Address at the Music Hall in Cincinnati

Thank you very, very much for this wonderful reception. I am always glad to visit Cincinnati. It is one of the grandest cities of this great Republic.

If you have not been informed, I am out campaigning for a Democratic victory on Tuesday. You have a very, very fine slate of Democratic candidates here in Ohio.

I have a very high regard for your candidate for United States Senator--Mike DiSalle. Mike took on one of the most difficult and thankless jobs in the whole United States Government--that of running price control. Every selfish special interest in the country was out to get Mike, and they had a lot of help from the Republican opposition in Congress, too.

But Mike stuck to his guns, and worked for the people. And he deserves a chance to do the same kind of job for the people in the Senate as he did as Price Control Administrator.

I hope you will put two good Democrats in the House of Representatives--Walter Kelly and Earl Wagner. And give us a Democratic clean sweep by putting frank Lausche back in the Governor's chair. He will make you a good Governor.

Now, my friends, we are honored with a visit from an outstanding Kentuckian. He is from the 5th District of Kentucky. He is chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee of the House of Representatives, and he is one of the great Members of that House--Brent Spence of Kentucky.

And most of all, I'm here tonight to urge the election of the Democratic candidates for President and Vice President--Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman.

This year we have witnessed a most unusual kind of campaign.

On the Democratic side we have a candidate for President who has presented a positive and practical program to the American people. He has not indulged in easy generalities or glib promises. You know where he stands and what he believes in. He understands the issues and his beliefs are deep and genuine. He has demonstrated that he has the abilities needed for the greatest political office in the world. In fact, the Presidency of the United States is the greatest office in the history of the world.

On the Republican side, however, we have a campaign that in many ways resembles a soap-selling drive.

Now the soap they are trying to sell is the same old soap. It's the kind we bought in the 1920's. It's a program of reaction in domestic measures, and isolationism in foreign policy. It is a program of government by the few, for the exploitation of the many, instead of a program for the people and by the people.

The people have been refusing to buy that old piece of soap, now, for the past 20 years. Things have been getting tough for the Republicans. This year they knew they had a real selling job and they knew a new selling job would have to be done or the Grand Old Soap Company would go bankrupt.

Now, of course, the smart thing to do would have been to change the product. But the company's stockholders said no. So they decided to get a new package. They decided to do this by getting a general as their candidate, with a lot of military glamor.

A good many Republicans at the Chicago Convention thought that was wrong. They wanted to put the soap in a plain, honest, conservative package--one manufactured right here in Cincinnati--and let it be sold on its merits. Now I honestly think they ought to have let Bob Taft have the nomination. He was the best representative of their party, and what it stands for, and he deserved that nomination.

But the advertising experts said no. They said this soap hasn't been sold for 20 years, and it won't sell this time unless it looks a little different. We must have it all decorated as a good brand should be, with a lot of silver stars and polished brass.

The next thing to do in this kind of a selling campaign was to get a new name for the soap. Those old names hadn't worked. GOP was too old-fashioned. The "unity" label didn't sell anything in 1948. So this time they named it "The Great Crusade."

Then they had to have a slogan for a sales drive.

"Back to McKinley"? No, that may be an honest slogan but it doesn't have the right kind of ring to it. It doesn't sound right to run a crusade backwards.

"Ninety-nine and 44/100 percent pure"? Well, they were using that for awhile; and then somebody started asking questions about their vice-presidential candidate, and some of the other great crusaders, so they dropped it. It is not good to have a slogan that backfires.

So they decided on this one:

"It's time for a change." Whatever soap you are now using, they tell you, switch to our new brand. If you do that, you will have no more problems. Use an entire package, and you can clean up all the fears of depression and unemployment. You can wash away the whole problem of Korea with one simple application.

And finally, to sell the soap, the Republicans needed money and a good advertising firm.

They did not have to worry about the money. Senator Taft has said that the New York financial interests were responsible for selecting the candidate, and I suppose they have been financing the campaign. It is probably one of the most expensive campaigns in history.

The Republicans hired an advertising firm, one of the best. And this firm has been doing a wonderful job. They make the ordinary politician look like a relic of the horse and buggy days.

A national magazine--one that is supporting the Republican candidate for President-referred to his campaign the other day as "Operation Ticker Tape."

It said: "These Eisenhower rallies are planned down to the last handful of confetti. Take San Francisco, for example. The story has it that 4 tons of confetti-think of 4 tons of that stuff--4 tons !--were distributed the day before the Eisenhower parade. A hundred thousand printed placards and thousands of 'We Like Ike' signs were peddled around town long before the General arrived."

That's a really professional job. And they hire cheerleaders too, to work up enthusiasm for the candidate. Now, I never hired a cheerleader in my life, or bought a nickel's worth of confetti. Never bought any of that stuff, or hired any of these people for any of my campaigns, and I have had pretty good luck, you know. Adlai Stevenson doesn't believe in that kind of hooey, either.

