The Years the Locusts Have Eaten
It is a tremendous honor to keynote this convention. For this meeting kicks off an historic campaign year -- November 1950 to November 1960. It looks toward an historic election--the first election with 50 states, the first election with 180 million people, the first election to follow six years of divided government, the first election where the incumbent President is ineligible to succeed himself, the first election to choose a President born in the 20th century, and the first election in the Age of Space. And in that election, and in both parties, Wisconsin will be important--in the primaries, in the convention and in the electoral college.
1960 will mark an historic turning-point for the Democratic Party as well. For it will have been 12 years since our national ticket carried a single northern state. It will have been 16 years since our national ticket obtained a clear majority of the popular vote. And a Democratic victory in 1960 would mark only the fifth time in the 20th century that the party in power has been voted out by the American people.
Meeting in this historic perspective--recognizing the immensity of our task-we approach this campaign as the old-time orators approached each issue: looking for a text, for a theme that sums up our case and makes clear the reasons for change. And I suggest we look back 23 years, when, in a bitter debate in the House of Commons, Winston Churchill charged the British Government with acute blindness to the menace of Nazi Germany--with gross negligence in the maintenance of the Island’s defense--and with indifferent, indecisive leadership of British foreign policy and British public opinion. The preceding years of drift and impotency, he said, were “the years the locusts had eaten.” And it seems to me tonight that this nation has, since January 1953, passed through a similar period. When we should have been decisive, we, too, were in doubt. When we should have sailed hard into the wind, we, too, drifted. When we should have planned anew, sacrificed and marched ahead, we, too, stood still, sought the easy way, and looked to the past.
And these, too, were precious years, vital years, to the greatness of our nation, as the thirties were to Great Britain. For on the other side of the globe another great power was not standing still and she was not looking back and she was not drifting in doubt. The Soviet Union needed these years to catch up with us, to surpass us, to take away from us our prestige and our influence and even our power in the world community. They want to “bury” us, as Mr. Krushchev says, but not necessarily by war--by possessing the most powerful military establishment, by boasting the most impressive scientific achievements, by dominating the most markets and trade routes, by influencing the most needy or neutral nations through aid and trade and diplomatic penetration.
That is how they hope to “bury” us--to extend their sphere of influence--to build respect for the Communist system--and to prove to the underdeveloped countries that their route, the communist route, is the better route to industrial development.
And that is what the Soviets have been working on these last seven years of American drift --“the years the locusts have eaten.” I do not say that all was perfection in 1952, under the last Democratic Administration. But we were in 1952 the unchallenged leaders of the world in every sphere--military, economically and all the rest. We were building strength and friendships around the world. We were successfully containing the spread of Communist imperialism. And we were the leaders of a free world community that was united, dynamic and growing stronger every day.
And now it is 1959. The Russians beat us into outer space. They beat us around the sun. They beat us to the moon. Half of Indo-China has disappeared behind the Iron Curtain. Tibet and Hungary have been crushed. For the first time in history, Russia has its long-sought political foothold in the Middle East--and even an economic foothold in Latin America. And meanwhile we have been forced to abandon the Baghdad Pact--to send Marines to Lebanon and our fleet to Formosa--to endure our Vice President being spit upon by our former “Good Neighbors”--and to forget our plans for a meaningful NATO.
But all these more dramatic, more publicized events only symbolize what has happened. The seven year record of Russian gains and American gaps is not a pleasant one. But les us total up the balance sheet. Let us face the facts.
1. Militarily, I would not say that the Russians possess an overall superiority. But we have fallen behind the Soviet Union in development and production of ballistic missiles--both intercontinental and those of intermediate range. They have surpassed us in the thrust of rocket engines, jet engines and new types of fuel. They now have more long range modernized submarines than we do--more, in fact, than Nazi Germany had entering World War II--and they may well be pulling ahead of us in numbers of long-range jet bombers with a nuclear bomb capacity. Their continental air defense is thought to be superior--their installations better dispersed, better concealed and better protected.
