets its component parts and materials from Soviet industry. There is a Soviet military-industrial complex just as in our country. The Soviet military base depends on the Soviet industrial base, just as in our country. Steel can be used for consumer goods or weapons, just as in our country, when we build their industrial capacity.
This kind of reasoning makes sense to the man in the street. The farmer in Ohio knows what I mean. The taxi driver in New York knows what I mean. But the policy makers in Washington do not accept this kind of common sense reasoning, and never have.
Advanced weapon technology relies on sophisticated computers. Between 1959 and 1970, General Electric, through its European subsidiaries, sold to the Soviet Union a number of medium capacity computers. Soviet computer technology has always been years behind that of the West. GE has been helping the Soviets progress. IBM and RCA through subsidiaries have also sold computers to the Soviets. Computers would be the main purchase in any Kissinger-promoted trade expansion with our enemy.
The Soviets also have the largest iron and steel plant in the world. It is a copy of the U.S. Steel plant in Gary, Indiana. In fact, all Soviet iron and steel technology comes from the United States and its allies. The Soviets use open hearths, American electric furnaces, American wide strip mills, Sendzimir mills and so on, all developed in the West and shipped as peaceful trade.
Additionally, all Soviet tube and pipe-making technology comes from the United States and its allies. If you know anyone in the space business, ask them how many miles of tubes and pipes go into a missile.
The Soviets also have the largest merchant marine in the world, about 6,000 ships. I have the specifications for each ship. About two-thirds of them were built outside the Soviet Union. About four-fifths of the engines for those ships were also built outside that country.
There are no ship engines of Soviet design. Those build inside the USSR are built with foreign technical assistance. The ships that carried Soviet missiles to Cuba tens years ago had Danish engines made at Bryansk plant in the Soviet Union. About 100 Soviet ships were used on the Haiphong run to carry Soviet weapons and supplies for Hanoi’s annual aggression. I was able to identify 84 of these ships. None of the main engines in them were designed and manufactured inside the USSR. All the larger and faster vessels on the Haiphong run were built outside the Soviet Union. All shipbuilding technology in the USSR comes directly or indirectly from the United States and its NATO allies.
If you think that’s bad, let us take one industry in more detail: motor vehicles.
All Soviet automobile, truck and engine technology comes from the West. Chiefly, that technology comes from the United States. The Soviet military has more than 300,000 trucks, all from U.S.-built plants.
Up to 1960 the largest motor vehicle plant in the USSR was at Gorki. Gorki produces many of the trucks American pilots used to see on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, or would see now if they were flying there. Gorki produces the chassis for the GAZ-69 rocket launcher used against Israel. Gorki produces the Soviet version of the Jeep and a half dozen other military vehicles. These same vehicles were used this month in the Arab attack on Israel.
And Gorki was built by the Ford Motor Company as peaceful trade.
In 1968, we had the so-called Fiat Deal to build a plant at Volgograd, three times larger than Gorki. Dean Rusk and Walt Rostow told Congress and the American public that this was peaceful trade. They said the Fiat plant could not produce military vehicles.
Let us not kid ourselves. Any automobile manufacturing plant can produce military vehicles. I can show anyone who is interested the technical specifications of a proven military vehicle, with cross-country capability—using the same capacity engine as the Russian Fiat plant produces. But the term Fiat Deal is misleading. Fiat in Italy does not make automobile manufacturing equipment; Fiat plants in Italy have U.S. equipment. Fiat did send 1,000 men to Russian for erection of the plant, but over half the equipment came from the United States.
So in the middle of a war that at that time had killed 46,000 Americans and countless Vietnamese with Soviet weapons and supplies, the Johnson administration doubled Soviet output. These are the uncontroverted facts. The Johnson administration also supplied false information to Congress and to the American people.
In 1971, the Soviets received equipment and technology for the largest heavy truck plant in the world. It was known as the Kama River plant. It will produce 100,000 heavy ten-ton trucks a year, and that is more than all U.S. manufacturers put together. This will also be the largest plant in the world. Period. It will occupy thirty-six square miles.
Will the Kama truck plant have military capability? The Soviets themselves have answered this one. The Kama truck will be 50% more productive than the Zil-130 truck. Well, that is nice, because that truck is a standard Soviet army truck, the kind used in Vietnam and in the Middle East.
Who built the Zil plant? A Detroit firm. Who is building the Kama truck factory? That is classified as secret by the Washington policy makers. I do not have to tell you why. These files are all classified. I cannot get them declassified. The government will supply military technology to the Soviets, but it gets a little uptight about the public finding out. I can understand that.
Of course, it takes a great deal of self-confidence to admit in writing that you are building factories to produce weapons and supplies for a country providing weapons and supplies to kill Americans, Israelis and Vietnamese.
Many people as individuals have protested our suicidal policies. What happens? Well, if you are in Congress, you probably get the strong arm put on you.
If you are in the liberal academic world, you soon find it is alright to protest U.S. assistance to the South Vietnamese, but never, never to protest U.S. help to the Soviets. Forget about the Russian academics being persecuted or the Jews who can not emigrate. We must not say unkind things about the Soviets.
If you press for an explanation, what do they tell you? First, you get the Fulbright line. This is peaceful trade. The Soviets are powerful. They have their own technology. This is a way to build friendship. It is a way to a new world order.
This is demonstrably false. The Soviet tanks in An Loc are not refugees from the Pasadena Rose Bowl parade. The Soviet ships that carry arms to Haiphong are not peaceful. They have weapons on board, not flower children or Russian tourists.
Second, if you do not buy that line you are told, “The Soviets are mellowing.” This is equally false.
The killing in Israel and Vietnam with Soviet weapons does not suggest mellowing. It suggests premeditated aggression. Today – now – the Soviets are sending more arms to the Middle East. For what purpose? To put in a museum?
No one has ever presented hard evidence that trade leads to peace. Why not? Because there is no such evidence. It is an illusion. Our trade in the 1930s with war-bent Japan proved that.
It is true, however, that peace leads to trade. But that is different from what is occurring today. You first need peace and then you can trade. That does not mean if you trade you will get peace. But that seems too logical for the Washington policy makers and it is not what the politicians and their business backers want anyway.
Trade with Germany doubled before World War Two. Did it stop World War Two? Trade with Japan increased before the war. Did it stop the war?
What was in this German and Japanese trade? The same means for war that we are now supplying the Soviets. The Japanese air force after 1934 depended on U.S. technology. And much of the pushing for Soviet trade today comes from the same groups that were pushing for trade with Hitler and Tojo thirty-five years ago.
The Russian communist party is not mellowing. Concentration camps are still there. The mental hospitals take the overload. Persecution of the Baptists and other Christians continue. Harassment of Jews goes on, and persecution of dissidents continue too.
The only mellowing is when a Harriman and a Rockefeller get together with the bosses in the Kremlin. Some think that is good for business, but it is not much help if you were a GI at the other end of a Soviet rocket in Vietnam.
There is even a question whether trade with the Soviets is good for business. In 1926, a leading Soviet spokesman had this to say about East-West trade and Western concessions in the Soviet Union: “On the one hand, we admit capitalist elements, we condescend to collaborate with them; on the other hand, our objective is to eliminate completely, to conquer them, to squash them economically as well as socially. It is a furious battle in which blood may necessarily be spilled.”
Immediately preceding Brezhnev’s recent visit to the United States, a leader of the communist party in Moscow stated: “In politics you may conclude alliances with the devil himself if you are certain that you can cheat the devil.”
The Soviets, like Hitler in his book Mein Kampf, are telling us their plans, but too many in the West refuse to believe the Soviets, just as in the 1930s, when many people would not believe Hitler’s own words.
But no one else cares. Not Washington. Not big business. Not the Republican party. Not the Democratic party. Few of us buck the tide to warn you.
And, meanwhile, 100,000 Americans have been killed in Vietnam and Korea – by our own technology.
The only response from Washington and each administration is the effort to hush up the scandal. These are things not to be talked about. The professional smokescreen – again – about the peaceful trade continues.
We can stop the Soviets and their friends in Hanoi, in the Middle East, in Cuba or anywhere, anytime we want to, without using a single gun or anything more dangerous than a piece of paper or telephone call. We have Soviet technical dependence as an instrument of world peace. The most humane weapon that can be conceived.
We have always had that option. We have never used it. Americans should wonder why.
5. The Holocaust Revisited
The television series Holocaust brings back to us the mass deportations and murders of the Third Reich under Adolf Hitler. Like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago, the series and the book on which it was based reminds me of the horrors of a government given absolute power over its people, and guided by nothing but fanaticism.
But have we learned anything from the Nazi holocaust of the 1930s and 1940s? Have we learned anything from the steady stream of enslaved, tortured, and maimed millions of human beings described at such enormous personal cost by Solzhenitsyn?
It is a terrible thing to suffer and to die. But, according to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, some of the tragedy of Gulag and Buchenwald could have served some useful purpose if only we of the next generation had learned from these outrages. If we learn nothing, then all those victims, all the murdered and the physically and psychologically maimed, suffered completely in vain. If the whitewashes of the Communist regimes prevail, then these victims died for no purpose.
What exactly are the lessons we must learn and act on to redeem the sufferings of those who were the victims of the holocaust? What was the message of that traumatic experience? Unfortunately, the narrow message of many liberals seems to be that we only need watch for a German-speaking dictator who is anti-semitic. What about a black dictator who is anti-white? Or even anti-black? More importantly, what about present-day communism with its brutal, repressive record?
Did Solzhenitsyn survive the agonies of Gulag so that we would be on the lookout for a Russian dictator named Stalin? If the question sounds absurd, consider this: What other lesson has the liberal establishment learned about slaughter and oppression? This year, 1978, a prominent op-ed article in the New York Times urged that we not criticize the totalitarian regime of Red China. We must ignore all the killings, all the censorship, all the slave-driving. “We should hesitate to condemn them as less moral,” said Robert W. Barnett in this incredible piece, “merely because they are different.”
No admirer of Hitler or even the most abject apologist for Stalin ever made a more brazen, sweeping defense of the masters of Gulag or Buchenwald than the New York Times did this very year for its pet totalitarians in Peking. In the same liberal organ which demands “human rights over property rights” when dealing with South Africa, Barnett’s first sentence includes this snide and effete question: “Should we make Peking’s record in handling what Americans call the ‘human rights’ of the Chinese people an obstacle to normalizing diplomatic relations…?” What if those words had appeared in a column written by a South African columnist: “the so-called human rights of black people?” Does anyone believe the column would have appeared in The New York Times? Of course not! No South African I know would ever write such a thing.
