A contender emerges
On the November 7th, 1963 edition of NBC’s Today news show, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller announced that he was going to run for the Republican nomination in 1964.
In his announcement, he delivered a barb at Barry Goldwater, the leader of the conservative faction of the Republican Party:
“In light of the attack on President Kennedy, it is clearer, now more than ever, that the Republican Party must be represented by a candidate who is fully committed to the cause of civil rights, and against the insidiousness of extremism.
I believe I am such a candidate.
I shall go to New Hampshire immediately following this meeting--formally to announce my candidacy for the Republican Presidential nomination and my entry, at the proper time, in the New Hampshire primary election of March 10, 1964.”
Following his announcement at the Albany studio, Rockefeller travelled to Nashua, New Hampshire to give a speech before a crowd of supporters.
There, he claimed:
“The Kennedy administration has committed three of the gravest errors possible, in this most vital decade of change and progress.
Its failure to stimulate the American economy ... its failure to preserve the strength and the unity of the free world and the vitality of its alliances, and its failure to understand and meet the menace of Communism.
Failure to meet these three objectives harms not just the United States, it risks the security and prosperity of the free world, and paves the way for communist domination around the globe.
In standing up for these three objectives, we Republicans must make clear what we stand for.
This is the party of Lincoln, Grant, and Eisenhower. This is not the party of the KKK and those who would make it such make a mockery of everything the Republican Party was created to represent.”
-- An excerpt of Nelson Rockefeller’s announcement speech, November 7, 1963
Rockefeller’s strong rhetoric resonated with the public at the time, who were still shaken after President Kennedy’s near assassinated at the hands of a pro-segregation extremist.
The front runner for the Republican nomination, California Governor Richard Nixon, made no comment, but Barry Goldwater stated:
“I should hope that Governor Rockefeller’s statements were not trying to claim that any Republican official was in league with the KKK. That is a gross insinuation and unbecoming of someone hoping to lead the Republican Party.”
The gauntlet had been thrown down. Nelson Rockefeller was the first major candidate to throw his name in the ring.
Others were sure to follow.
A primary challenge
On November 16th, 1964, the next contender for President in 1964 announced his intentions to run.
But to the surprise of many, it was not a Republican.
George Wallace, Governor of Alabama, announced that he would challenge John F. Kennedy for the democratic nomination in 1964.
“We have seen lawlessness in our streets, and rather than tackle the criminal element, the federal government would sooner inflict tyranny upon the decent, law abiding, god fearing people of this nation. This tyranny takes many forms – the New Frontier, Civil 'Rights' Act, and on, and on. Well, I for one won’t stand for it. I ask all white Americans of good conscience to join me on this crusade to take our country back.”
This announcement was met with scorn from much of the public, who derided Wallace as fanning the same flames of hatred that had seen President Kennedy shot earlier in the year.
However, Wallace, whose resistance to integration in Alabama had gained him infamy around the nation, had countered that “the shooting of a President is the sort of criminality I am running to prevent”.
Few were convinced.
However, Wallace had a segment of diehard supporters, mostly in the South, who were ecstatic about his candidacy. This reactionary element was horrified at the prospect of a Kennedy vs Rockefeller race.
What impact Wallace might have was yet to be known, but he had already established himself as a lightning rod for controversy.
Dallas, Texas
On November 22nd, John F. Kennedy made his first major public appearance since his shooting in July, in Dallas, Texas.
President Kennedy, alongside Governor John Conally, waved and beamed to the public as they rode down the streets of downtown Dallas in a motorcade.
Following this, Kennedy attended a luncheon with business leaders at the Dallas Trade Mart, where he delivered a well-regarded speech which would later be known as the ‘Watchmen on the Wall of Freedom’ speech.
“I am honored to have this invitation to address the annual meeting of the Dallas Citizens Council, joined by the members of the Dallas Assembly – and pleased to have this opportunity to salute the Graduate Research Center of the Southwest.
It is fitting that these two symbols of Dallas progress are united in the sponsorship of this meeting. For they represent the best qualities, I am told, of leadership and learning in this city – and leadership and learning are indispensable to each other. The advancement of learning depends on community leadership for financial and political support and the products of that learning, in turn, are essential to the leadership's hopes for continued progress and prosperity. It is not a coincidence that those communities possessing the best in research and graduate facilities – from MIT to Cal Tech – tend to attract the new and growing industries. I congratulate those of you here in Dallas who have recognized these basic facts through the creation of the unique and forward-looking Graduate Research Center.
