Evening star., 1960-09-02
And Away They Go

The poSt-convention session of the
86th Congress has come and gone, and
with the exception of the injured Mr.
Nixon those who must face the voters
in November are heading for the hinter-
lands.
What this Congress did or failed to
do will, of course, be campaign issue.
Most of the Santa Claus items fell by
the wayside or were adopted in severely
modified form. There were, however,
substantial accomplishments - enough
so, we think, to justify the decision to
recess Congress prior to the opening of
the Democratic convention. When one
looks at the things done and left undone
In August, it is clear that the record
would have been worse if the leaders
had tried to jam the program through
In the remaining week before the open
ing of the big show in Los Angeles.
- If the record of the bobtailed session
really is going to be significant issue
in the presidential election, which we
doubt, the chances are that the Demo-
cratic slate of Senators Kennedy and
Johnson will suffer For when all the
excuses and alibiS are balanced, the fact
remains that the Democrats, with lop-
sided majoritieS in both houses, we're
unable to put through the major items
on their legislative list. And they failed
not merely or even primarily because of
Republican opposition, but rather be-
cause they could not muster the sup
port of the conservative wing of their
own party. The truth of the matter is
that the Democrats in Congress are not
a cohesive force. They are deeply divided
on fundamental issues, and neither Sen
ator Kennedy nor Senator Johnson could
pull them together for the sake of an
election-year showing.
Senator Kennedy has indicated that
he will go to the country on such issues
as the refusal of Congress to accept his
version of medical care for the aged,
minimum wages, etc. He will not at
tempt to indict the conservative Demo-
Gratis on this score, and, politically speak
ing, he could hardly afford to do so. He
needs them in November. Instead he will
make his pitch on the proposition that
the blame rests on the Republican Pres
ident in the White House who was able
Ito chew us up" with veto threats.
The inference is that it was the
prospect of vetoeS rather than the op-
posed convictions of conservative legis-
lators which led to his defeats. This
strikes us as something less than plau-
sible thesis. Nevertheless, it is good
question to put before the voters.
Do they want man in the White
House who will have the courage to veto
legislation which is unsound and un-
necessary, and which derives most of
its support from pressure groups "a
President, in short who acts in behalf
Of what he believes to be the best in
tereSts of the country as whole? Or
do they prefer man who personally
believes in such measures, who will use
his presidential influence to jam them
down the throat of reluctant Congress,
and who will sign the bills into law when
they reach the White House?
The liberal Democrats, of course,
will not agree with our evaluation OF
these measures Still, this clash of ultra
liberal and relatively conservative views
is what the shouting is all about. We
think it would be well to put the matter
clearly and squarely before the voters
and let them decide.