To treat human rights and dignity in such a cavalier manner—when Red China is the oppressor—Is a negation of the very moral values we live by, and an invitation back to the horrors of Gulag and Auschwitz. But the New York Timesand other liberal media, along with their leftist allies in and out of government, refuse to recognize this fact when it applies to the communists.
Liberals have not learned a thing. During the 1930s, both conservatives and liberals repeatedly condemned Hitler’s policies. But liberals praised Stalin. They regularly visited his Russia, where at that very moment millions of small farmers were being starved to death. The Gulag swallowed millions—thousands every day.
Perhaps the television series Holocaust could be one of the most worthwhile lessons ever presented. It could be an important reminder of yesterday’s evils. But the same network which produced the show has joined in the same conspiracy of silence on the slaughter of over a million Cambodians. The holocaust is going on right now! Leo Cherne, of the International Rescue Commission, which was founded in 1933 to help refugees from Nazi Germany, says, “…No circumstances since the death camps of Germany more nearly describe the circumstances which presently exist in Cambodia.” But the liberal silence, from Television networks to the State Department, is as absolute on the Cambodian holocaust as it was in the Stalinist and Maoist bloodbaths.
Instead of being part of a warning against tyranny and totalitarianism, a lesson we need desperately in this country today, Holocaust seems to serve as a salving of the media conscience. By loudly and bravely attacking a horror perpetrated by a regime long since destroyed, NBC seems to be covering its present moral cowardice on the murder and oppression of communist regimes. How many columnists have written that “we must not forget,” but in their myopic vision showed that they never knew in the first place.
The message of Holocaust is clear. First, Hitler didn’t operate through limited, local government. The Nazis were not township trustees. They were the agents of a strong central government. Those who advocate strong, all-powerful centralized government spawn the mechanism that makes tyranny possible. Checks and balances, limited central government, and strong local government make Auschwitz and Gulag a virtual impossibility.
Second, mass executions of a people are a blot on humanity and those who would cover up atrocities of the type that have been perpetrated by the communists serve only to induce more holocausts. In the Soviet Union and Red China alone, executions and purges would total three to four times the number of human beings exterminated by Hitler. Why do the media and the liberal community give this genocide only passing attention? Why is it page 28 news?
Those who love freedom can only be sickened when the champagne glasses are tipped and our Presidents toast Mao, Khruschev, Ceausescu, Tito and the like. While perfection is nowhere to be found in the world today, at least some norms of decency should be observed. A Castro can attract the plaudits of a Senator McGovern. That is bad enough, but when our government officially puts its stamp of approval on that murderous bandit, it becomes an insult to all America. This is not a partisan issue. History shows folly is bipartisan. All of our recent Presidents, including Carter, have gone too far in making accommodations to communist regimes while in pursuit of an elusive goal of peace.
As the liberals in government and the media dispassionately praise the killers and ignore the dying, we at least should remember the real lessons of yesterday’s tragedies. If the victims described in Gulag andHolocaust could speak, they would say, “Not again, oh, dear Lord. Please, not again!”
6. How We Lost Military Superiority
It would probably be considered an over-generalization to say that just one major policy change would dramatically affect the future of this country and signal the beginning of an effort to solve all the major problems which face us, domestic and foreign. On the basis of my experience fighting many battles in Congress over the past decade, however, I can honestly say that one basic change in policy could do just this.
The change? We must absolutely reassert American self-interest as our number one priority. This means rescuing basic American interests which are not now being advocated and, across the board, thinking first in terms of what is best for America.
Why is it so important, you say? For more than twenty-five years our overriding government policy has been to subordinate basic American interests. Our leaders worry much more about “what they will think” in New Delhi or Timbuktu instead of what it right or our own interests. These leaders are more inclined to put foreign aid and give-away programs on the highest priority. Allowing foreign countries to dump their products in America has taken priority over protection of American businesses and the jobs of American workers. How did this happen? It happened gradually, over a period of time and in an era when, even though many of us protested, it was a legitimate exercise of traditional American benevolence. At the close of the Second World War, the United States was preeminent and there was little question of our ability to accomplish broad objectives. We set out to rebuild the nations we had defeated in war. Then we set out on the even greater task of helping rebuild the entire free world. Next we took in those who neither free nor our friends.
In the 1950s, we had the only currency that was really significant. We had the superior military power. We had an industrial capacity intact while the rest of the industrial world had been ravished. We had the ability to produce food in abundance. All of our major governmental policies were directed toward helping the rest of the world—monetary, agricultural, tax, trade, aid, labor, military and diplomatic.
Now, in 1975, some twenty-five years later, the entire situation has changed. The dollar is not the only standard in the world. We are not the only industrial might, and it is debatable whether we are even the superior military might. We suffer from inflation and a staggering tax burden on our people. Yet for the most part we continue the same burden on our taxpayers as reflected in our monetary, agricultural, tax, trade, aid, labor, military and diplomatic policies.
Almost every root problem of our economic dilemma ranging from inflation to unemployment can be traced to these policies which have continued despite our decreased ability to pay for them. The Federal government has run up more than 300 billion dollars in national debt during this period, and yet it is advocated that we borrow money to give it away on projects and grandiose schemes overseas.
It seems to me that our presidents—both Democrat and Republican—advocate cutting domestic programs before they will cut foreign aid. In fact, foreign aid has become one of the real sacred cows, with more than thirty spigots through which we pour our tax dollars into foreign countries. Some in direct foreign aid and others in international monetary funds, support agreements, and so forth. These policies are nothing short of a national disgrace.
What has happened in recent years is even worse than the foreign aid travesty. As more and more Congressional resistance developed to direct foreign aid grants through appropriation of taxpayers’ money, liberal-minded internationalists devised an even better means of accomplishing the same objective: Back door foreign aid through trade concessions which helped foreign countries to the disadvantage of American workers and industry. Some of this is tied to the so-called consumer movement which advocates the importation of cheap foreign goods to “give the consumer a break.” They forget the working man who must go on the unemployment rolls and the businesses which must close their doors. In our section of the country we witnessed this in the glass and pottery industries. To them you can add a long list in specialty steels, wire, nails, and now even radios, small appliances and a vast host of electronic items. The multinational company also developed as a part of this overall policy.
The balance of payments deficit, the drain on our gold supply, monetary instability, unemployment—just about all our recurring problems can be traced to a foreign trade policy which puts foreign interests first, American interests last.
If trade is not truly free, then it should be at least fair. Yet as we see all too clearly, fair trade does not in fact exist. Our trade policies have enabled imported goods to expand their share in our markets at the expense of our own products, while we are forbidden to exercise the same advantage in foreign markets. Obviously, today’s world is far different from what it was forty, twenty or even ten years ago. Doesn’t common sense dictate that we reform our tariff and trade policies to reflect the realities of the present situation?
The most war-ravaged nations have become economic giants. As these countries have taken advantage of our long outdated open market policies, they have developed preferential treatment trade agreements, quotas, complex licensing procedures and other nontariff restrictions on imports from the United States. The nontariff barriers are literally more important than the tariffs, and our so-called reciprocal trade agreements are anything but that. The willingness of other nations to make use of our liberal market conditions has not been matched by an equal willingness to open their own markets under similar terms.
There is no longer any need for the United States to compete with one hand tied behind her back. Quite frankly, I’m not sure there ever was any need for us to compete from such a disadvantaged position. It should have been clear that our trade practices—which were dominated by concessions and a reverse form of foreign aid—were not in the best interests of our country. Worse, they merely aggravated our economic problems. For more than a decade I have been fighting the battle for a trade policy which puts our own interests first.
Our own basic interests have been subordinated in the era of détente. We open credits to the Soviet Union and sell them our grain at bargain prices. We get little more than a pair of pandas from the Chinese communists for the most important thing they could get—American recognition and its accompanying respectability. Castro shouts at us and our State Department starts talking concessions. Our legitimate interests in the Canal Zone are not considered as our diplomats talk of giving it back to the Panamanians. Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) end up freezing us into an inferior position with the USSR. We are living in a fools’ paradise!
The policies of the last twenty-five years have been nothing more than giving away our national treasury. Take food, for example. This constitutes the greatest asset we have to offset the dollar drain. Yet our liberal international policies look upon food as something we GIVE AWAY. We recently forgave a debt of over $2 billion to India for food and at a time when we have a trade balance deficit and a mounting national debt. Do we owe this to India? Or should our own self-interest have some small consideration?
We don’t have to prove to anybody that we are a generous people. If Germany and Japan had won the Second World War, would they have done what we did? What other country has tried to do so much as the United States? The time has come to realize we can’t match our 1950-1965 generosity as policeman, banker, provider for the entire world. I believe we can still be a good friend and neighbor, but we can put our own interests first. In fact, it is mandatory that we do it if we are to maintain our necessary position of world leadership at a time when communism still poses a threat.
Reassertion of American self-interest and rescuing our own interests can make sure we head into the third century of our existence with a strong and free government. The signs are there.
7. Why We Need Military Superiority
Why do we need nuclear superiority? Because, unfortunately, we live in a world where there are international criminals who take advantage of weakness. The evidence of all recorded history provides emphatic proof that weakness invites attack and that the best way to live in peace and freedom is through superior military strength.
Luke 11:21 tells us, “When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace.”
So long as there are criminals in our streets, we will need to protect ourselves with local police. So long as there are international criminals in possession of giant nuclear weapons, we will need U.S. nuclear superiority. History, logic, and common-sense all tell us that the safest road to peace is through military superiority.
Hitler started World War Two when he thought he could win quick, easy victories because the West was disarmed under the influence of the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the London and Washington naval disarmament treaties. The umbrella-carrying officials of 1939 naively thought that we had moved from an age of confrontation to a new age of negotiation. The negotiations at Munich, however, only convinced Hitler that England and France were too weak to resist and whetted his appetite to devour other countries.
We have been told by some spokesmen that parity, or nuclear equality, is enough to protect America because this would provide a balance of terror which neither side would dare to upset. For some nations in some circumstances, where both sides act according to the Golden Rule or the Marquis of Queensbury rules for a fair fight, parity might be adequate. But everyone knows the United States will never strike first, whereas the Soviets have a long history of always striking first—and without warning. The Soviets committed surprise, sneak attacks on Poland and then on Finland in 1939, on Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia in 1940, on Hungary in 1956, and on Czechoslovakia in 1968.
The test of US nuclear strength is not our before-attack inventory, but how much nuclear power we would have left after a surprise Soviet attack. Under conditions of parity, the side which has a policy of surprise attack has at least a two-to-one advantage over the side which does not practice surprise attacks. Therefore the only rational policy is for the United States to have decisive superiority known in advance by all prospective aggressors. As the father of our country, George Washington, said, “If we desire to secure peace…it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.”