This link between leadership and learning is not only essential at the community level. It is even more indispensable in world affairs. Ignorance and misinformation can handicap the progress of a city or a company, but they can, if allowed to prevail in foreign policy, handicap this country's security. In a world of complex and continuing problems, in a world full of frustrations and irritations, America's leadership must be guided by the lights of learning and reason or else those who confuse rhetoric with reality and the plausible with the possible will gain the popular ascendancy with their seemingly swift and simple solutions to every world problem.
There will always be dissident voices heard in the land, expressing opposition without alternatives, finding fault but never favor, perceiving gloom on every side and seeking influence without responsibility. Those voices are inevitable.
But today other voices are heard in the land – voices preaching doctrines wholly unrelated to reality, wholly unsuited to the sixties, doctrines which apparently assume that words will suffice without weapons, that vituperation is as good as victory and that peace is a sign of weakness. At a time when the national debt is steadily being reduced in terms of its burden on our economy, they see that debt as the greatest single threat to our security. At a time when we are steadily reducing the number of Federal employees serving every thousand citizens, they fear those supposed hordes of civil servants far more than the actual hordes of opposing armies.
We cannot expect that everyone, to use the phrase of a decade ago, will "talk sense to the American people." But we can hope that fewer people will listen to nonsense. And the notion that this Nation is headed for defeat through deficit, or that strength is but a matter of slogans, is nothing but just plain nonsense.
I want to discuss with you today the status of our strength and our security because this question clearly calls for the most responsible qualities of leadership and the most enlightened products of scholarship. For this Nation's strength and security are not easily or cheaply obtained, nor are they quickly and simply explained. There are many kinds of strength and no one kind will suffice. Overwhelming nuclear strength cannot stop a guerrilla war. Formal pacts of alliance cannot stop internal subversion. Displays of material wealth cannot stop the disillusionment of diplomats subjected to discrimination.
Above all, words alone are not enough. The United States is a peaceful nation. And where our strength and determination are clear, our words need merely to convey conviction, not belligerence. If we are strong, our strength will speak for itself. If we are weak, words will be of no help.
I realize that this Nation often tends to identify turning-points in world affairs with the major addresses which preceded them. But it was not the Monroe Doctrine that kept all Europe away from this hemisphere – it was the strength of the British fleet and the width of the Atlantic Ocean. It was not General Marshall's speech at Harvard which kept communism out of Western Europe – it was the strength and stability made possible by our military and economic assistance.
In this administration also it has been necessary at times to issue specific warnings – warnings that we could not stand by and watch the Communists conquer Laos by force, or intervene in the Congo, or swallow West Berlin, or threaten our allies in the Turkish Strait. But while our goals were at least temporarily obtained in these and other instances, our successful defense of freedom was due not to the words we used, but to the strength we stood ready to use on behalf of the principles we stand ready to defend.
This strength is composed of many different elements, ranging from the most massive deterrents to the most subtle influences. And all types of strength are needed – no one kind could do the job alone. Let us take a moment, therefore, to review this Nation's progress in each major area of strength.
First, as Secretary Nitze made clear in his address last Monday, the strategic nuclear power of the United States has been so greatly modernized and expanded in the last 1,000 days, by the rapid production and deployment of the most modern missile systems, that any and all potential aggressors are clearly confronted now with the impossibility of strategic victory--and the certainty of total destruction – if by reckless attack they should ever force upon us the necessity of a strategic reply.
In less than 3 years, we have increased by 50 percent the number of Polaris submarines scheduled to be in force by the next fiscal year, increased by more than 70 percent our total Polaris purchase program, increased by more than 75 percent our Minuteman purchase program, increased by 50 percent the portion of our strategic bombers on 15-minute alert, and increased by 100 percent the total number of nuclear weapons available in our strategic alert forces. Our security is further enhanced by the steps we have taken regarding these weapons to improve the speed and certainty of their response, their readiness at all times to respond, their ability to survive an attack, and their ability to be carefully controlled and directed through secure command operations.
But the lessons of the last decade have taught us that freedom cannot be defended by strategic nuclear power alone. We have, therefore, in the last 3 years accelerated the development and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons, and increased by 60 percent the tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe.
Nor can Europe or any other continent rely on nuclear forces alone, whether they are strategic or tactical. We have radically improved the readiness of our conventional forces – increased by 45 percent the number of combat ready Army divisions, increased by 100 percent the procurement of modern Army weapons and equipment, increased by 100 percent our ship construction, conversion, and modernization program, increased by 100 percent our procurement of tactical aircraft, increased by 30 percent the number of tactical air squadrons, and increased the strength of the Marines. As last month's "Operation Big Lift" – which originated here in Texas – showed so clearly, this Nation is prepared as never before to move substantial numbers of men in surprisingly little time to advanced positions anywhere in the world. We have increased by 175 percent the procurement of airlift aircraft, and we have already achieved a 75 percent increase in our existing strategic airlift capability. Finally, moving beyond the traditional roles of our military forces, we have achieved an increase of nearly 600 percent in our special forces – those forces that are prepared to work with our allies and friends against the guerrillas, saboteurs, insurgents and assassins who threaten freedom in a less direct but equally dangerous manner.
