 It's time for the Lawn Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, a presentation of the Lawn Jean Wittner Watch Company, maker of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Lawn Jean. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope? From the CBS television news staff, Larry LeSœur and Winston Verdeft. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the honorable Hubert H. Humphrey, senator from Minnesota. Senator Humphrey, you're perhaps best known in this part of the country for your spirited stands on civil rights and the previous democratic conventions, but I'd go straight to the point tonight. Do you agree with the junior senator from Wisconsin that communism and government is going to be the big issue in 1954? Well, Larry, it's my opinion that communism as an aggressive force in the world and as an international conspiracy ought to be the issue before all freedom-loving people. And surely any person that's a candidate for public office and any citizen of this great nation ought to make it a the prime issue. That is to strengthen our country and to help build up our program of foreign policy and our international policy. But as to communism being an issue for the domestic economy and the election as such, communism in our own government, I would like to hope with President Eisenhower that this issue could be settled. And I say very frankly that if there are communists in government, it is the duty of the administration to produce that evidence and to prosecute. And I would feel that it's about time that those of us in Congress that feel that there are communists in government should name names, name places, present the evidence to the committees, and proceed with the job of cleansing rather than to continuously drag this out and to hang on to it just as a favorite political issue, thereby creating emotion and fear and uncertainty in the minds of the American people. Well, Senator Humphrey, you've been, you Democrats have been claiming a lot of credit for support of President Eisenhower's policy, especially foreign policy. Now, do you intend to go on cooperating with him in foreign policy? I, as speaking for myself, surely intend to do that as long as that foreign policy follows the outlines which the administration pursued in the first session of the 83rd Congress. That foreign policy was but a continuation of the Truman foreign policy, a policy that wasn't based upon any doctrine or theory, but based upon the facts, the international facts and the realities of our time. And any foreign policy that is going to be effective must not be one that is a figment of anyone's imagination, but must be a foreign policy that relates itself directly to the immediate needs of the security of our country and of the free world. Well, Senator, you yourself will be running for reelection out in Minnesota next fall. What are the issues going to be out there? All the issues in Minnesota will be pretty much the same issues that faced the American people all over our great country. There'll be issues, of course, basically that affect the lives of our people day by day, the issues of farm prices, of labor management relations, the issues of foreign trade, because we are surely interested in agricultural exports and exports of our own machine tools and our manufactured products. There'll be issues of taxation. That's a very important issue of Social security, just one can name out many of them, but every one of these issues will have its important place in the political discussions of the election year. Well, Senator Humphrey, going back to President Eisenhower, if you're going to cooperate him in what you think are the good parts of his foreign policy, and you have, as a Democrat, done that so far, what are you going to attack? Can you separate President Eisenhower or isolate him from his party? Well, I must say that the President of the United States is not only the President of the United States, he is also, by the very nature of our political system, the head of a political party. He is the head of the Republican Party. And, of course, the administration policies we still don't know. I don't know what the administration's policy is in agriculture. I wish I did. I think the time is running out. We ought to know. We cannot know what the administration's policy will be on labor management relations, even on foreign trade. Very frankly, my criticism of this administration has basically been that time is running out, and these great issues must be resolved. And I look for the day that the President presents his program to Congress, not in general phrases, but in terms of specific bills and specific proposals, so that we can go to work on these proposals and see whether or not they merit support, whether they should be amended, whether or not we should just defeat them outright, or at least attempt to do so. Very frankly, there will be plenty of issues, and we will surely find, I'm sure, some areas of foreign policy in which there will be minor disagreement. Now, I say minor disagreement because I am of the opinion that this administration is pursuing basically the same foreign policy that Mr. Truman pursued. And as I said earlier, it's the foreign policy based upon the facts of our time. Well, Senator, in concrete terms, how do you think we've been doing on foreign policy, foreign trade, and so on? Well, it has been my opinion that while we have followed, in general, the policy of the Truman period, or the Truman administration, that is such as the Marshall Plan, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Mutual Security, 0.4, that many of these particular policies have been weakened. Take, for example, 0.4. It's almost been lost under the Military Assistance Program. It's lost some of its identity, some of its vitality, or its imaginative qualities and its effectiveness. And the matter of our own defense, which is vitally important and tied in directly with our whole foreign policy, I was strongly opposed to the reductions in our Air Force, and I am deeply concerned, lest the desire to have a balanced budget and reduce taxes may cause us to lose our sense of good judgment in terms of how much security we need. I see nothing in the present world picture, gentlemen, that tells me that we can have less defense. And I see nothing in the world picture that tells me that we have any more reason to feel complacent or secure. It's my opinion that we must build an area of strength and a shield of strength, and then once that we have done that, then let's talk about negotiation, but only to talk about it from a position of strength so that the Soviet Union recognizes that they're not dealing with a nation or a force that is half-prepared. We should be ready and able to protect ourselves and defend ourselves and our allies at all times. Well, Senator Humphrey, does that mean that you're going to attack the Republican foreign policy in some areas, or are you going to present a constructive program of your own? Oh, I want to make it quite clear that I am sick and tired of just plain outright political attack. I witnessed too much of this in my short period in public service on the part of our opposition at that time, the Republican Party. I believe it is the duty of a political party not only to point out what are the weaknesses in a program, but also to present a constructive alternative. In other words, rather than just to condemn, for example, what may be done or may