Under the Eisenhower administration, military superiority was our established and recognized national defense policy. This policy worked. It was a proven success. President Eisenhower was not afraid of pacifist catcalls about “escalating the arms race.” He preached and practiced the policy of overwhelming superiority. The Eisenhower years were the years when we ordered all our Minutemen missiles, our Atlas and Titan missiles, our Polaris submarines, and our B-52 bombers. Virtually every strategic nuclear weapon which protects the United States today, in 1972, was built or ordered under the Eisenhower administration.
The results of this policy were plain to see. No American boy was sent to die in any foreign war. No fifth-rate dictatorship such as North Korea captured any U.S. ships, such as the Pueblo, on the high seas. No Soviet missiles or submarines threatened us from Cuba. No Cuban pirates hijacked ships off the coast of Florida and imprisoned American citizens. In short, the United States was safe.
When the Kennedy-Johnson administration took office in January, 1961, it inherited the vast strategic superiority built up under the Eisenhower administration. This is why we were successful at the time of the Cuban missile crisis in October, 1962. Let no one think that the Soviets took their missiles off their launching pads in Cuba merely because President Kennedy looked eyeball-to-eyeball to Khrushchev. The only reason why the Soviets backed down in that nuclear confrontation was that, after our U-2 flight discovered the Soviet missiles, our great Strategic Air Command went on airborne or 15-minuite alert with 50,000 megatons of nuclear striking power. We had a five-to-one superiority in that striking power, and the Soviets knew it.
As we look back on the years of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, we can see that the policy of strategic superiority was deliberately—although covertly—abandoned after the Cuban missile crisis. The years following the crisis saw a steady dismantling of U.S. nuclear power, even in the face of a large-scale buildup of nuclear weapons by the Soviet Union.
The rationale for this policy of scrapping U.S. nuclear striking power was laid out on April 29, 1960, by a New York investment banker named Paul Nitze. Speaking at the important Asilomar National Strategic Seminar in California before a distinguished audience of more than 500 scholars and strategists, Nitze made these far-reaching proposals: First, that we abandon “a true class A nuclear capability”; and, second, that “we scrap the fixed base vulnerable systems that have their principal utility as components of a class A capability.”
As soon as Kennedy became President, Paul Nitze was brought into the Defense Department as assistant secretary of international security affairs. Consequently, he was promoted to secretary of the Navy, and finally to deputy secretary of defense. That was the No. 2 job in the Defense Department, second only to Robert McNamara.
Nitze’s 1960 Asilomar speech seemed incredible when he made it, and even for several years thereafter. As we look back with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that it was a perfect preview of the McNamara policies which were to be carried out during the eight years of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.
Here are the elements of the class A strategic nuclear power which McNamara and Nitze scrapped: three-fourths of our multi-megaton missiles—149 Atlas and Titan missiles; all our intermediate- and medium-range missiles, based in Europe and Turkey; three-fourths of our strategic bombers—30 B-52s, 1,400 B-47s, and 600 carrier heavy-attack bombers which were stripped of their nuclear weapons; the 24-megaton bomb, our largest weapon; our airborne alert, 23 anti-bomber missile batteries, called Nike-Hercules, and, finally, our missile and bomber bases close to Soviet borders, in Turkey, Italy, North America, and England.
Additionally, McNamara and Nitze abandoned or refused to build the second thousand Minuteman missiles which had originally been ordered by the Eisenhower administration; an advanced supersonic bomber which was actually built and successfully flown as early as 1965; an advanced bomber-interceptor; the Skybolt air-to-surface long-range missile; the anti-missile system; space weapons, such as the Soviet FOBS, and all plans to make our missiles mobile by putting them on surface ships and freight trains.
By 1967, our once overwhelming nuclear superiority was gone. The proof was provided by a report called The Changing Strategic Military Balance written by a distinguished committee headed General Bernard Schriever, who had been in charge of the development and deployment of all our Minuteman missiles. Published by the House Armed Services Committee, the report showed a comparison between the nuclear striking power of the United States and the Soviet Union. The Chart formed a large X. It showed that in 1962 the U.S. had a five-to-one superiority over the Soviets. Since that date, U.S. strength has gone steadily downhill, while Soviet strength has gone steadily upward. The chart also showed that 1967 was the crossover year when the United States and the Soviet Union were roughly equal in megatonnage delivery capability, or nuclear striking power. The chart then projected into the future and predicted that by 1971 the positions of the United States and Soviet Union would be completely reversed, with the Soviets having a five-to-one superiority.
In the presidential campaign of 1968, candidate Richard Nixon addressed himself forthrightly to this issue. He warned in a radio network broadcast on October 19 that the Johnson administration by “short-sighted defense policies” had dissipated the strategic advantage left by the Eisenhower administration. Continuing, Mr. Nixon warned that the Soviet Union has “very nearly achieved its goal of superiority in strategic nuclear weapons power.”
Mr. Nixon said that if elected President, he would undo the sweeping Pentagon reorganization of former Secretary of Defense McNamara.
These emphatic promises were a major reason why large numbers of voters believed “Nixon’s the one,” and voted for him in November, 1968.
So when the Nixon administration went into office, we expected it to move quickly to restore our superiority. We waited. And we waited. In December, 1970, the White House mailed out a brochure titled “The Nixon Administration’s First Two Years.” One page in this brochure was “Keeping America Strong.” The first section bragged about how President Nixon had “reordered priorities” from defense to social welfare. The second section told how his “reoriented defense” emphasized the Safeguard ABM which he substituted for Lyndon Johnson’s ABM. The fact is that the Nixon ABM called for defending only two sites; the Johnson ABM called for defending 12 sites. The third part of “Keeping America Strong” concerned the draft lottery system, which has nothing whatsoever to do with our overall military strength or superiority. Then, there was a blank space—the administration was unable to list even one action it had taken to restore U.S. superiority, as was solemnly promised.
President Nixon issued his state of the world message on February 25, 1971, a very lengthy document called “U.S. Foreign Policy for the 1970s.” This document was admittedly written by Henry Kissinger, who has been called the second most powerful man in our government. The state of the world message is written in very sophisticated language, but the meaning is clear to anyone who studies it. The decision by the Nixon administration was to pursue “a policy of strategic sufficiency rather than strategic superiority.” The message showed a chart which clearly showed that the Soviets have many more missiles than we have, and the message contained no program to build any more U.S. missiles.
Who made this decision to repudiate President Nixon’s solemn promises and platform of 1968? When was it made? Did President Nixon make the decision? Or was Mr. Kissinger powerful enough to reverse Republican policy?
The word sufficiency was carefully chosen by Mr. Kissinger in the hope that the American people would infer that it is “sufficient” to protect us. When we examine the content of this sticky term, however, we find it can cover a weakness worse even than parity. It can even mean decisive inferiority. In the face of the Soviet missile buildup, the only posture which is sufficient for American survival is its effective superiority. The Kissinger doctrine is “sufficient” as a sop for Americans and appeasement for the Soviets.
This makes the changed strategic military balance very clear indeed. In 1962, President Kennedy could tell Krushchev, “Take the missiles out,” and Krushchev took them out. In 1972, all President Nixon can do is “bring the matter to their attention”—as if they did not already know it. The plain fact is that we no longer have the power to protect our country from nuclear missiles which can kill scores of millions of Americans. All the President can do is call up on the hot line and say, “Please, Mr. Brezhnev, don’t fire.”
The time is now for every American to demand a national policy of clear-cut military superiority. Every American is threatened. Every American has a stake in our own survival. We have passed from superiority to sufficiency to insufficiency. Irretrievability is just a short time away. Our nation must be summoned to this challenge and this is one challenge that must be met if America is to enter its third century as a free and powerful nation.
8. Deficit Destruction
Liberal economic theorists argue that a large budget deficit will stimulate the economy and produce jobs. In reality, however, large deficits destroy jobs.
Why is this so? Deficits must be financed. Simply stated, financing takes place by printing more money, borrowing more money, or a mixture of both. Printing more money with no backing leads to greater inflation and higher prices. Federal government borrowing results in crowding out others who are trying to borrow. This harms industries—especially construction—which are so dependent on credit.
When the government has to borrow more and more, it crowds out mortgage money. Money and resources are taken from mortgages and construction loans for homes, and commercial and industrial building.
Let us take the example of government deficits. When the government runs a deficit has to sell bonds to investors to cover that debt. To do that, it must go into the capital market and sell government bonds in competition with industrial bonds, bank deposits, and other uses to which savers could put their money. Banks or industries selling bonds use savers’ money to buy machinery or to create jobs in other ways. The government takes the money and pays for its latest program or welfare boondoggle. Most of the money which goes to cover each year’s deficit is taken out of product investment.
Heavy industry is more dependent on large-scale investments than any other sector of our economy. Tens of thousands of dollars are required to create an industrial job, and those tens of thousands have to be obtained out of the same capital market the government dips into for tens of billions of dollars to pay for deficit spending for liberal programs. It would seem that if there were ever any fanatics about keeping the budget balanced, it would be the leadership of the industrial unions. But look at what those unions advocate. They want more welfare, which would push up the deficit. They also want a national health program, which would push up the deficit borrowing, which in turn competes with industrial bonds, bank deposits and other job-producing uses to which savers could put their money. This waste of investment hurts all Americans, but it hurts industrial workers most of all.
It has been estimated that for every $10 billion the Federal government borrows, 500,000 new housing starts cannot begin due to lack of mortgage funds. This lack of housing starts results in the direct loss of more than one million jobs and the indirect loss of more than two million more in affiliated industries. The construction industry depends on supplies made by numerous other industries, from plumbing equipment to paints to electrical appliances.
In a recent advertisement, the AFL-CIO leaders stated, “Borrowing money is part of the American way of life.” But everyone knows—just ask the rank and file worker—that when you borrow too much you get overextended. The result is bankruptcy.
Unfortunately, that is where our country is heading, toward national bankruptcy. And the bigger deficits are only speeding that along, at the cost of jobs and production.
Of course, liberals in Washington have tried to tell us for years that deficits create jobs and promote growth. Some of us have argued that deficits bring higher taxation and inflation. This results in the destruction of capital. Job expansion is thereby curtailed. Excessive, runaway government has contributed to inflation. High taxes have contributed to inflation by killing investment capital. Runaway regulations have destroyed jobs by adding a nonproductive inflationary cost to every product. We must reverse this trend or we will see an end to the most productive free enterprise system in the history of the world.
The London Economist has stated, “The standard of living of a nation depends…on the productive capital it possesses…much more…than on all other things put together.”
