The Opposition

Under the conservative leadership of Senator Lyndon Johnson, the Democratic party has offered no legislative program of its own, but has waited to see what Eisenhower offers and then cooperate or occasionally force a compromise. Johnson defends his friendly brand of opposition with the claim that there is little difference between what Eisenhower proposes and what the Democrats themselves stand for.

This may be close to the truth in Mr. Johnson's part of Texas, but in the major part of the nation it is false. On the major issues of today, the two parties have proposed sharply differing solutions. More specifically, the Republican party stood for tax cuts at the top and tax relief for the large industrial concerns, rather than for the small wage earner and the small businessman. The Republican Party proposed private development of natural resources, while the Democrats favored comprehensive development through agencies like T.V.A. In public housing, the Republicans offered 50 percent less than the Democrats. A long battle for vast federal aid to education has been instituted by the Democrats, while the Republicans have only gradually come to favor a moderate program.

On issue after issue, the Democratic party has differed sharply with Republican proposals and, more important, with the Republican philosophy that a minimum of government is most desirable. In spite of the obvious existence of a distinct Democratic program and philosophy, Senator Johnson has maintained his wait-and-see-what-Ike-says attitude. He has, in addition, ignored the fact that the voters gave the Democrats a majority in the legislative branch of the government. The victory was a clear mandate for the Democrats to enact the program on which they campaigned.

This duty has been recognized by the six Democratic Senators who have stated that their party has a duty to present its own legislative program. In a letter sent last week to their colleagues, Senators Douglas, Humphrey, McNamara, Morse, Murray, and Neuberger offered a sixteen point program based upon their party's platform. Yet at present their proposals are not much more than an important step in the right dircetion. They should strive to make the Democratic party an effective instrument of opposition and of leadership, and to present the liberal point of view in a Congress where many ideas need challenging.

Their present ideas, moreover, should be expanded to include the more difficult questions of foreign affairs, and to force the present policies into a much-needed airing and full debate. In foreign policy, where mistakes can bring war, the need for debate and new ideas can not be challenged.

The need for liberal leadership and legislation is apparent. It is to be hoped that these Senators will help provide them.