But American military might should not and need not stand alone against the ambitions of international communism. Our security and strength, in the last analysis, directly depend on the security and strength of others, and that is why our military and economic assistance plays such a key role in enabling those who live on the periphery of the Communist world to maintain their independence of choice. Our assistance to these nations can be painful, risky and costly, as is true in Southeast Asia today. But we dare not weary of the task. For our assistance makes possible the stationing of 3-5 million allied troops along the Communist frontier at one-tenth the cost of maintaining a comparable number of American soldiers. A successful Communist breakthrough in these areas, necessitating direct United States intervention, would cost us several times as much as our entire foreign aid program, and might cost us heavily in American lives as well.
About 70 percent of our military assistance goes to nine key countries located on or near the borders of the Communist bloc –ten countries confronted directly or indirectly with the threat of Communist aggression – Viet-Nam, Free China, Free Cuba, Korea, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Greece, Turkey, and Iran. No one of these countries possesses on its own the resources to maintain the forces which our own Chiefs of Staff think needed in the common interest. Reducing our efforts to train, equip, and assist their armies can only encourage Communist penetration and require in time the increased overseas deployment of American combat forces. And reducing the economic help needed to bolster these nations that undertake to help defend freedom can have the same disastrous result. In short, the $50 billion we spend each year on our own defense could well be ineffective without the $4 billion required for military and economic assistance.
Our foreign aid program is not growing in size, it is, on the contrary, smaller now than in previous years. It has had its weaknesses, but we have undertaken to correct them. And the proper way of treating weaknesses is to replace them with strength, not to increase those weaknesses by emasculating essential programs. Dollar for dollar, in or out of government, there is no better form of investment in our national security than our much-abused foreign aid program. We cannot afford to lose it. We can afford to maintain it. We can surely afford, for example, to do as much for our 19 needy neighbors of Latin America as the Soviet Union does to their allies in their own sphere of influence.
I have spoken of strength largely in terms of the deterrence and resistance of aggression and attack. But, in today's world, freedom can be lost without a shot being fired, by ballots as well as bullets. The success of our leadership is dependent upon respect for our mission in the world as well as our missiles – on a clearer recognition of the virtues of freedom as well as the evils of tyranny.
That is why our Information Agency has doubled the shortwave broadcasting power of the Voice of America and increased the number of broadcasting hours by 30 percent, increased Spanish language broadcasting to Latin America from 1 to 9 hours a day, increased seven-fold to more than 3-5 million copies the number of American books being translated and published for Latin American readers, and taken a host of other steps to carry our message of truth and freedom to all the far corners of the earth.
And that is also why we have regained the initiative in the exploration of outer space, making an annual effort greater than the combined total of all space activities undertaken during the fifties, launching more than 130 vehicles into earth orbit, putting into actual operation valuable weather and communications satellites, and making it clear to all that the United States of America has no intention of finishing second in space.
This effort is expensive – but it pays its own way, for freedom and for America. For there is no longer any fear in the free world that a Communist lead in space will become a permanent assertion of supremacy and the basis of military superiority. There is no longer any doubt about the strength and skill of American science, American industry, American education, and the American free enterprise system. In short, our national space effort represents a great gain in, and a great resource of, our national strength – and both Texas and Texans are contributing greatly to this strength.
Finally, it should be clear by now that a nation can be no stronger abroad than she is at home. Only an America which practices what it preaches about equal rights and social justice will be respected by those whose choice affects our future. Only an America which has fully educated its citizens is fully capable of tackling the complex problems and perceiving the hidden dangers of the world in which we live. And only an America which is growing and prospering economically can sustain the worldwide defenses of freedom, while demonstrating to all concerned the opportunities of our system and society.
It is clear, therefore, that we are strengthening our security as well as our economy by our recent record increases in national income and output – by surging ahead of most of Western Europe in the rate of business expansion and the margin of corporate profits, by maintaining a more stable level of prices than almost any of our overseas competitors, and by cutting personal and corporate income taxes by some $11 billion, as I have proposed, to assure this Nation of the longest and strongest expansion in our peacetime economic history.
This Nation's total output – which 3 years ago was at the $500 billion mark – will soon pass $600 billion, for a record rise of over $100 billion in 3 years. For the first time in history we have 70 million men and women at work. For the first time in history average factory earnings have exceeded $100 a week. For the first time in history corporation profits after taxes – which have risen 43 percent in less than 3 years – have an annual level of $27.4 billion.