I believe this is an accurate statement. Emerging nations of the world adopt socialistic systems without ever going through the hard process of acquiring capital in the manner that Western nations did. They want short cuts. They want an easy process, but there is none. We are now going socialistic and this is tragic. But even more tragic is the specter of countries which follow that course before ever evolving from a capitalistic heritage. These countries simply never will acquire capital. We acquired it and are now frittering it away through excessive government and socialistic programs coupled with high taxation of incentive and profit.
For a nation to be successful it must have a system of private enterprise in which the capital required by industry is supplied by the people and the industry is owned by the people who supply the capital. The opposing system—socialism—in which the government supplies the capital and owns the industry, has never succeeded.
If capital is essential to the providing of jobs, what possible excuse is there for the government to seize that capital by taxation to use for nonproductive purposes? And yet, that is exactly what our government has been doing, as a result of which the roll of the unemployed continues in the millions.
9. The High Cost of Federal Regulation
American businessmen are being buried under a torrent of government paperwork, Federal forms and bureaucratic regulations. In large measure this stems from the emergence and growth of a host of new Federal agencies. Within the last five years, Congress has created such bureaucratic monstrosities as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Moreover, no end is in sight. The next headache for our nation’s businessmen may well be a federally financed Consumer Protection Agency (CPA).
During the 93rd Congress, the House of Representatives passed legislation creating such an agency. It died, however, when proponents were unable to break a Senate filibuster against the bill. Another effort to establish a CPA is underway in the 94th Congress.
If this effort is successful, the result will be even more government control of private business. The CPA would be granted broad powers over business and industry, as well as some power over other Federal agencies. A major problem area would be the CPA’s almost unlimited ability to obtain access to information. The legislation killed in the previous Congress would have given the CPA authority to send interrogatories to businessmen on virtually any topic. Knowing the government’s penchant for paperwork, it is easy to imagine what interrogatories prepared by the CPA would look like. Businessmen already have to spend too much of their time filling out Federal forms. Congress should be devising ways to cut the paperwork burden rather than adding to it.
There is, however, another important reason for opposing the interrogatories. The CPA could use this information-gathering power to conduct its own inquiry when no Federal agency proceedings are pending against a business. Such a government invasion of private business cannot be justified.
American businessmen do not need another watchdog agency looking over their shoulders. They are already harassed by too many government bureaucrats as is. I urge Congress not to add another layer of bureaucracy to the backs of our businessmen.
Almost 200 years ago, this nation was founded on a number of principles. One of the main ones was the concept of limited government.
The virtues of limited government seem to have been forgotten by many political leaders. Government bureaucracy has grown. Regulations stifle more and more aspects of life. Regulation by government has taken on awesome dimensions. Proof of this can be seen in the regulatory agencies.
Federal agencies have steadily grown in number, in size, in complexity, and in the number of regulations issued. Just stop and think for a minute. There are so many agencies: EPA, FCC, FPC, FTC, ICC, EEOC, OSHA, CAB, CPSE, FAA, and the SEC. And this is only a partial list. I am sure that if you gave a few more seconds of thought, you could easily add another half dozen to the list.
Since first being elected to Congress, I have opposed burdening the American taxpayer with unnecessary regulation. I have opposed those bills creating new agencies which in my opinion had more costs than benefits. It is heartening to see that others in government are beginning to realize these problems.
The costs of federal regulation are astounding. It has been estimated that government regulations and restrictions cost American consumers $130 billion or about an average $2,000 per household. Even some of the agencies doing the regulating admit that their agencies add more dollars to the price tags of goods and services. Last summer a special staff report of the Civil Aeronautics Board had this to say on airline fares: “The present system of regulation causes higher than necessary costs and prices, which in turn suppress demand. The undesirable effects outweigh the benefits of such regulation.”
Numerous snafus can and do result. One section of an agency can be ordering one action that another part of the same agency then outlaws. Or, in fact, two different agencies can be working at cross-purposes; if a company follows one agency’s regulations, it may soon find itself running afoul of another agency’s rules.
Agencies even find themselves running afoul of their own regulations. Dr. Murray Weidenbaum, a respected economist, tells how the Consumer Product Safety Commission bought 80,000 buttons to encourage toy safety. The buttons were decorated with lead paint, which can be lethal if licked by children. The commission had to get rid of its own buttons.
Some regulations are ridiculous. Last year it was reported that OSHA had regulations covering spittoons.
Other agencies have run into trouble with each other. The EPA restrictions on pesticides harm some Department of Agriculture programs to eradicate certain insects.
The great abundance of government regulations harms the consumer and the businessman. When business is faced with the costs of meeting government regulations, those costs are passed on the consumer. The consumer pays for the regulations in two ways: in higher prices for products and more of his tax dollars going to pay for the bureaucracies necessary to carry out the regulations. It costs more than $4 billion a year to fund all the regulatory agencies.
Small businessmen also are harmed by the great amount of regulation. They have neither the staff nor the finances to be able to handle the excessive regulations. The result is that some are forced to close their doors. They are unable to compete with big business in various areas. This has been particularly true in the defense industry.
In the past several years, 300 to 350 foundries have closed, many of which were smaller ones unable to meet Federal regulations. These closings resulted in more unemployment in those areas affected.
For too long government regulation has been viewed as a positive force with little questioning of its costs and effects. It is necessary to find out what the costs and benefits of regulations are and by that yardstick determine which are needed.
The issue is clear. A number of proposals have been made and bills introduced by myself and others. It is up to the present Congressional leadership to start taking action on these proposals to give proof the Congress is facing up to its responsibility in this whole area of overpowering and overcostly government regulation.
10. The Iron Triangle
The most potent force in helping liberals and leftists achieve their goals in this country would not be professors or clergymen. Nor would it be the liberal politicians or the radical activists who want socialistic change. Nor the news media or even the vocal and militant leaders of large and powerful unions. Nothing has been more obvious to me during my years in Congress than the fact of life that in most of the battles for American security and survival issues, the most potent adversary we have is none other than big business.
My record is clear regarding free enterprise, the private sector, socialism and communism, big government, patriotic issues and conservative issues. I am anything but an anti-business legislator, so my appraisal of this foe comes with enough credentials, I believe, to make the case objectively.
Big business is an ever-present—although quiet and subdued—partner in the iron triangle that runs American politics. The closer you study our American government the more you realize this silent but firm hand controls our destiny. That iron triangle is made up of the big business types. They are mostly eastern and predominantly banking people. They include investment houses and international consortium types, who work side by side with the elitist foundation and high-powered issue groups. These closely tie to government and, indeed, to the ranks of the most influential policy makers, who go from the foundations and eastern big business board rooms to the government and back.
Typical of these people are Robert McNamara, Cyrus Vance and John Gardner. McNamara went from Ford Motor Company to the government as secretary of defense, and from there to the World Bank, where he wields extensive power. John Gardner did a stint with the Carnegie Foundation and then became President Kennedy’s secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. In 1970 he helped found the Urban Coalition and, later, Common Cause. The latter is the darling of the Left, a group hailed by The New York Times as a “citizens’ lobby.” In reality, however, it is the same old leftist crowd advocating the same old leftist policies. (We would note that both the Urban Coalition and Common Cause were founded with the endorsement and support of these same big business types.) Cyrus Vance went from government to the Rockefeller Foundation back to the government again as secretary of state. Henry Kissinger came out of the same eastern spawning group—Rockefeller interests, foundations, intellectual think tanks.
They have a lock on our top jobs and a permanent key to the White House. Whether in the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral group, the Atlantic Council, Common Cause, or other groups, they silently direct our nation’s course on the survival issues. Petty issues of lesser importance are left to the people. They zero in on the big ones. You name it, trade with the communists, surrender of the Panama Canal, the nationalization of the welfare system, establishment of a guaranteed income, “normalizing” relations with communist China—scratch a little and you will find a group which fits the pattern I have cited. Along with big business, former high government officials, foundations and academicians promote those causes quietly and, sad to say, most effectively. The average citizen is just a number to them. They know best and they will lead.
Thus did the Council of the Americas gloat that on January 18, 1978, they met with President Carter and his key advisors, pledging their support of his infamous Panama Canal treaty. He responded by saying, “The Council of the Americas is one of the most prestigious and influential groups of business and professional leaders in our nation.” Have you ever heard of them? They are a part of the hidden government that influences all major actions in Washington. Their next target: Castro’s Cuba along the McGovern sellout line.
The Trilateral Commission, big businessmen at the very highest level such as David Rockefeller, met with Carter on Red China, offering their help to bring about “normalization.” Time after time, they have the key.
This is not a partisan issue, however. They have had the key to Republican White Houses, too. In fact, the thing that galls me the most is that most of theses John Gardner-Robert McNamara types are Republicans. I call them Trojan Horse Republicans. They don’t agree with anything that we conservatives, the dominant Republicans, believe in. Every Democratic administration puts a few Republicans in at the top levels. They are almost always the eastern big business-Rockefeller-foundation types and they help make sure that we really do not change their basic control of American politics. A change from Henry Kissinger to Cyrus Vance is not much of a change. A change from Robert McNamara to Mel Laird or Harold brown is not much of a change. On and on it goes.
Big business leaders are at the forefront of liberal-leftist groups which promote such causes as gun control, the fight against Proposition 13, increased trade with communists, interdependence, diminishing American sovereignty, world control over nuclear materials and foreign aid to communist countries, such as Vietnam and Cuba.
Year after year, I have warned big business that it is supplying the technology with which communism is digging the grave of capitalism and of all freedom. The situation has gone from unstable to serious to grave to desperate, and at each stage I spoke for common sense when I insisted that American industry stop selling Russia the technology that the communists will use to destroy us.
This trade with Russia trend started in 1961. We have all heard about the “military-industrial complex” in this country, but what about that same complex in the USSR? Businessmen who sell sophisticated tools, equipment, and systems to our enemies will tell you naively that it is for consumer goods and not for the military. Nonsense! A fighter plane requires steel, pumps, electrical wiring, aluminum—all the same components we get from our private, non-military sector. As I pointed out in 1973, the Soviet military base depends on the soviet industrial base just as in our country. To aid the Soviet industrial base ultimately aids the Soviet military base, and that is just what American big business does.
We used to have an effective export control law which prevented strategic materials and equipment from going to communist countries. Little by little, however, liberals in collaboration with big business have completely negated that pro-American self-interest which prevented sale or transfer to our enemies. Nothing short of greed can explain the callous disregard so many big businessmen have for American security.
