The Week

The Gallup Poll indicates that President Eisenhower will get more union votes in November than he did in 1952, when an estimated 39 per cent of “union member families” voted for him. Gallup sees 43 per cent of organized labor behind the Republican Presidential ticket—and this in spite of Big Labor’s official and strenuous support of Mr. Stevenson. We could have here a healthy reaction by rank-and-file union members to the presumptive bullying of the bosses. On the other hand, why shouldn’t labor vote for Eisenhower? On grounds of self-interest? The Republicans—under whom labor has prospered for four years—promise Taft-Hartley revision, unemployment benefit increases, higher minimum wages, multifarious benevolences. Could labor really expect more, even from the Democrats? Why change horses in the middle of this dream?

Last week we asked why Senator Knowland had not figured more prominently in the campaign. We are deluged with communications calling to our attention his vigorous efforts in behalf of state candidates here and there. We did not intend to belittle his role in the individual states. We were, in effect, suggesting that the Republican Party sponsor one or two televised appearances, cpast to coast, in which, as the commonly acknowledged leader of the conservative wing of the party, Senator Knowland might have the opportunity to look us skeptics in the face and convince us that, at heart, Dwight Eisenhower is a black, lovable reactionary.

Featured Tags

Presidential Election

The Gallup Poll indicates that President Eisenhower will get more union votes in November than he did in 1952, when an estimated 39 per cent of “union member families” voted for him. Gallup sees 43 per cent of organized labor behind the Republican Presidential ticket—and this in spite of Big Labor’s official and strenuous support of Mr. Stevenson. We could have here a healthy reaction by rank-and-file union members to the presumptive bullying of the bosses. On the other hand, why shouldn’t labor vote for Eisenhower? On grounds of self-interest? The Republicans—under whom labor has prospered for four years—promise Taft-Hartley revision, unemployment benefit increases, higher minimum wages, multifarious benevolences. Could labor really expect more, even from the Democrats? Why change horses in the middle of this dream?

Last week we asked why Senator Knowland had not figured more prominently in the campaign. We are deluged with communications calling to our attention his vigorous efforts in behalf of state candidates here and there. We did not intend to belittle his role in the individual states. We were, in effect, suggesting that the Republican Party sponsor one or two televised appearances, cpast to coast, in which, as the commonly acknowledged leader of the conservative wing of the party, Senator Knowland might have the opportunity to look us skeptics in the face and convince us that, at heart, Dwight Eisenhower is a black, lovable reactionary.