The World Today, Key West Citizen (Article, February 1954)
Full Text
THE WORLD TODAY
By JAMES MARLOW
WASHINGTON (AP)--While President Eisenhower stands aloof from the day-by-day political strife, his Republicans go around knocking the Democrats' hats off. It's getting on the Democrats' nerves.
Now they're calling on Eisenhower to halt the Republican attacks, if he disapproves, or say openly he endorses them, if he does. In this effort to put him on the spot, the Democrats' relationship with him has taken a sudden turn.
In his public statements dealing with Democrats Eisenhower has practice the precept--"with malice toward none"--laid down by Abraham Lincoln, whose birthday Friday the Republicans are busy celebrating.
Because of this, or because they have a healthy respect for his popularity, Democrats generally have said nothing mean about him.
It's a rare relationship which seems in danger of disappearing in this electino year for, if the Republican attacks continue along their present line, the Democrats may not let Eisenhower stand aloof from partisan brawls.
The Democrats started calling on him to say where he stood after a weekend blast at them by his No. 1 White House assistant, Sherman Adams.
Adams in a speech Saturday night climaxed the Republicans own growing irritation over the Democrats' harping on the present business downturn. He said:
Democrats who talked about depression were a bunch of political "sadists" trying to hand the country a "Fear Deal." This, coming from someone so close to Eisenhower as Adams, set the Democrats afire.
But it wasn't the only match the Republicans had applied to them. The Democrats were ablaze over another question:
After all the Republican talk in the 1952 about Communists -in- government, just how many Communists did the Republicans find when they took over from the Democrats?
Eisenhower himself announced 2,200 government [employees] had been "separated" from their jobs under his security program. Under that program a person could be fired not only for being a Communist or Communist sympathizer but for being a drunk, homosexual or a gossip.
How many of the 2,200 were found to be actual Communists or fellow travelers or otherwise subversive and how many were let out for the various other reasons? Eisenhower didn't say.
In spite of demands by Democrats in Congress, and repeated questioning of the President by newsmen, the administration still hasn't said how many of the "separated" people were subversive.
Democrats protested in the Senate that Republicans inside and outside the White House have been implying that most of the "separated" [employees] were Communists.
The question about the number of Communists uncovered by the Republicans is not academic. Some powerful Republicans have insisted Communists -in- government would be a main issue in this year's congressional elections. Eisenhower has said he hopes any fear of Reds "actively undermining" the government will have disappeared by November.
If the administration ever provides a breakdown showing none or only a handful of the 2,200 were subversive, the Republicans will have lost a lot of ammunition. The Democrats will have gained it. If it turns out the other way, the Democrats will be sorry they ever raised the question.
Last year Democrats helped Eisenhower on certain pieces of legislation. Even more this year, when the Democrats outnumber Republicans in the Senate and are almost even with them in the House, Eisenhower will need Democratic help on his program.
But while the democrats may mutter about not giving him continued support, on a matter of national welfare the democrats will have difficulty opposing an Eisenhower program on partisan political grounds.