Since 1973, when I warned, again and at length about the danger of selling the Soviets our technology, both IBM and Control Data have joined with liberal politicians in trying to make a profitable deal to sell advanced computer technology to the Soviet Union. IBM expected the United States to accept the Russian statement that the Soviet Union would use this technology, which is critical to intercontinental ballistic missiles, solely for such purposes as improving ticketing of Russian civilian airline tickets. Does any person of normal intelligence believe that the Soviet Union will use our advanced computer technology solely for peaceful, civilian airline ticketing?
To accept this sort of sorry fabrication from a communist, as did two big businesses and the Carter administration, reflects a sort of mentality I would not want to be associated with under any circumstances. This is the sort of suicidal self-hypnosis of which big business and big government are capable. But to their ever-lasting credit, let it be said immediately that those supposedly liberal institutions, American’s big unions, have held the line against helping out the Soviets. This is not a battle of left versus right. It is a battle of sanity versus insanity.
I have studied this issue for more than twenty years. I have thousands of pages in my files which detail over and over the shell game which is happening. Sometime, someplace average Americans must elect people who will be true outsiders. Sometime, this disaster lobby has to be displaced. Jimmy Carter said he was an outsider, but in truth he was the candidate of these big business types more than of the rank and file Democrats or Americans who elected him.
But at least if we can start understanding this hidden government, we can move to unlock its control. This is vital to our survival. They have had their way too long. It is time for all of us to bring back government to the people. It is time to take it away from the iron triangle of big business, liberal-leftists of the foundation establishment and government officials who trot back and forth between their headquarters, running the country in and out of the government.
11. On Lap Dogs and Reporters
One of the recurring themes we read, see or hear in the media is that the congress is an archaic institution which has a clubby atmosphere, few whistleblowers and a get-along-by-going-along creed. There is more than a little truth in that charge, and I agree that this is often the case.
But it is interesting to note that the White house press corps is a clubby, chummy group which sounds more like a pack of lap or kennel dogs than a pack of field dog hunters or chase dogs. I watched the press conference yesterday and the average person in Keokuk, Iowa, or Boise, Idaho, certainly must think that the press corps is entirely out of touch with reality.
Item: The President announced a rather important decision regarding the rail strike, something very important to you if you are a railroader, a factory worker at fisher Body in Mansfield, Ohio, a small businessman in Iowa, and important to all working, productive Americans. I did not count yet, but I would guess there were about twenty questions. Not one question was on the rail strike. There was no interest in what the President’s response would be is the strikers defied the order, or in questions of some importance. No, reporters shifted to image-building, creampuff questions, and threw a steady stream of softballs to the new President.
We got the usual sycophant flattery, twitting of the President’s ego, set-up questions about the flexing of his muscle with Congress and the same type of trivia that must flood the smoke-filled rooms of the press corps while reporters are lapping at the kennel, waiting for the white House master to summon them for a report.
Not one question that day really sounded like a newsman trying to ferret out anything other thank, “how are you doing, how do you feel, how are things going now?”
The White House press corps, at least to the extent we can judge by those of who were recognized for questions, looked like an out-of-touch, archaic, clubby, chummy bunch of lap dogs who have grown fat eating at the kennel, forgetting their mission in life. Or it is really their mission to be alert, informative, inquisitive and piercing? Maybe it is just their mission to do that with Congress and the likes of Richard Nixon. Jerry Rafshoon could have written every question. Why didn’t we give these reporters numbered T-shirts? They look like an average softball team. The President could just say, “Number 12, you are recognized to kiss my ring….”
12. The New Revolt
The newest single-issue movement is the tax revolt. Liberals who like to inflame the real or imagined grievance of every so-called “oppressed class” now suddenly face insurrection from the very group they had been counting on to keep divided, distracted, and plundered: taxpayers. Almost overnight, the wealth-producing, wage-earning, child-rearing families of America have awakened to the fact that they are the chief victims of the liberal order.
Liberals fear this revolt even more than all the others because it threatens to choke off the fuel on which their engines run. Liberals want to think the tax revolt is just a fad, which they hope will vanish after achieving a few victories at the state and local levels, where high taxes are easier to see and to cut than they are in Washington. Fortunately, they are wrong.
The smooth workings of the Federal tax machine depend on a con game. The game is to give workers higher and higher wage increases through the front door while robbing them through the back door with higher taxes and inflation. The wage increases do not keep up with higher taxes, of course, but the liberal establishment assumes the average family is just too dumb to notice.
Unfortunately for the establishment, most people are a lot smarter than most politicians realize. The average breadwinner knows his family’s real economic well-being has deteriorated since the triumph of liberal economics in the mid-1960′s. He knows too that it is actually more difficult for him to make the proverbial ends meet than it was for his parents. And he knows Washington is to blame.
Working Americans don’t need statistics to see the truth, but statistics show they are right. From 1964 to 1980, median income has climbed by 131% for a family of four, from $8,132 to $18,815. During the same period, consumer prices have risen even more—by 137%. So the average family has actually lost financial ground before Federal taxes were figured. Take into account that the 1979 family was in a 21% marginal income bracket, compared with 18% for the 1964 family. Combine that with higher payroll tax burden for Social Security and the result is that the 1979 family’s real after-tax income is $1, 056 lower than the 1964 family’s. The average family’s sense of growing oppression is no illusion.
To keep tax revolts from disrupting this con game, the liberals have designed the machinery in such a way that Congress and the President have a vested interest in inflation. The so-called “progressive tax” system, which liberals pretend shifts the burden to the rich, actually has the principal effect of giving Washington an earned revenue increase of 16% every time prices rise by 10%. This is done almost entirely at the expense of the new middle class poor.
Of course, Congress could remedy this blatant unfairness by means of a simple reform called indexing, but the liberal Democrats who control both the House and Senate have consistently thwarted any such proposal. They know they need high taxes to finance their favorite vote-buying social programs. Their gain is working America’s loss. The liberal con game depends on diverting the blame for economic misery. Liberals want workers to blame businessmen, and businessmen to blame workers. But the spread of the tax revolt shows that both groups are starting to place the blame where it really belongs, in Washington. Far from being the mindless emotional spasm portrayed by liberal pundits, the tax revolt is a precision-targeted crusade waged by the producer class, directed against the parasitic class. Until this revolt wins its goals, it is not going to go away.
13. Are Pro-Lifers Extremists?
Even back in the days when the pro-abortion push first began, there were those who could see what was coming. When abortion advocates presented only the “hard cases” and demanded changes in the law, those early pro-lifers sensed the real danger in the precedent that was being set. They recognized immediately that if the basic and essential right of life could be denied to any one segment of humanity, it could also be taken away from any other group. To them it was totally obvious that if there could be unwanted unborn, there could also be unwanted old, unwanted sick, unwanted senile, unwanted defective. They believed that our unalienable right to life is indeed unalienable and that it is God-given, not state-granted.
Today, the liberalization of abortion has gone well beyond the few “hard cases” to the current cry for abortion on demand, with more than a million unborn lives a year sacrificed for convenience, comfort, and careers.
When the advocates of abortion began their campaign they realized, as we all shall realize, that the most important struggles are not the ones that take place on the battlefields of war, but those that are won or lost in the hearts of men. Their weapons were words; their missiles were labels; their strategy was to distract and discredit, to embarrass and to subvert. They questioned whether human life even existed in the preborn stage and started using expressions such as “potential life” and “glob of tissue” to reinforce that illusion in the public mind. They called attention to the plight of the pregnant woman who was “forced” to carry and unwanted pregnancy, and to rear a child she had not planned. They pointed to rising welfare rolls to the so-called population explosion, and to newly declared rights of choice and privacy as taking precedence over the right of life of the fetus. In short, they pointed to an array of single issues and there by tried to distract the public mind from any thought about the innocent unborn lives that were about to be sacrificed for “the greater good of society.”
The laws they wanted to change were repressive and restrictive, they said. The values they wanted to destroy were entrenched, archaic, and out-of-step with enlightened modern thinking. The people they wanted to discredit were labeled reactionary and conservative, and what they had to say was unacceptable.
These enlightened people called for the repeal of laws against the “victimless” crime of abortion, and called the act of abortion itself only the termination of pregnancy. They spoke as though it wasn’t the killing of an unborn child inside its mother. But the stark reality is that the result of every successful abortion is a dead baby.
Today, the battle of words has become more intense and the labeling goes on. Abortion has moved from the status of a moral or emotional issue to a non-issue to a controversial issue. Now they are calling pro-lifers extremists.
But we should note that the term single issue is a label itself. Apparently that tactic is based on the assumption that if you call it by a nice name, people will think it is nice; that if you call it by a new name, people will think it is new. Name-calling, or labeling, is really just another form of deception.
Those first pro-lifers knew instinctively that the unborn child was indeed both human and alive. They knew that it had to be human, because there was no magic moment at which it suddenly was transformed from non-human to human. They also knew that reality could not be changed by calling it by another name, and they were courageous enough to lay the facts before the public.
The pro-life movement’s thrust has pierced the camouflage net of propaganda; it has cleared the verbal haze to get to the essence of the issue: a dead baby, a fellow human being, whose destruction is not only permitted but, in many cases, even paid for by the agencies of the government.
The liberals have reserved a special hatred for this single-issue group, the pro-life movement, because it has struck at the very heart of the monster we are fighting: a monolithic and all-supreme bureaucracy that seeks to give us direction, supply all our needs, provide us with pleasure and convenience, and give us the illusion of security. This is an all-powerful state on which we are to be totally dependent, a state that can give or take away anything—including human life.
There is a relationship between the pro-life and pro-family movements. If it continues to be accepted as legal and justifiable for parents to kill their unwanted children, then following this line of reasoning it would also have to be legal and justifiable for children to kill their unwanted parents.
Unlike the donkey chasing the carrot, people are beginning to realize that the more they reach for the ideal world that the liberals are dangling in front of them, the more it seems to elude them. The War on Poverty, the quality of Life syndrome, Freedom of Choice, Innovations in Education, help for the American family—all these sound good, until we examine what they really mean and discover what it is we really have to sacrifice to reach Utopia.
So far, we have witnessed a drastic decline in education and a revolution in morality that produced an era of immorality. The War on Poverty seems to have produced only more poverty and a greater need for corrective measures.
Now we have the family in trouble. The next step is for a do-good bureaucracy to move in and try to cure it. If past experience is any indication, it will either make the family sicker or kill it altogether. The family is indeed in trouble, but to promote more innovations that tend to pressure it into further fragmentation is not the solution; it is the problem. Change is simply something different, and that something different is not necessarily better.