Then the Republicans have a campaign of radio commercials. Little short ones like this: "General Eisenhower, I am bothered by high prices, what shall I do?" The answer comes right back: "Just switch to that new delicious Republican brand of government, and vote for me."

And then they even provided soap opera-which is one of the tried and true ways to sell soap. They had the traditional cast--a young veteran, his wife, children, tears, pathos--even a little dog. But they had very few facts about where that money went--and where it really comes from. And no reason at all for making him Vice President.

Now the purpose of this elaborate campaign is to get the American people to adopt certain policies of government. But these policies are never unwrapped, or explained, or tested. This new form of advertising is very, very vague about the product.

This great selling campaign is just as fraudulent with respect to its foreign policy product as it is with respect to its domestic policy product. My friends, this can be very dangerous.

When we talk about foreign policy, we are talking about deadly serious business. Foreign policy may mean freedom or slavery for this great country of ours; it may mean life or death for millions of our citizens.

In our foreign policy decisions, there is no room for high pressure advertising methods. If anybody tries to sell you a simple foreign policy remedy, you ought to make him sit right down and unwrap the package, and tell you about every single ingredient. False labeling here can do more harm than anywhere else.

The world situation, my friends, is very serious. I do not have to tell you that. A powerful group in the Soviet Union has turned to subversion and aggression in an effort to dominate the world. We have seen this kind of thing before. We have met it and we have defeated it. But the last time we did not do enough, soon enough, so we had to fight a big and terrible war later on. If anybody tells you that this is play, that it is easy, and that it can be done without an effort, you had better watch him, you had better lock your smokehouse, because he's not telling you the truth.

This time we are trying to handle the danger without having to fight a world war. That is why we are building up our defenses, and making alliances, and strengthening the other free nations--to prevent a third world war. That is why we had to fight in Korea, and stop armed aggression there--to prevent another world war.

This, my friends, is our foreign policy. Most people who know the facts agree with that policy. But there is a group of Republican leaders who do not agree with it. They are blind to the danger in the world. They believe they can get votes by making political capital out of all the work and sacrifice we have to undergo at this time to keep our country safe.

Long before this election campaign began, these Republican leaders were on a rampage against our foreign policy. One of their techniques is to attack the honesty and the loyalty of the men in your Government who are working on this foreign policy. They have attacked our civilian leaders, living and dead--they have attacked our State Department, they have attacked our foreign service-they have attacked our military leaders. They attacked General Marshall, and they attacked the man who has since become the candidate of their own party for President.

This is a contemptible kind of political warfare. The men in our Government who are responsible for our national safety have to make some tremendously difficult decisions. They do not make those decisions as Republicans or Democrats--they make them as devoted public servants, dedicated to the welfare of this great country.

Furthermore, the men who make these decisions are often unable to defend themselves against criticism. They have to work with secret information, and they cannot explain their recommendations publicly because that would release valuable information to the enemy. This, of course, makes it easier for the unscrupulous politicians to slander and to smear them.

Now, one of the decisions the Republicans have been attacking--for a long time--is the withdrawal of United States troops from Korea in 1948 and 1949. When the Republican candidate for President began his campaign, these reckless politicians gathered around him and persuaded him to make their criticism of this decision a part of his "great crusade." They persuaded him to make unfair, inflammatory speeches, saying this decision was wrong, and blaming the State Department for it.

Now, of course, no decision is above honest criticism. And I am not surprised that the Republican isolationists should attack this particular decision violently. But for the Republican candidate to attack it, in this way, is another matter. He knows what a difficult decision it was, because he was involved in it and he helped to make it.

This decision involved our military leaders and our State Department officials. It involved questions of military strategy, of action by the United Nations, by the Koreans, by the Russians, by the Congress. There was no easy answer--and there was danger whichever way we moved--and a lot of the factors had to be kept secret.

I would never have talked about this thing publicly if the Republican candidate had not first made it the object of his unprincipled attacks. But let me tell you, I am not going to stand idly by while he tries to ruin the reputation of his former colleagues and fellow workers in the service.

Bear with me while I give you a few of the facts. Our military leaders wanted to get our troops out of Korea, beginning in 1947. As time went on, the State Department was more and more reluctant to see it done. Both agencies had good and honest reasons for their respective opinions. But our officials checked their views all around-they checked with General MacArthur, with the Korean Government, which was urging withdrawal, with the United Nations. They were all in accord on the withdrawal. Our military services were arming and training South Korean forces; we were planning to furnish economic and military aid; Korea had made real progress since 1946. Taking these factors into account, it was decided to make our withdrawal complete in 1949.

Now that may have been the right decision, or it may have been the wrong decision, but I want to defend the honesty and the judgment of all the Government officials who took part in it. I want to defend the honest judgment of our civilian officials who took part in it, and of our military officials-- including even that of the Republican candidate for President, who recommended this withdrawal when he was Chief of Staff of the Army, in 1947.

