L.B.J.’s Faith In U.S. Growth

Press, Volume CV, Issue 30960, 17 January 1966, Page 11

L.B.J.’s Faith In U.S. Growth

[By FRANK OLIVER, N.Z.P.A. special correspondent.] WASHINGTON, Jan. 16. The main inference to be drawn from President Johnson’s state of the Union speech is that the President sees this nation as a growing affair, a nation and an economy that has not by any means reached its peak. His programme is founded on a belief in growth. This pressure might be described as the Mansfield point of view. Not that there is any cabal against the President or his Vietnam policies, but what may be called the Mansfield view seems to be spreading rapidly. The same or similar views seems to be held by Senator Fulbright and those two names are easily the most influential on the Democratic side of the senate. Moreover they command wide respect It seems certain that the President would be more than glad to find an honourable

end to the war but it is a difficult search. This underlines the main difference between liberal Democratic thinking and conservative Republican thinking.

Eisenhower, for instance, entered into the Presidency in the belief that the country “was for it” if it did not keep its budget down to 60,000 million.

He failed in this objective, of course, as the budget had to keep pace with a growing America. But the belief persists in conservative circles that there should be an ironclad ceiling on these things regardless of how the country grows and no matter how prosperous it becomes, no matter how strong the economy proves itself. To have guns and butter becomes an immorality, even if you can afford both. Clearly this is a philosophy to which the President does not subscribe. His political and economic philosophy is based on a resurgent America and on his unshakable faith in its future and his political programmes are patterned accordingly. One of the most interesting sections of his speech was that concerning Vietnam. It

reflected a complex and complicated domestic political situation. He is under enormous pressure from different quarters and he handled this thorny subject with the great parliamentary skill for which he is noted. There is enormous pressure on him from important sections of his own party that every possible effort be made to bring the Vietnam war to an honourable end before it escalates into an ungovernable horror involving untold gold and untold lives towards an unknown but doubtful end. As far as long-term projects are concerned the suggested reform of the House of Representatives was by all odds the most important. Constitutionalists have long recognised that the short term of office of the House had inherent weaknesses which prevent the House rising to its full potentiality.

Its members are almost never free from electioneering, active electioneering. Its accomplishments are invariably in its first year of each session, the second being devoted to creating an image to impress the voters. Senators are under no

such hampering restrictions. A term is six years, a period wherein a man has time to make his reputation and develof a political philosophy. By contrast a Congressman lives a hand-to-mouth existence, has no time in which to really prove his worth or develop himself as a legislator.

Election and then reelection are his constant companions; he is permanently on the hustings if he wishes to stay in the national legislature and the hustings claim more of his energy and thought than he can give to objective legislative work. It has been said and argued many times that with a longer term the House w'ould become a much more responsible organ of government and the wonder is that a longer term has not been advocated by a dozen Presidents.

It was noticeable that Mr Johnson’s reference to the House and the need for a longer term got more applause than any other part of his speech and the guessing is that the suggested constitutional amendment will pass and be accepted by the states quite soon.