PLATFORMS: The Issues

• Share

The Republican platform, like almost everything else about the G.O.P. convention, was straight Eisenhower. Mild in its criticism of the Democrats, it pointed with pride to the achievements of the last 3½ years, and broad-brushed plans for the future. In only one respect did the Platform Committee turn down a strong presidential hint: instead of the short, concise statement he would have liked, Ike and the G.O.P. delegates got a document of 13,500 words, twice the length of the 1952 Republican platform. 1,500 words longer than the 1956 Democratic effort.

Wordiness was not the only common denominator of this year's party platforms. The Democratic platform had ripped heavily into the G.O.P. record, was studded with such words as "betrayal," "vote-buying," "bluster and bluff." But when the Democrats got right down to stating their objectives, they and the Republicans turned out to be in remarkable agreement in most areas. Only when they explained how they proposed to achieve their respective goals did the Republicans and Democrats demonstrate that there are still fundamental, if steadily narrowing, differences between them. Items:

Civil Rights. Both decry discrimination because of race, color or creed and the use of force to implement the Supreme Court's desegregation decisions. But the Democrats merely "recognize the Supreme Court . . . as one of the three constitutional . . . branches of the Federal Government," and note that its decisions "have brought consequences of vast importance to our Nation as a whole." The Republicans "accept" the decisions, and say that public-school discrimination must be "progressively eliminated . . . with all deliberate speed."

Agriculture. Both agree that farmers are entitled to a full share of the national prosperity; that the soil bank, commodity loan and rural electrification programs should be continued; that new foreign markets must be sought for U.S. farm products; that the plight of low-income farmers must be remedied. Beyond these, the issues are struck. The Democrats urge restoration of rigid price supports at 90% of parity, aim toward 100% of parity with a variety of proposals for more federal farm legislation. (Notably avoided: any mention of the ill-famed Brannan Plan, long the official policy of the Truman Administration.) The Republicans stand by the farm policies of Eisenhower and Agriculture Secretary Ezra Taft Benson, favor a "versatile, flexible program to meet . . . rapidly changing conditions" and "full freedom instead of ... more regimentation."

Foreign Policy. Both support self-determination for all peoples, freedom for Communist satellites, U.S. aid for underdeveloped countries, a strong United Nations, an unequivocal ban on U.N. membership for Red China, regional mutual security pacts such as NATO and SEATO, the Good Neighbor policy, bipartisan conduct of foreign affairs, a release of U.S. prisoners in China, and reciprocal trade hedged by selective but vaguely defined protective tariffs. At issue: in the explosive Middle East, the Democrats advocate sale of "defensive weapons" to Israel; the Republicans pledge themselves to "support the independence of Israel against armed aggression."