Pro-family groups have been alerted to the liberals’ efforts to pass so-called child development laws. These frauds would involve the government in a full range of services aimed at everything from early detection of juvenile delinquents to counseling and to health services. We defeated these proposals but they keep coming back. As one bureaucrat said in testifying for the bill before my Education Committee: “We must zoom in on the home and correct the errors of home training.” Liberal psychiatrists have always felt that our youth must be freed from the burden of puritanical sin. The “anything goes” syndrome is their approach. No wonder discipline has become one of the major problems in our public schools.
The latest liberal fad is to redefine the family along revolutionary lines. They would change the traditional Judeo-Christian concept to make abnormal the norm. To many anti-family activists, the government should legally define the family as “two or more people of mutual interest living together in the same abode.” You can easily see where that would lead.
The liberals will continue to throw their labels and attack us, but the pro-family group, another important element in the coalition of single-issue groups, recognizes that the name-calling is really the only weapon the liberals have left.
14. The Single-Issue Movement
On issue after issue, in every part of the country, movements are rising against the liberal establishment. From abortion to taxes, from bureaucratic regulations to busing, groups are spontaneously erupting from the grassroots, each representing a major and growing challenge to a different aspect of liberal policy being forced on the country by the Washington establishment.
Liberals dismiss these groundswells as single-issue movements. But what really disturbs the powerful people is that they know these are not single issues.
A single-issue movement is a momentary rising of feeling about an isolated, temporary concern, such as the Anti-Masonic Party of the 1830s. The pro-life, pro-family, anti-busing, and tax revolt causes are nothing of the sort. Each is a part of a whole. Each represents a direct attack on a part of the whole fabric of liberal policy. And the parts are joining together. That is what has the Washington establishment frightened, and it has reason to be. The ideologues who rule the Federal government do not believe their own propaganda. They know these movements are not brief flashes, nor isolated concerns. Each of these so-called single-issue movements is an obvious part of the whole, and the whole is no less than a rising rebellion against bureaucratic control over our lives from Washington.
Every movement, including the liberal movement, has always been made up of parts. When the national Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) sends lawyers to argue for busing in court, in the teeth of nine-to-one popular opposition to busing in the country as a whole, no one calls the NAACP a single-issue organization. But when thousands of people march in Washington to protest busing, forced bussing is suddenly just a single issue. When the National Abortion Rights Action League goes into the streets on behalf of abortion on demand, no one calls abortion a single-issue movement. But when tens of thousands of people over the country come to Washington each year in a gigantic pro-life march, abortion is suddenly a single issue.
Each part of the liberal establishment is, according to the establishment, a legitimate concern. But each part of the rebellion against the establishment is a single issue. It is a good propaganda tactic, but it does not change the fact that there is a political revolution underway all over America against the liberal establishment, and throwing labels at it is not going to make it go away.
This is also a new tactic. Ten years ago, as the decade of the 1970s began, the most active single issue group was the one that wanted to do what they called “give peace a chance” in Vietnam and Cambodia. The liberals called this group “the constituency of conscience,” and they liked it just fine. The constituency has been running our foreign policy for three years, and today they’re just as eager to avoid the clash of issues as they were to promote that clash ten years ago. The liberals’ new-found hostility to so-called single issues is really a dislike of issues as such. Since their issues are about as popular today as King George III’s tax policies used to be, this attitude makes perfectly good sense.
Of course, in a nation as large and diverse as ours, different people are mounting the anti-liberal political rebellion on a wide variety of fronts. The tentacles of liberal power squeeze our people from a variety of directions. Some encounter it at the supermarket, in the form of inflation; some when their children are assigned to be bused across town. The tentacles are different, but people soon discover that the beast that is squeezing their lives by deficit spending the inflation is the same as the one whose other tentacle is forcing children to spend hours every week on exhausting and dangerous bus trips out of their own neighborhood to achieve racial balance in their schools.
Inevitably, the members of each movement are coming to realize that the only way to loosen the tentacles is to attack the beast itself. To regain control of their own lives and their own country, they will have to stop attacking tentacles and go for the head.
And the head is in Washington.
When the liberals are left without a legal or moral defense, the media always pronounces the situation “complicated” or controversial. There is nothing controversial about busing: the American people oppose it nine to one. There is nothing complicated about forcing a child to get up at five in the morning, to ride two or more buses for two hours to a hostile school atmosphere, and to spend another two hours on two more buses to get home after dark. It is simple depravity.
As I pointed out on the House floor after the defeat of the Mottl Amendment, there would be nothing complicated about it if a Federal judge ordered Congress members to spend two hours on a bus each day to get to and from work. We would have a bill stopping such an outrage on the floor, passed unanimously by both houses, and on the President’s desk before buses rolled the next morning. If a judge tried to make Congress members’ children spend this kind of time on buses each day, we would have him impeached within the shortest possible time. But Cleveland and Boston and Louisville are not populated by members of Congress. So the establishment’s political puppets have decided the whole situation is “very complicated” and “highly controversial.”
Forced busing is ordered by highly paid, suburban Federal judges, after suits by big-money liberal lobbies in Washington, and enforced by bureaucrats who are also extremely well-paid by tax money. None of these well-to-do pro-busing forces represents anybody with children in the public schools. Forced busing is a program by the affluent for the working middle class. The essential point is easily stated: Federal bureaucrats stepped in, put local children on buses for long trips into a different part of town every day, and the communities protested. The liberal establishment reacted by protesting the fact that local communities would dare to question what it wants to do with their children.
Busing literally brought home to millions of Americans the complete power over out lives which the liberal establishment now holds. More than anywhere else, it is in busing that we see the liberal establishment’s hyprocrisy at its most blatant worst. And more than anything else, busing destroyed the myth that liberals represent the people against the wealthy and powerful.
The anti-busing movement is made up of people who have traditionally been stalwarts of the liberals. It is not the traditionally conservative rural areas where busing occurs, or in the suburbs. It is the children of working people in the cities who are used this way, and it is these people who make up the anti-busing movement. Since the 1930s, these urban working people have made up the basis of union strength, and their votes made up a major part of the liberal coalition. It is no accident that Cleveland is now the biggest city in America with a Republican mayor, or that Massachusetts, the most liberal state of the Union, now has a conservative Democratic governor. The anti-busing movement has gone from the streets to the ballot box. It has learned that the liberals’ hypocrisy, arrogance, and refusal to learn from experience on this issue are not accidental. Busing has shown them what the liberal establishment is all about, and the political effects of this revelation have barely begun to be felt.
But busing is by no means the only anti-liberal backlash. In many ways, the fight against gun control is the dean of the grassroots anti-liberal movement.
If busing shows liberal hypocrisy at its worst, gun control shows liberal illogic at its most ludicrous extreme. Faced with a soaring crime rate which is a direct result of liberal coddling of criminals, the establishment reacts by demanding that we regulate all weapons owned by law-abiding citizens. This is an excellent introduction for the average citizen to the warped logic of the Washington establishment. The 1.5-million members of the National Rifle Association, after fighting this nonsense in action for years, find it easy to understand that the liberal reaction to Soviet expansion is to cut defense spending and negotiate arms reduction treaties.
One of the biggest problems in fighting liberalism is to get people to believe just how utterly perverted the logic on every issue which rules in Washington really is. It is hard for our people to realize that intelligent people in high places could have such a totally warped view of the world. For millions of Americans, the gun control issue has been an indispensable political education.
Gun control also shows the establishment’s ruthless side. In 1978, having failed to get gun control through Congress again and again, the establishment used the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to go ahead with registering of guns without Congressional sanction. I sponsored an amendment to head off this action by cutting off funds for such registration, and we were successful. My action was backed by an explosion of grassroots support, as thousands of Americans made it clear that they would not stand for this legislation by bureaucrats.
Through the gun control issue, citizens throughout the nation are made aware that the establishment does not consider the Constitution, the Congress, or the will of the people any barrier in doing what they want to do with Federal Power.
The essential assumption behind gun control is a thoroughly liberal one: That guns owned by the government are legitimate, whereas guns owned by private citizens are suspect. It is hard to imagine a more dangerous concept for a free society. Gun issues are therefore an excellent introduction to the dangers of liberal thinking in general.
15. The Federal Court Charade
Activists have been trying to impose affirmative action and racial quotas on America’s private schools through the Internal Revenue Service. In 1978, the IRS proposed affirmative action regulations on the grounds that they were necessary to the agency’s job of carrying out the intent of Congress. Congress responded by passing the Ashbrook and Doran amendments, which prevented this bureaucratic seizure of power over our country’s private schools.
IRS officials strongly opposed both amendments, making it clear that they were not interested in Congress’ own opinion of Congressional intent.
Those who failed to impose affirmative action on private schools by misinterpreting Congressional intent have now simply switched to misinterpreting the Constitution for the same purpose. In the obvious sweetheart case of Green against Miller, with the IRS as the official defendant, U.S. District Court Judge George L. Hart obediently imposed a copy of the proposed IRS affirmative action regulation on all secular schools in Mississippi, and is now considering whether to apply them to other states, and therefore to the nation as a whole.
This effort has nothing to do with the intent of Congress or the meaning of the Constitution. Liberal activists want racial quotas enforced in America’s private schools, and they are looking for a way—any way—to get them imposed. They are also looking for somebody—anybody—to impose those quotas.
The entire charade is being played out because liberals know there is no way that this power could be obtained by the Federal government by the consent of the governed. No supporter of racial quotas in private schools has even bothered to propose that such rules be enacted into law by the Congress. They know, of course, that the elected representatives of the people will not do it. They therefore want the judiciary to do it, and to convince us that Congress has no right to prevent it.
Opponents of my amendment must argue that Congress has no right to limit the power of the courts, even in this extreme and obvious attempt to avoid the consent of the governed. The judiciary, they must insist, has the exclusive right to determine the meaning of the constitution. But the meaning of the Constitution is the Constitution. So they must say, therefore, that the judicial branch is the Constitution incarnate. If the judicial branch is the Constitution, then any concept of a constitutional balance of power is a farce. If a court has any powers it says it has, its power is unlimitable.
I am asking that this judicial power-grab be opposed by the fundamental building block of our system of representative government: the power of the purse. In its formative days, the only power the English Parliament had was that of voting funds. Only by limiting the use of those funds could parliament limit the power of a king who was held to rule by divine right. To hold the courts immune to the power of the purse is to put them into a position more exalted than that of an English king three centuries ago.
Every one of the so-called social issues of our day is a direct result of Congress’ refusal to check judicial excesses. Our children are bused, by court order. They are denied the right to pray in school, a right this House of Representatives exercises every day, by court order. They are denied the right to life itself, again by court order. And liberals insist that Congress has no right to limit this judicial tyranny over the American people.