There is no doubt, of course, of their superiority in numbers of military manpower, both mechanized and otherwise. All of NATO possesses 21 divisions--the Soviet Union has 175 divisions--2 1⁄2 million men. They develop new weapons, General Gavin estimates, twice as fast. They devote twice as much of their resources to military efforts as we do--even though we are twice as rich. They have passed us in the production of military end items, and caught up with us in total military expenditures. They make decisions faster. They seem to utilize their military intelligence better. And they have the largest espionage network in the world’s history.
All this they have done--while we, for seven years, have cut our forces, reduced our budgets, held back our missile programs, waster our money and time and scientific talent--and all the while assuring the American people that we could never be second-best. Democrats in the Congress tried to fight these trends. But we did not control the Defense Department, or the Budget Bureau, or the White House. In 1961 we will.
2. In education, science, and research, the story under this administration has been the same. We harassed our scientists. We overcrowded our schools. We cut back our research. We underpaid our teachers. We let brilliant students drop out after high school. The President would not support an adequate program to construct desperately needed classrooms, at either the public school or college level.
But meanwhile, in the Soviet Union, the Russians were putting twice as much of their resources into education. Their teachers commanded top salaries. Their classrooms contained fewer pupils per teacher. Their curricula were stronger in terms of science, mathematics, physics and languages. Their most talented students were kept in school. The new Soviet Budget, approved in early November, puts its biggest increases in science and education.
And as a result, it is estimated that they will soon have three times as many scientists, technicians and engineers as we do. They are already graduating more. And their brilliant scientific achievements are not only aimed at capturing headlines--they are aimed at capturing the hearts and minds of men. The Philippine Ambassador to the U.N., Carlos Romulo, stated the blunt truth in these words: “The masses of Asia and Africa have remained quiet for several generations (believing)...that the West was invincible. (But) this belief has been shattered... The Soviets sent a satellite into orbit around the earth, another around the sun, and then landed a space rocket on the moon. To underdeveloped countries these achievements, plus Soviet advances in technology, education, economic and military power, have been little short of miraculous.”
I am convinced that American education and American science, given the necessary funds and effort and leadership, can also work miracles--miracles that could well surpass any the Russians have ever envisioned. But it will take a new administration to do the job.
3. The third vital area of competition is in economic power. “Development of the Soviet economic might,” said Mr. Krushchev to the 21st Communist Party Conference, “will give Communism the decisive edge in the international balance of power.” No area of competition is more vital to our leadership and prestige. But for seven years we have kept our sights low, fluctuating between inflation and recession, handicapped by serious pockets of high unemployment, low purchasing power and declining farm income, hamstrung by high interest rates and tight money. While our annual average rate of growth was thus roughly 3%, the Russians were up to 6%, twice as high. Their industrial capacity is expanding nearly three times as fast as ours, at an annual rate of 9 1⁄2%. To be sure, they started a lot further back and they still have a long way to go--but 30 years ago this was a relatively backward nation! If these trends continue, they could increase their defense budget by over 50% in the next seven years with no new strain.
Today, despite our greater wealth, they roughly match our contribution for defense, foreign aid, industrial investment and research and development--and their new 1960 budget, a peace-time record, continues this emphasis. In 1958, for example, Russia produced four times as many machine tools as the United States; but we produced 50 times as many automobiles. We were way ahead in washing machines, refrigerators, freezers and TV sets.
Much of our steel output--which has been declining--goes into these autos and appliances, into our homes, office buildings and shopping centers. But practically all of Russia’s growing steel capacity--expanding 9% every year--goes into heavy steel shapes and places--for missiles, planes and satellites--for submarines and guns--for machinery and tools to expand their own industry at home and those of hopeful nations abroad. Unlike our own, their steel output since 1951 has nearly doubles--and another 50% increase is expected by 1965.
