To Compromise, Or Not?

With the angry cries of feuding Republicans still echoing from Texas, Bob Taft last week talked of compromise. To avoid a floor fight at the national convention, said Taft, "I'd like to compromise all delegate contests where there seems to be a difference of legal opinion . . . We'll give in where our case is weak, if they'll give in where their case is weak." But he added that the Eisenhower forces are "trying to make an issue" out of the Texas case. Said he: "I think they'd rather have the issue than the delegates."

Ike's campaign manager, Massachusetts' Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, turned down the Taft offer, issued a smug and cocky statement: "It is never right to compromise with dishonesty. We are in the right, both on the facts and on the law, and will enter into no deals which will disenfranchise the Republicans of Texas. The convention itself will decide the issue and I have no doubt about its decision."

Law & Rule. In Texas, the Eisenhower forces' case is based on the law and the rules of the Republican Party. Texas law permits political parties to establish their own rules for participation in precinct caucuses. The only qualification set by the pro-Taft Republican organization: the voter had to sign a pledge that "I am a Republican and desire to participate in Republican activities in 1952." Voters who carried the precinct caucuses for Ike had signed the statement.

Taftmen agree that the pledge was signed, but they contend that many of the signatures were fraudulent. As evidence that the Ike forces openly sought Democratic votes, Taft Campaign Manager David S. Ingalls produced newspaper advertisements in which Eisenhower supporters urged Democrats to sign the pledge and attend Republican caucuses. The ads promised: "You are not pledged to support the nominee of the Republican Party nor does it prohibit you from voting in the July Democratic primary . . ." As a result of this proposition, said Ingalls, Democrats moved into the Republican Party and tried to control its delegation to the national convention.

Evidence & Principle. In states where political parties are evenly balanced, it is not easy to take seriously the fear that one party will try to control the other. But in states such as Texas, the threat that members of the larger party will grab control of the smaller is always present. It is by no means established that this is, in fact, what happened in Texas. The bulk of the evidence suggests that most Ike voters were acting in good faith, were disgusted with the Fair Deal and saw Ike as the candidate most likely to turn the Democrats out of Washington.

This, however, is a question of evidence (not of principle) that may be hard to establish, especially before professional politicians, who are inclined to look askance at efforts of "interlopers" to snatch their organizations. Add to that difficulty the fact that Taft forces will probably control the convention's Credentials Committee, and the Taft position appears a formidable one. Maybe Lodge has enough evidence and enough votes to win a credentials fight on the convention floor--and maybe he hasn't.

When he was first told of Taft's compromise comment, Eisenhower said: "Gee, that sounds good." Later, he explained that he had not really understood the proposal, and he moved nearer to Lodge's position. But in Eisenhower's instinctive first reaction there may have been sounder political judgment than there was in Lodge's sharp turndown. There are times when a litigant, although certain that principle is on his side, finds it highly practical to settle out of court.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.