Now when the Republican candidate first started his attacks on this decision, he did not tell the people that he, too, had a large degree of responsibility for it himself.

I brought the fact out and, ever since, the Republican candidate for President has been twisting and squirming, in an effort to get out of his share of the responsibility.

He said first that his opinion was a purely theoretical one, having to do with the strategic value of Korea in case of a general war.

Well, that is not true. The opinion in which he joined as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did say that Korea would have little strategic value in the event of a general war, but it also gave good and urgent reasons for getting the troops out right away.

Then the Republican candidate said that his opinion was a purely military one, but that the decision was a political one, and that he should not be blamed. Now that is pure poppycock and gobbledegook. Everyone knows that the grave decisions in this cold war are mixed military and political ones. You can't make a diplomatic or political decision until you know what your military resources are, what your generals are capable of doing and what they are willing to do.

Next, the Republican candidate tried to get out of his share of the responsibility by rewriting the facts and distorting the record. He did that in a speech in Detroit just the other night. I replied to him point by point, in a statement which you probably never saw--because the one-party press has a lot of trouble finding space to print the truth when I bring it out.

And finally, his last defense is, that I shouldn't bring these facts out, because they are still classified as "Top Secret." That means that he wants to be free to attack his old friends and colleagues for bad judgment, when they can't reply to him because his mistakes are still labeled "Top Secret."

Now, I wouldn't have gone into all this at such length, if he hadn't been peddling a new remedy lately--a new patent medicine, a newly-wrapped package of soap--for our troubles in Korea. This was to be his great masterstroke to win the election. Actually, I'm told it was an idea worked up by a new ghost writer on his political staff. But the idea is that he shall make a trip to Korea, and see what can be done.

Of course, it's all right with me if he wants to go to Korea. But don't let anybody think that's going to solve anything.

He went to Korea once before--in 1946. According to his speeches, our decision to withdraw our troops was wrong--yet he helped to make it--by the advice he gave in 1947 after his visit to Korea.

If he was wrong in 1947 there is no reason to suppose that he would be right in 1953.

He can't bring our troops home any sooner than the other good generals working on the Korean problem can.

Yet this is what he is trying to promise you. To back it up he has produced a copy of a personal letter from General Van fleet-our commanding general in Korea--about the training of more South Korean divisions. The candidate wants to make you think this Government is against training more Koreans. That is not so at all.

The facts are, we planned a Korean army of 10 divisions. While General Van fleet was carrying this out, General Van fleet suggested adding more divisions. His suggestion was considered by General Ridgway and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and by the Secretary of Defense. They recommended that we complete the 10 division program first. So we went ahead and now we have a South Korean army of 400,000 men, with more South Koreans in the frontline today than the United States and other United Nations have.

When General Clark succeeded General Ridgway in the far East, he was told to step up the expansion of the South Korean army and the replacement of United States troops by South Koreans. This is what he is doing. General Clark has already recommended an increase in the number of divisions in the South Korean army, and those recommendations have been approved--by me.

Yet in his desperate attempt to get votes, the Republican candidate would have you believe that General Ridgway, General Clark, General Collins, General Bradley, General Vandenberg, Admiral Fechteler, Secretary Pace, and Secretary Lovett are all just not interested in saving the lives of American boys and building up the South Korean army. Now, my friends, just how far can a man go in impugning the character and patriotism of his former associates?

That hurts me. That makes me feel terribly bad, because I had the utmost confidence in General Eisenhower's integrity and ability; and I made him Chief of Staff, and I sent him to Europe for the greatest and most honorable command that any general can have. And I had no idea that he would pull stunts like he is pulling in this awful campaign. It makes me sad.

Let me tell you, your Government is doing everything it can to bring the Korean fighting to a conclusion. We are trying to shorten the service of our men there, and protect their lives. And we shall succeed in Korea, just as we shall succeed in this whole great struggle to save freedom and prevent another world war.

Now, I ask you, look at this Republican advertising campaign long and hard before you buy their product. Look at their record, and look at their program. Look at their candidate for President, and at what he has said and done in this campaign. Ask yourself if you want a professional military man in the White House. Ask yourself whether you can trust such a man with the great issues of our prosperity at home, of our social welfare and of our struggle to prevent war.

And while you are looking, you might look at the Republican vice-presidential candidate, too. Ask yourself whether you want a man with that kind of an unsavory financial record, and that kind of a reactionary voting record, as a potential President.

Fortunately, you have another choice. And that is the choice you should make.

Vote for two of the best candidates who have ever been offered to the people--men who know civilian government, men who are clean and honest and courageous, men who are dedicated to the great programs that have made our country strong and prosperous at home, men who are heart and soul in this great effort of ours to attain world peace.

Vote for the candidates of the Democratic Party--the party that has guided this Nation to its present high levels of prosperity and power--the party that believes in the people, and in the people's future.

Send John Sparkman and Adlai Stevenson of Illinois to Washington!