Forty years ago, however, liberals were the most vociferous opponents of the judicial usurpation of power. Liberals, in fact, limited the power of Federal judges with the Norris-LaGaurdia Anti-Injunction Act. Today, they make the same arguments against such restrictions that their opponents made against the Norris-LaGuardia Act.
The reason for this liberal about-face is quite simple: fifty years ago, liberalism represented the American people against the Washington establishment. But today liberalism represents the Washington establishment against the people. Now liberals are as fanatically devoted to judicial supremacy as the business establishment was in the 1930′s and as the slavocracy was to the Supreme Court which handed down the Dred Scott decision legalizing slavery in all the Western territories.
Once again, the courts are being used by the establishment to defy the consent of the governed, as this drive for the imposition of racial quotas on private schools clearly demonstrates. Nothing has changed, except that this establishment is liberal rather than business-dominated or slavocratic. Once again, the courts represent business as usual in defiance of the will of the people.
16. A New Beginning
The past six months have witnessed a reform of major proportions in Washington. The Reagan Administration has successfully launched a new beginning in bringing runaway government under control. No area cries out for reform, however, more than the Federal judicial tyranny, the liberal activism of which has put judges’ noses into every aspect of American life. This is something our constitutional architects never envisioned.
President Reagan will, I believe, deliver on his commitment to nominate only strict judicial constructionists to the bench. But that bench is now a hotbed of liberal activist judges who have lifetime tenure and the President cannot undo that damage. Of course, there are many good judges—our own Judge Leroy Contie and Senior judge Gerry Kalbfleisch are two—but for every one of them, there are a dozen of the other breed.
I have been one of those who has led the lonely battle to reign in Federal judicial tyrants like Ohio’s own infamous Judge Battisti. The constitutional couterattack has begun and the cries of protest ring with shrill accusations. Efforts to limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts, a battle in which I was one of the original leaders more than a decade ago, is coming into the arena as Congress reasserts its proper constitutional role in our system of checks and balances. These are all good signs.
For the first time in almost fifty years, the House has taken action to prevent the Federal courts from imposing an unconstitutional action upon the American people. By passing the Ashbrook Amendment to the Treasury and Postal Services Appropriations Bill by a vote of 337 to 83, the House told the courts that, if they ordered the Internal Revenue Service to impose racial quotas on America’s private schools, there would be no funds to do so. Using the Congress’ traditional power of the purse under the constitutional system of checks and balances, we made a new beginning in carrying out our duty of stopping runaway abuse of power by the Federal courts.
If the courts and the bureaucrats could have gotten away with this one, they could have gotten away with anything. Under President Carter, the IRS proposed rules in 1978 which would have allowed it to require private schools all over America to meet illusive racial quotas in faculty hiring and student composition. Any school the IRS accused of discrimination, even if it had never denied admittance to any minority student, would have to prove itself innocent. The IRS could require race quotas as proof. Remember, this action would be started in some cases many years after the same IRS had granted these institutions tax-exempt status.
Congress responded by passing the Ashbrook and Doran amendments in 1979 and 1980, which denied funds to the IRS to make this leftist power grab. Liberals opposed these amendments, however, and in the Senate our own Mr. Howard Metzenbaum stated flatly that Christian schools were set up purely for racist purposes all over America. Even last year’s liberal Congress rejected this nonsense and again passed the Ashbrook and Doran amendments. All private schools, whether Jewish, Catholic, Protestant or non-sectarian, were under attack.
But the liberal elitists in the IRS, an agency whose only power is that of implementing the legislative will of the Congress, did not care what Congress said. Self-seeking IRS bureaucrats wanted race quotas in private schools, so they went where liberal elitists have gone for twenty years to impose their will on the American people: the Federal Courts. In the past, a liberal Congress has been a willing partner in this conspiratorial fraud on the public.
At stake in this struggle to control the highhanded judges is nothing less than the sanctity of law itself. The Federal judiciary has imposed busing and job quotas throughout America, against the Constitution and against overwhelming popular opposition, and the Congress refused to stop them. Police have been handcuffed and criminals have been let loose to bring a reign of terror on the American people, and Congress has not acted. Our enemies gain access to our secrets and our undercover agents are exposed, but the Congress stepped back and bowed to this judicial tyranny. All these disasters are a direct result of Congress’ refusal to exercise its duty under the constitutional system of checks and balances to limit runaway judicial power. That we are starting to change.
17. On Liberals, Life, America
If the free nations of the world expect divine assistance in their efforts to retain their liberty, then dedication to basic moral tenets and respect for human rights must be exercised. Second, our self-preservation in the cold war compels us to turn to our advantage every abuse of the communist world. — Speech, House of Representatives, May 11, 1966
What liberal ideologist do you expect to be swayed by facts? — Column, 1976
I admittedly set higher standards and I am less willing to compromise. I just don’t believe that everything can be compromised. — Column, 1971
In only the last two years our nation has built a budget deficit in the $100 billion range. Such unwarranted Federal spending must be brought under control. — Speech, House, December 6, 1977
We are gradually being brainwashed through semantics, and little by little we are coming to believe that government action and control are good and individual action is bad. One of these days we will wake up and believe that individual freedom is tyranny and government control is really liberty. It will largely have been accomplished by the polished art of political semantics. — Statement, August 24, 1972
Liberals are continually arguing that their racial quotas in labor and contracts are only to help minorities, not to hurt whites. This is insane. You simply cannot discriminate for somebody unless you discriminate against somebody else. — Speech, House, December 1, 1977
I guess I’m one of those who believes that promises, platforms and philosophies are important. As I have often said, kind of humorously, I wasn’t one of those Republicans who could view something with alarm under Johnson and then point to pride under Nixon for the same thing. I’m afraid in parties that’s the way it is. You criticize your opposition, but if your own side does the same thing, you overlook or accept it as a part of the political process. One of the reasons I’m skeptical about party politics is that unity comes first. If all you want is unity, let the Mafia run things, because they know how to keep things together. Unity should be based on principles, not necessarily on a Richard Nixon or a John F. Kennedy or a party. So I’m a strange breed. I’m a Republican, but I’m not a party man. The more I see parties, the more I think they sell people out. — Interview with Cathy Horyn, Denisonian, October 23, 1974
The legislative process is like everything else in life. Either it makes you conform to it or you stick to your principles. I feel I can work within the legislative process without conforming to its improper aspects. — Column, 1971
I believe there are several basic pitfalls that lie ahead and threaten our system of self-government. One is our mushrooming national debt. The other is arbitrary power. Our constitutional system was devised in such a way as to provide checks and balances. There are few checks on Federal judges, however. Once check is impeachment; the other, amending our constitution to limit judges’ terms or bring them up for periodic vote of approval or disapproval. I favor using both routes and will discuss my constitutional amendment proposals at a later time. — Address in the House, January 31, 1978
Taxpayers’ revolts, all of these things, I’m for them. People usually get mad, then frustrated, and then they get active. That’s what we need. — Interview with Randy McNutt, October, 1980
There are times when an elected representative must take a position contrary to that of a majority of his constituents. But those times should be few and far between. Otherwise it is dishonest for one to run for an office whose purpose is to represent the people. — Address in the House, May 10, 1978
Mr. Speaker, I urge that this bill be defeated, but I know there will not be many members who will vote against it. I think the record at least ought to be made clear that someone in this chamber…does not think Mr. King should be memorialized on a coin—at least on a coin struck by the government which he attacked so much during his lifetime. — Reaction to legislation to provide commemorative coins for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., September, 26, 1978
I am an old line anti-communist. I have never changed and never will in my resolve to warn about our communist enemies. — Column, 1980
There has been no more consistent, planned theme of the communists and the far left than the “police brutality” theme. No matter what the circumstances, just yell “police brutality” long enough and many will believe it. The House Committee on Un-American Activities has fully documented this communist project over the years, but it has been amazingly successful. — Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates of the 90th Congress, Second Session
Quite frankly, we are living in a fool’s paradise. For some reason, the average American has been lulled into believing that we can have militant people going throughout the country exhorting to violence, preparing for violence, but yet not have violence; that we can in times of crisis and expediency set aside our constitutional principles but still have our constitutional protections when we need them; that we can follow no-win policies against the communists and somehow come out with a draw; that we can go three-fourths of the way to socialism or communism but not get there; and, finally, that we can spend more than we take in, year in and year out, but not have national bankruptcy. — House speech, June 6, 1968
The unions in our country think they are a government. They act like they are a government. They treat their own members like they are a government. They have amassed the power and perquisites of a government; and, sad to say, they are treated by the U.S. Government as though they are a government. All too many members of Congress fear their power, which is akin to that of a government. — Debate in the House, 1980
In 1962, I was one of the few legislators publicly critical of President Kennedy’s handling of the Cuban situation. Emotional appeals in a crisis have often led to the buildup of Presidential power, and I have tried to be alert to these moves. On August 7, 1964, I went to the House prepared to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, largely for the same reasons as my opposition to the handling of the Cuban crisis. My announced intention brought a panic among my friends. They offered a dozen reasons why I should vote for the resolution. After all was said and done, I joined the flock and for the first time voted other than the way my convictions dictated. The only argument that swayed me was that a negative vote would have put me in a small class with Wayne Morese and Ernest Gruening, for the same resolution had passed 88-2 in the Senate. Senator Fulbright now says he was misled. Four hundred other legislators give four hundred different reasons for their “wrong” vote. I wasn’t misled. I was one of the few who was truly wrong that day, but since that time I have never worried about being in a small number whenever I thought the issue was right. — Column, 1971
Liberals simply are not concerned about human rights in a communist country. They fall for the Red line that economic—not political—rights are the test. Conservatives believe that human rights are universal, and that the hammer and sickle does not change the nature of murder, oppression and robbery. On this moral point there is no room for compromise. Nor is there common ground for discussion with those who hold humanity to be a relative matter. — House speech, April, 1978
I believe it is the right of the American people to know how the Soviet Union plans to destroy them. — Column, 1972
Freedom is not based on mindless fanaticism. Nor is anything decent based on an oppression of mind and body more intense and suffocating than the Inquisition at its height. Freedom requires the kind of people who would die rather than use a phrase like “so-called human rights….” — House speech, April, 1978
Having studied at Harvard and having been subjected to the idiocy they call liberal economics, I am very lucky because it was a vaccination that never took. Common sense ruled against their every argument and the passage of twenty-five years has shattered their illusions which they advocated with reckless abandon. — Column, 1976