Similar statistics could be cited for Soviet coal, oil and lumber--three American industries with chronic problems that have been badly neglected or postponed under this Administration. Similar data could be cited for Soviet fuel and energy output, and their use of commercial atomic power--and yet we in this country continue to waste great hydro-electric dam sites and delay an already dawdling atomic power program. By 1965 they aim to out-produce us in cement. Already their transportation system is growing faster than ours. They are investing more in their railroads. Soviet jet transports were in operation three years before our Boeing jets began their first commercial service--and Moscow, controlling as it does so many of the best air routes, is rapidly becoming one of the air capitals of the world.
4. In agriculture, while we are weakening our farm economy and penalizing our farmers for their increased efficiency and productivity, the Russians--as Mr. Krushchev made clear--are determined to pass us. Already their agricultural production is expanding faster than their population. Their grain production is up an estimated 30%. Their production of fertilizer has expanded, on the average, some 11% every year since 1951. And now they out to match us in meat, butter and milk. If our agricultural economy collapses, if our so-called surpluses remain a liability to the taxpayers instead of a blessing to a hungry world, then they, not we, may become the world’s greatest arsenal of food. But this need not happen--and I am hopeful that a new administration, and a new Secretary of Agriculture, would see that it does not happen.
5. Finally, look at the contrasting changes in aid and trade abroad. When we abruptly abandoned the Aswan Dam in Egypt as economically unfeasible, the Russians went ahead to build it. When we refuse Latin American countries loans for their oil development programs, because we think it should be left up to the private enterprise, the Russians move in and make the loan. While we starve the Development Loan Fund--our best tool to help the underdeveloped world get on its own feet--the Sino-Soviet block has already actually passed us in economic assistance to selected key areas, the potential trouble spots of the world: Indonesia, Ceylon, the United Arab Republic States of Egypt and Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen--and, more recently, Iraq, Nepal and Ethiopia.
The number of Red technicians in other countries has increased at twice the rate of our own. The loans available to underdeveloped nations are at an interest rate below that of any Western source. They sell machinery below cost--they buy strategic commodities above the world price. With less expenditure but more direction, their economic offensive continues to score.
Their cultural program is a part of this. They have spent more than one-half billion dollars over the past few years to send their artists, dancers, and other entertainers all over the world--we have allotted $2-3 million a year for this purpose. They spent $50 million on their exhibit at the Brussels World’s Fair--we spent $14 million.
This is what has been going on--for seven long years... and this is why I say they are “years the locusts have eaten.” I do not say the picture is all bad. I do not say that the other side of the ledger is all blank. But neither can we afford to ignore these facts and their implication any longer.
I do not think the American people have been made aware of these facts. We have been complacent, self-centered, easy-going. It brings to mind the words of Franklin Roosevelt in 1928, after two terms of Harding and Coolidge. “The soul of our country,” said F.D.R., “lulled by material prosperity, has passed through eight gray years.”
“Eight gray years”--”years that the locusts have eaten.” Years of drift, of falling behind, of postponing decision and crises. And, as a result, the burdens that will face the next administration will be tremendous. The gaps between ourselves and the Soviet Union will be many--and dangerous--and still growing. “If they succeed and we fail,” CIA Chief Allen Dulles has warned, “it will only be because of our complacency--and because they have devoted a far greater share of their power, skill and resources to our destruction than we have been willing to dedicate to our preservation.”
But it is not too late. For we have in this country all the strength and all the vision and all the will we need--if we will only use them. And perhaps these seven gray years, and these spectacular Russian gains, have awakened us from our sleep. The Russian pennant on the moon has shown us our task. Mr. Khrushchev’s confident boasts have outliner our challenge.
And I think we can live up to it. I think we can make up for the “years the locusts have eaten.” I think we can close the gaps and pull ahead. It will take everyone’s help, as this record makes clear--officeholders, farmers, teachers, businessmen, miners, taxpayers, workers and bankers. But together we can build a better nation--and a better, happier, more peaceful world, where life is good and men are free-and freedom never falters.
Source: Papers of John F. Kennedy. Pre-Presidential Papers. Senate Files, Box 905, "Democratic Party of Wisconsin convention, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 13 November 1959." John F. Kennedy Presidential Library.