Evening star., 1953-11-15
Lipscomb Victory Held
An Organization Gain
Writer Says California 6. o. P.
Won Because Of Efficiency
Ry Eronk R. Kent

won because or Efficiency
By Fronk R. Kent
What had been widely heralded all
over the country as national trend"
against the Republicans, came to an
abrupt stop last Tuesday, when In the
special election in the gath California
district, Glenard p. Lipscomb, Repub-
lican candidate for Congress. was re-
turned by a 1000 plurality over three
another Republican.
This makes the political and journal
istic spokesmen on the Democratic side
look very silly because they had gone
to ridiculous extremes in their inter-
probation Of the Democratic victories in
the Wisconsin and New Jersey districts.
No more will be heard about them.
However, it is to be hoped that, In their
turn, the Republicans will not attempt
to construe their California triumph as
a great victory for President Eisenhower
and his policies, despite the fact that
Mr.. Lipscomb repeatedly said 1t would
be so during his campaign and the
Democrats had registration majority
of over 5000 in the district.
OF course, 1t is a temptation, but
they would be wise not to cheer too
loudly. For, the truth is as every ex-
perienced practical politician knows. in
these special elections in the off years.
it is the ''local situation" that counts
and national issues rarely play major
4rk To-. &IaA ATa~ry al fOVs
example, it was undoubtedly the re-
vealed corruption plus the fact that the
Republican candidate for Governor had
written letter favoring a pardon for
the convicted extortionist, Labor Boss
Joe Fay, that caused the upset. In
Wisconsin the personality. character
and campaign of the candidates were
the big factors. In Virginia Republican
Governors simply never are elected.
Yet, though the Republicans polled
an almost unprecedentedly high vote
in a State contest. the Democrats
insisted they had won victory.
In California. while on the surface
there seems good reason for regarding
the result as highly favorable to the
Eisenhower administration, inasmuch
as several high administration officials.
including cabinet officers, entered the
State to plead for the Lipscomb elec-
ton, there were other local reasons
much more basic. One was that Mr..
Lipscomb had the support of an eff
cient and well-equipped Republican
machine in the district Another was
that he was far better financed. An
other was he had better publicity and
more newspaper support.
In brief, there is no more justifica-
ton for reading great national signif1-
canoe into this Republican victory than
in those Democratic victories two weeks
ago. Though important Eisenhower
administration officials appealed to the
oath district voters to stand by the
President" there is no reason to believe
that they influenced a vote. If Mr..
Eisenhower himself had gone out there
in behalf of Mr.. Lipscomb he might
have done him harm instead of good.
For there are numerous incidents in
not-too-recent political history where
presidential intervention in local elec-
tions was devastating to the presi-
Dental choice. Recall Franklin D.
Roosevelt's entrance into Maryland
against Senator Millard Tydings and
in behalf of the late David j. Lewis,
Congressman with an outstanding
record. Recall, too, the effort of Wood
row Wilson to defeat the late Senator
James A. Reed of Missouri. There are
other instances in the more distant
past which could be cited were there
space.
What it all comes down to is this
political experience and statistics ex-
tending many years back concluSively
prove that the personal following
possessed by an outstanding party per-
sonality cannot be transferred to q
lesser personality in a local election
merely for party purposes The late
Albert c. Ritchie. four times Governor
of Maryland, at the height of his popu-
larity, tried 1t twice with extremely
unsatisfactory results.
Philosophically Illuminating on these
after the second try, Gov. Ritchie
announced his belief that it could not
be done and declared he would never
try it again. Somehow or other it
always creates resentment. Consider
ing all this, it seems reasonable to say
that the California result, like those in
New Jersey and Wisconsin, is not
deeply significant. Two things it does
appear to show: Cd That the propa-
ganda of the last two weeks, chiefly in
sp1red by the ebullient Democratic
Chairman Stephen Mitchell, about the
crumbllng of the Eisenhower admin
1stration and tidal wave in the Demo-
cratic direction, was sheer rot; (2)
that, Notwithstanding the lurid threats
OF the labor bosses, all of whom vio-
lently opposed his election last year.
there is no reason to believe that any
considerable number of persons who
voted for Mr.. Eisenhower yet regret it.