My friends and fellow citizens: I cite these facts and figures to make it clear that America today is stronger than ever before. Our adversaries have not abandoned their ambitions, our dangers have not diminished, our vigilance cannot be relaxed. But now we have the military, the scientific, and the economic strength to do whatever must be done for the preservation and promotion of freedom.
That strength will never be used in pursuit of aggressive ambitions – it will always be used in pursuit of peace. It will never be used to promote provocations – it will always be used to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes.
We in this country, in this generation, are – by destiny rather than choice – the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of "peace on earth, good will toward men." That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago: "except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain."
Following this, Kennedy went to visit Senate Majority leader Johnson, to discuss both the progress of the Civil Rights Bill and the current investigation into investigation of Bobby Baker, a former aide and protégé of LBJ who was accused of soliciting bribes and sexual favors in exchange for Congressional votes and government contracts.
Johnson assured Kennedy that there was no issue and that he would not be implicated, but the President privately had doubts.
The Global Conference for Peace
On the 26th of November, leaders from over a dozen countries came together as part of the Global Conference for Peace, hosted by Austria.
Kennedy opened the conference with a speech which asked that the countries make ‘a world safe for diversity’.
“As we join here today, let us affirm the need for a stable climate of peace in the modern world. Let us not be blind to our differences but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.
Should our differences force us into another world war, it will surely mean the end of all mankind. The risks of war in the nuclear age are far too great for any nation to bare. I express particular thanks to those of you, who are not traditionally allied with the United States, for your bravery and vision in accepting my invitation to attend this Global Conference for Peace. Together, I believe we can avert the threat of war and secure this planet for all future generations to come.”
-- President Kennedy's speech following the commencement of the Global Conference for Peace
Leonid Brezhnev echoed a similar statement:
“The recent nuclear testing treaty represents a readiness to resolve differences not by force, not by threats and sabre-rattling, but by peaceful means, at the conference table. Hopefully, we can continue this trend toward peace.”
What followed was three days of discussions, negotiations, arguments, and debate.
Of particular note was the tension between Soviet and Chinese diplomats. American diplomats noted, to some amusement, that they got along better with either side, then the two communist nations got along with each other.
To Kennedy’s disappointment, the conference saw little progress in the situation in Vietnam – neither side was willing to make concessions and displayed a paranoia directed at the other.
Red China suggested a neutral South Vietnam, which intrigued Kennedy, but Diem insisted this was merely a ruse to weaken the South and lead to an eventual communist takeover.
One area where progress was made however, was in relations between the US and USSR.
Brezhnev suggested a new era of relaxed tensions between the two world superpowers, based around the reduction of the nuclear threat. President Kennedy agreed this was the best course of action.
This new policy of easing tensions would later prove controversial among the hawks of both countries, but for now it was merely a private agreement between two leaders. It would be shaped in the coming months and years.
In retrospect, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty had been the first step in this new era of détente.
Kennedy had been elected on a platform of increased vigilance against the Soviet Union, yet he now was prepared to face re-election as the candidate urging a new era of peace.
December 1963
The December of 1963 proved to be another period of relative quiet for the White House.
Kennedy spent much of early December touring the West Coast of the United States, pushing for the North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA), which involved the creation of a fission economy through the development of nuclear desalination technology.
During his tour of the west, Kennedy met with Governor Nixon, the first face-to-face meeting of the two men since shortly after Kennedy’s inauguration. It was cordial and Nixon expressed interest in the NAWAP.
Kennedy would spend much of the rest of December attending community events, fundraisers, and the like.
On the 16th of December, the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 was signed into law. This piece of legislation authorized the unprecedented spending of $1.2 billion dollars in loans and grants to public and private colleges and universities for construction, creation of new community colleges and graduate schools, and aid to students.
This, along with the Community Mental Health Act of 1963 signed in November, ensured that Kennedy’s domestic agenda for 1963 finished strongly. He finished the year optimistic that 1964 would see his tax cuts and civil rights legislation pass into law. Kennedy felt that foreign policy had been his strong point in 1963 however – the death of Guevara, Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, stabilizing Vietnam, and the Global Conference for Peace. The President believed he had a strong record to run for re-election on, and he still had another 11 months to improve upon that record.
Christmas was another major event in the White House, with this year’s theme rooted in Biblical themes, based around the miracle of Jesus’ birth, and the miracle of childbirth and children more generally. Jackie insisted upon the theme, as a tribute to her late son, Patrick.
1963 had been another turbulent year in domestic and global affairs, and 1964, an election year, was sure to bring the same.