The heart of the liberal argument has been an effort to rewrite history and shape human nature in their mold. Gresham’s Law no longer applies, or so they say. Supply and demand, throw it out. Spend more than you take in forever, the Keynesians assert, and you will have increased prosperity. Bus your children, force integration, remove discipline a la Spock, coddle the criminals because they are victims of a repressive society. Give a man as much when he is not working as when he is working and he still will want to work, they say. All these liberal assumptions have not worked and they have brought our country to a precipice near disaster. — House speech, 1976
The difference between the conservative and the liberal is that the conservative worries about the future while the liberal worries about the next election. — Interview with Randy McNutt, 1981
Abortion is morally indefensible. It is destroying America’s future, and it is really the opposite of everything that Congress exists to protect. — Delivered at the Ohio Right To Life’s Congressional Breakfast, January 22, 1981
I think it is fitting that this Congress take time to honor the memory of freedom in the former nation of Ukraine. When the Soviet war machine is grinding the rights and freedoms of yet another sovereign nation under the treads of its tanks, we should remember the long road of aggression on which the Soviet communist empire is based. — Remarks in the House, January 24, 1980
Our country has strayed from many of the principles of the founding fathers. We have moved away from some of the basic values that made our nation great. It would seem appropriate for us in this Bicentennial era to rediscover and rededicate ourselves to the moral, spiritual and ethical values on which this country was built. — Newsletter to constituents, July, 1976
Those people who claim they are sensitive are the ones who have caused the poor and minorities to stay where they are. I am an intransigent believer that the liberal programs ostensibly set up to help the poor guarantee that the poor will stay where they are. — Interview, 1981
I do not think that backing establishment power against the people one is supposed to represent is an act of virtue. I think it is the betrayal of the trust our people place in us. — Response to hearing Senator Robert Byrd, D-W. Va., claim that the senators who voted for the Panama Canal Treaty did so in direct defiance of their constituents. May 16, 1978
The country needs those of us at the political extremes. I believe that the only way we can get honest debate in this country is through the exchange of ideas. — March, 1981
If men were angels, there would be no need for government. But if government has any legitimate functions, they are the quick and heavy sentencing of felons, the prevention of terrorist threats to the public safety, and the halting of communist imperialism. These are legitimate functions liberals have chosen to abandon and subvert, activities which are, in fact, necessary to ensure individual liberties. — June, 1981
Violence is being made credible by the left. Conservatives have always opposed it and we will continue to oppose it. — Newsletter, 1979
The best solution for recessions is for the Federal government to remove the ongoing constraints on the private sector of our economy. So many more people would start small businesses, so many more people would be employed, if there were not the mountain of paperwork, the maze of red tape and the staggering financial overhead from government regulations that serve as deterrents to growth. It is this fundamental area that we should be addressing. — Congressional Record, January 31, 1980
Statements on the life of Ho Chi Minh should be based on fact rather than figments of ill-informed imagination. Each of us can answer the question of his value by asking, “Would I have wanted to live under his rule?” — Editorial, Newark Advocate, September 19, 1969
During a period of détente we have to be particularly alert to the continuing threat of communist espionage, subversion and violence. The Soviets frequently use the phrase “relaxation of tensions.” What they really mean is the relaxation of our guard. — House speech, January 30, 1974
The Internal Revenue Service has no authority to create public policy. There exists but a single responsibility which is proper for the IRS: to serve as tax collector. — Newsletter, 1979
To presume that growth in private education is the result of segregation is grossly unfair and an insult to our system of justice. — Remarks, the House, 1979
The road to peace has never been through appeasement, unilateral disarmament, or negotiation from weakness. Among the great nations only the strong survive. — House speech, June 4, 1975
I would probably be more conservative as a congressman than as a state legislator. This is because I believe there are a lot of things the states should do, but the U.S. government should not. — Interview with Randy McNutt, 1981
The vehicle exists to investigate the charges of Radio Free Europe as to additional thousands of captives in Soviet camps. This, of course, is the United Nations, which, as late as last Saturday, May 7, was used by the President in proposing a treaty for the peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies. Surely the alleged captivity of an estimated 250,000 human bodies takes priority in the scale of human values and warrants a fair and comprehensive investigation by an appropriate U.N. committee. Here is an unique opportunity for the United States to show moral leadership within the world body, using fair and peaceful means to right a grievous wrong. The burden of moral responsibility demands no less. — Speech, House, May 11, 1966
There are many people in our country who sincerely believe that communism is “not that bad.” I have always felt that their judgment has been affected by their hopes. It is one thing to hope that the communists will change and work for world peace and yield to the aspirations of all people to be free. It is quite something else to base your national policy or risk your security on these hopes which are not realistic at this point in world history. The record of the communists clearly shows there is no basis for these hopes. — House speech, July 1, 1969
The professional smokescreen about peaceful trade continues. The plain fact is that irresponsible policies have built us an enemy and maintain that enemy in the business of totalitarian rule and world conquest. The tragedy is that intelligent people have bought the political double talk about world peace, a new world order and mellowing Soviets. I suggest that the man in the street, the average taxpayer and voter, thinks more or less as I do. You cannot subsidize an enemy. It requires a peculiar kind of intellectual myopia to ship supplies and technology to the Soviets when they are instrumental in killing fellow citizens. What about the argument that trade will lead to peace? Well, we have had United States-Soviet trade for over fifty years. The first and second five-year plans were built by American companies. To continue a policy that is a total failure is to gamble with the lives of several million Americans and countless allies. You cannot stoke up the Soviet military machine at one end and then complain that the other end came back and bit you. Unfortunately the human price for our immoral policies is not paid by the policy makers in Washington. The human price is paid by the farmers, the students, and working and middle classes of America—and our fighting men in Korea and Vietnam. The citizen who pays the piper is not calling the tune—he does not even know the name of the tune. So let me summarize my conclusions:
First. Trade with the USSR was started over fifty years ago under President Woodrow Wilson with the declared intention of mellowing the Bolsheviks. The policy has been a total and costly failure. It has proven to be impractical—this is what I would expect from an immoral policy.
Second. We have built ourselves an enemy. We keep that self-declared enemy in business. This information has been blacked out by successive administrations. Misleading and untruthful statements have been made by the executive branch to Congress and the American people.
Third. Our policy of subsidizing self-declared enemies is neither rational nor moral. I have drawn attention to the intellectual myopia of the group that influences and draws up foreign policy.
Fourth. The annual attacks in Vietnam and the wars in the Middle East are made possible only by Russian armaments and our assistance to the Soviets.
Fifth. This worldwide Soviet activity is consistent with communist theory. Mikhail Suslov, the party theoretician, recently stated that the current détente with the United States is temporary. The purpose of détente, according to Suslov, is to give the Soviets sufficient strength for a renewed assault on the West. In other words, when you have finished building the Kama plant and the trucks come rolling of, watch our for another Vietnam.
Sixth. Internal Soviet repression continues against Baptists, against Jews, against national groups, and against academics.
Seventh. Soviet technical dependence is a powerful instrument for world peace if we want to use it. So far it has been used as an aid-to-dependent Soviets welfare system. With about as much success as the domestic welfare program, too. But why should they stop supplying Hanoi? The more they stoke up the war the more they get from the United States. Not only do the Soviets get more good from the United States, they get them on credit. The U.S. Export-Import Bank is providing credits to the Soviet Union with an interest rate of six percent. It costs the bank seven and three quarters percent to raise that money that it lends to the Soviet Union. The U.S. subsidizes the Export-Import Bank, which means, of course, the American taxpayer is picking up the bill. While interest on mortgages are nine and one-half percent in many parts of the U.S., the Soviet Union gets loans at six percent on materials that it will use to defeat us. — House, October, 1973
The greatest mistake we make in seeking agreement with the Soviet Union at the Moscow summit is that once more we give credibility to the word and honor of the communists. Honor they do not have, but if we keep negotiating with them long enough, the world will come to believe that they are really decent people. Faith is a necessary ingredient of bilateral agreements, but we have not been able to trust the Soviet Union since 1917. I cannot put any confidence in the outcome of these talks because the communists are not honest. — Ashbrook’s opinion of another U.S.-Soviet summit, written in his newsletter in 1972
John M. Ashbrook was a leader of the conservative movement for two decades. From the early 1960s to the early 1980s he never hesitated to speak out on the controversial issues facing America.
This book condenses his writings and comments. It is meant to be one concise reference, a handbook for conservatives and a historical work. Here we can see what issues troubled Ashbrook when he ran for President in 1972 and tried to restore some of our lost personal freedoms during his public career.
Although many of the articles are more than ten years old, we can still learn from them. Many of these issues remain alive today, or at least dormant. Congressman Ashbrook tells us how Americans got into trouble to begin with and what we must do to stay free.
Finding his material was not difficult. I had already collected many speeches, letters and articles since the late 1960s. Sometimes I would find myself referring to them to see what Ashbrook might have thought about a certain topic. Finally I decided to share these things with other conservatives and anti-communists.
Indeed, Ashbrook’s ideas were significant to the cause. I had to compile, edit and condense them to fit into a slim book. The writing is that of John Ashbrook, however, a man who has been called modern Tom Paine, a man who dared speak out, even when such speech could have hindered his career.
This book then is not a valedictory but a tribute to an articulate conservative, a tough anti-communist, a molder of young minds. This book is the long career of U.S. representative John Ashbrook.
Material for this book came from Ashbrook’s speeches in the U.S. House of Representatives and his newsletters to constituents. As always, he was candid in his review of foreign and domestic policies. He did not attempt to slant his remarks just because he happened to be writing about a Republican mistake. Perhaps this is the main reason why we can learn so much from his writings. The incidents he discussed are old, but the issues continue to affect us. The ideas of conservatism are developed clearly by Ashbrook, who refined those ideas for twenty years and influenced young minds. The Ashbrook conservative was born.
Here are the sources for this book’s chapters:
- “American Power” – newsletters, 1980.
- “Rewriting History” – newsletter, April, 1978.
- “Deadly Illusions” – newsletter and speech, May, 1980.
- “How We Lost Military Superiority” – speech, October, 1973; newsletters, 1972.
- “The Holocaust Revisited” – newsletters, 1978; speech, April, 1978.
- “Why We Need Military Superiority” – speech, February 1, 1972.
- “Deficit Destruction” – speech, February 1, 1972; speech, June 3, 1975.
- “The High Cost of Federal Regulation” – speech, May 7, 1975; May 14, 1975; June 3, 1975.
- “The Iron Triangle” – newsletters, 1976, 1978.
- “On Lap Dogs and Reporters” – speeches, 1978.
- “The New Revolt” – newsletter, April, 1980.
- “Are Pro-Lifers Extremists?” – newsletter, April, 1980.
- “The Single-Issue Movement” – newsletter, April 1980.
- “The Federal Court Charade” – newsletters, 1978; speech, July 30, 1981.
- “A New Beginning” – newsletters, 1981.