I do not know by how many votes Dwight Eisenhower will be re-elected. But I suspect that if one were to subtract from his total the votes of those who are for him purely on grounds of relative merit, that is to say the votes of those who feel that though he is the better of the two, he is a bad thing, he would lose the election. Many who will vote for him would insist on putting their feelings more exactly, by saying Eisenhower is the less bad of the two candidates. If Eisenhower is due to get his marginal support from those who are dissatisfied with him, but are more dissatisfied with Stevenson, it becomes highly relevant to understand the nature of the differences between him and his adversary.
What about the men themselves? I happen to think that if Adlai Stevenson and Dwight Eisenhower were each given a South Sea island over which to preside as absolute monarch, life in one island would not differ significantly, in internal affairs, from life in the other; in foreign affairs, the two kingdoms would also be similar, maintaining, I should guess, a most fraternal relationship, what with exchange students, intermarriage, golf tournaments and much else dedicated to inter-island understanding. I do not believe that society-shaking or world-shaking ideas would spontaneously generate in either man’s mind. Mr. Eisenhower is not fascinated by social abstractions, and the evidence is that Adlai Stevenson, when left alone, was not victimized by them. But it is not enough to explore the minds of the two candidates. They are both tied to circumstances.
Comments