not be done, we should present a positive proposal around which we should seek to rally public support in supporting Congress. That is my view, and I think it's the view of the minority policy committee of the Democratic Party. Well, speaking of policy, Senator, are you still maintaining your strong civil rights policy? Yes, yes, I indeed am. The civil rights program has never been realized. That is in its full meaning. We've made substantial progress throughout the states and the municipalities and in the general society. But we have as yet not passed a single bill in the Congress of the United States to implement that civil rights program. I have presented, by the way, what I consider to be a beginning proposal, a permanent commission on civil rights, which would basically gather information and make studies in this area. I hope that this commission idea would more or less do away with some of the conflict that exists around in compulsory powers that we've asked for in fair employment practices legislation. But that doesn't mean that we still do not want fair employment practices legislation with compulsory powers. Senator, if you maintain this position on civil rights, how do you expect to heal the split between the Southern Democrats and the Northern Liberals? I don't suppose that split will ever be completely healed, that is, ever within the next two or three, four years. Time has a way of healing many wounds and many splits in political parties. But I think our friends in the South realize now that the civil rights issue isn't just a Democratic Party issue. The Republican Party has taken a strong stand on civil rights and they're seeing now the Republican administration making strong presentation to the Supreme Court on the issue of segregation in the school system of our country. So, you see, the Southern Democrat doesn't have the choice of walking out of a civil rights party, namely the Democratic Party, into a non-civil rights party, the Republican Party. Therefore, I think we'll find ourselves healing any differences that we have around issues in which we find agreement. We have been spending a good deal of time finding areas of agreement rather than areas of disagreement. And I am proud to say that the Democratic Party has substantial agreement on the basic issue of foreign policy, on foreign trade, agricultural legislation, social security, public power and public works. These are issues, so many of them, around which we have substantial agreement that any one issue surely cannot permanently divide us. Senator, to get back to the President's statement on foreign policy today, the President said that his chief advisors and his friends in the Senate and the House stand with him on his foreign policy statement. That is, that we should not use coercion as an implement of our national policy, coercion of our allies. How much of the Republican Party do you think the President will be able to carry along with him on that issue? I don't believe the President will be able to carry a majority of the Republican Party on that particular statement, even though I agree with his statement. And I want to say tonight that I commend the President and the Secretary of State for making the statements that they have in reference to America's position in international relationships, treating our allies as partners rather than satellites, working with them on the basis of persuasion rather than coercion. I've always felt this was essential for a sound foreign policy. Now, I'll just put it this way. For every vote that President Eisenhower loses because he has been willing to join the issue with what I consider to be the semi or neo-isolationist element in his own party, he'll pick up two votes in the Democratic Party. After all, foreign policy should be above partisanship. We want a truly bipartisan foreign policy. And the President can have that if he will lead. And I have been hoping and praying that the President would exert strong leadership by so doing he will make some enemies. He'll also get some friends. The final question I'd like to ask you, what do you think is going to be the big issue in 1954? Well, the big issue for the American people, of course, will be the security of this nation, the defense of this country. Now, that security and defense does not just depend upon the elements of our international or foreign policy. I want to see that foreign policy that we have sold courageously and steadfastly developed continue. But let's not forget that a foreign policy is no better than its economic than our domestic economy. If our economy goes into a recession, we'll withdraw from our international commitments. And when we withdraw, the Soviet will move in. Therefore, it appears to me that the basic issue before the American people is to keep the American economy a progressive economy, a developing economy, a forward-moving economy, and to see to it that there are no dips in it and no sudden drops, thereby causing economic recession. So let us have a humanitarian and a progressive foreign policy and also a humanitarian and a fair, progressive domestic policy working together as partners in a common effort against world aggression on the part of communism or any other force. Thank you very much, Senator Humphrey, for being with us tonight. Thank you. The opinions you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Lone Gene Chronoscope was Larry LeSere and Winston Burdette. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator from Minnesota. A Lone Gene watch makes a most distinguished Christmas gift, for a Lone Gene watch is not alone one of the very finest watches made anywhere in all the world, but equally important is the watch of highest prestige. Now consider these beautiful Lone Gene watches for ladies. Here are superb examples of the jewelers exquisite art. Diamonds, where used, are of the finest quality. Meticulous hand finishing gives that final touch a perfection. And what a delightful thrill to find such a Lone Gene watch in one's Christmas stocking. For men, Lone Gene has created a watch for every need and every purpose. Stainless steel models for rugged service, handsome models for business and formal wear, each styled with impressive good taste. And every Lone Gene watch, whether for a lady or for a gentleman, is made to the unique Lone Gene standards of excellence, which won for Lone Gene ten world's fair grand prizes, twenty-eight gold medals and highest honors for accuracy. And yet you may buy and proudly give a Lone Gene watch this Christmas for as little as seventy-one fifty. So see your authorized jewel agency tomorrow. And remember that throughout the world, no other name on a Christmas watch means so much as Lone Gene, the world's most honored watch. The world's most honored Christmas gift, premier product of the Lone Gene Wettner Watch Company, since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. We invite you to join us every Monday, Wednesday and Friday evening at this same time for the Lone Gene Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, brought to you by Lone Gene, the world's most honored watch and Wettner Distinguished Companion to the honored Lone Gene. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Lone Gene and Wettner Watches are sold and service from coast to coast by more than four thousand leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem, agency for Lone Gene Wettner Watches. This is the CBS television network.