National Trends

NATIONAL TRENDS Republican leaders are, privately, ex- tremely concerned by the off-year election returns. What worries them most is I.he Democratic sweep in In- diana’s mayoralty contests. To be sure, Philadelphia’s overwhelming rejection of W. Thacher Longstreth, who had sported an ostentatious endorsement by President Eisenhower, was a major disappointment, but hardly evidence of a “trend,” Republicans tell them- selves, since Philadelp11ia normally goes Democratic. The Indiana results a.re not so easy to shrug off, for they indicate strong anti-Republican senti- ment in the agricultural heartland which the GOP must continue to dom- inate in order to win in 1956. For public consumption, organiza- tion leaders are saying that the Indi- ana contests were decided on local issues. But their professional view is that elections fought on local issues will normally average out, and thus not produce a marked state-wide shift in the party balance. Here there was a shift of sizeable proportions: mayor- alties held by Democrats increased from 30 to 73, giving them a preponder- ance not even approximated at the height of FDR’s popularity. GOP dopesters are therefore con- vinced that something else was in- volved – specifically, slumping farm prices. For some time, farm state or- ganization men have contended that the GOP cannot win a national elec- tion unless ideologues in the party abandon their attempts to make farm prices reflect the demands of the free market. The Indiana returns make ref- utation of the argument difficult. Re- publicans thus face a clear choice be- tween principle and political survival. Along with more vociferous de- mands for Secretary Benson’s scalp, look for attempts by midwestern Re- publican legislators to include fixed price support provisions in a new Ad- ministration farm bill that now seems inevitable for the next session.

Anti-United Nations sentiment in this country was given a strong fillip by the recommendation of the General As- sembly’s Special Political Committee

LB

About the Author

L. Brent Bozell Jr.

NATIONAL TRENDS Republican leaders are, privately, ex- tremely concerned by the off-year election returns. What worries them most is I.he Democratic sweep in In- diana’s mayoralty contests. To be sure, Philadelphia’s overwhelming rejection of W. Thacher Longstreth, who had sported an ostentatious endorsement by President Eisenhower, was a major disappointment, but hardly evidence of a “trend,” Republicans tell them- selves, since Philadelp11ia normally goes Democratic. The Indiana results a.re not so easy to shrug off, for they indicate strong anti-Republican senti- ment in the agricultural heartland which the GOP must continue to dom- inate in order to win in 1956. For public consumption, organiza- tion leaders are saying that the Indi- ana contests were decided on local issues. But their professional view is that elections fought on local issues will normally average out, and thus not produce a marked state-wide shift in the party balance. Here there was a shift of sizeable proportions: mayor- alties held by Democrats increased from 30 to 73, giving them a preponder- ance not even approximated at the height of FDR’s popularity. GOP dopesters are therefore con- vinced that something else was in- volved – specifically, slumping farm prices. For some time, farm state or- ganization men have contended that the GOP cannot win a national elec- tion unless ideologues in the party abandon their attempts to make farm prices reflect the demands of the free market. The Indiana returns make ref- utation of the argument difficult. Re- publicans thus face a clear choice be- tween principle and political survival. Along with more vociferous de- mands for Secretary Benson’s scalp, look for attempts by midwestern Re- publican legislators to include fixed price support provisions in a new Ad- ministration farm bill that now seems inevitable for the next session.

Anti-United Nations sentiment in this country was given a strong fillip by the recommendation of the General As- sembly’s Special Political Committee