Evening star., 1952-07-18
Democrats for eisenhower

Consistency has seldom been q required
mark of political perfection, fact which must
be comforting to many Democrats who were
highly articulate IL fpeir insistence in 1948 that
General Eisenhower should be the presidential
nominee of that partA
In that year thete was, in fact, an almost
frantic movement orl the part of wide and
varied cross section & Democratic leadership
big-city bosses in the forth, States rights cham
pions In the South AMI labor and liberal factions
in all corners of the 4untry-to push aside Mr..
Truman and come uplinstead with "a winner"
The winner" most often mentioned by spokes-
men of all of these gioups was General Eisen-
hover, then serving B president Of Columbia
University. The fart that the generals party
aflliation, If any, val uncertain and that he
had repeatedly and positively declared his
political unavailablity seemed only to spur the
Democratic Presidenk-hakers
The Americans toa Democratic Action, for
example in the wake Il one of the Eisenhower
disclaimers issued votan pronouncement that
mo person qualified fd Democratic leadership
can enjoy the privilege of declaring himself
unavailable in this fiout of the Nations need"
And such other great pillars of the party Of
Jefferson and jackson hs Frank Hague, Jacob
Arvey James Roosevelt William O'Dwyer and
Claude Pepper-Suppred by the findings of
several national polls made clear their personal
convictions that Dwight Eisenhower was a
natural-born Democrat Who would stampede the
party's convention and be an unbeatable
standard-bear in tbe following November. It
might have happenedeasept that the general in
two strongly worded telerams within few days
of the Democratic ctnlention asked that his
refusal be accepted al nal and complete"
With General Eisenhower four years later
heading a Republican residential ticket it is
not surprising to hear hin described by many Of
those Democratic admheS of 1948 as easy to beat
and sure loser for tlA q. o. p. Since one need
never worry about the possible embarrassment of
a political spokesman-t{ whom inconsistencies
and magnificent exagerations are normal
working rules-the coitAdiction in these 1948
VS.. 1852 appraisals of General Eisenhower would
be merely amusing e&ett for certain political
realities.
Many Of those Democrats who sought to
draft the general in 1913 Ire astute practitioners
in the political field, qualified to recognize the
qualities of winner with the voters. They were
aware then, as they u1ichbtedly are now that
there is marginal groariof several millions Of
American voters who ale committed to neither
of the major parties Thslvote of these millions
vital to victory-will Undetermined by many
things but perhaps mo& Important Of these is
the appeal of the indiv1hal candidate. The
Arveys and Hagues and otlsrs were convinced in
1948 that General Eisenhower would attract that
so-called independent votaand that, of course.
he would be acceptable To the Democratic rank
and file. The possibility bat he may in 1852
still win those Independent AillionS, and perhaps
some large segments OF thu normal Democratic
vote, could prove that theS professionals were
talking smarter poll thenthan now.