ePub 版

carried his State, but rather to vote for another candidate for President. In the tradition of our country, and I hope this committee, it was my opinion as chairman that inasmuch as his motives and his actions were at issue, that he indeed should have the right to present his opinion for all to hear and all to see. We may agree or disagree, but I think an indispensable part of our democratic process is the right to let everyone have his say.

Dr. Bailey, we are very anxious to hear what you have to say.


NORTH CAROLINA Dr. Bailey. Thank you, Senator Bayh.

I would like to preface my remarks first by saying that as it became apparent that I would be coming before you I naturally did a great deal of reading about the subject and the thing that impressed me most was that you gentlemen have a tremendous job. I will go ahead now and read the statement which I prepared.

Gentlemen, I was requested to prepare a statement for you prior to the hearing which I was invited to attend. It is to me an honor to have this opportunity to present to you some thoughts which I have about the current status of the electoral college. It has been made abundantly clear to me in recent weeks that there are opposing views, but I sincerely feel that the best interest of our Republic can be served oniy by having reasonable men objectively consider all views which are presented with the constructive intent. With the dangers which are threatening the United States today, it is impossible for me to dissociate a discussion of the electoral college from political ambitions or obligations, it is easier for me to openly discuss this than it might be for some others.

I do not hesitate to say that I approach this as one whose first interest is the preservation of our republican form of Government and the unprecedented freedom which we have enjoyed under it. It is my opinion that this precious heritage has been bestowed upon recent generations so cheaply that far too few of us appreciate it or have even thought seriously about it. The lessons of history clearly show to us that those who do not constantly defend their freedom do not long remain free. It is my intention to firmly oppose, in any honorable way arailable to me, all efforts or appearances of efforts to subvert our Nation under a one-world government. With these introductory remarks, my position should be clear and my opinions and actions might be more easily understood.

I attended the district convention of the Republican Party of the Second North Carolina District on February 10, 1968, knowing that I would be proposed for nomination to the position of presidential elector. I did not seek this position, but I did not decline it. In fact, it was taken quite lightly with little thought that the Republican Party could win North Carolina. The Republican Party was, for the first time, becoming a factor in the Second Congressional District, and we were in the position of having to find people to fill every office in the party structure. No one else was proposed for presidential elector, so I was nominated. This was a number of months before we even knew who the presidential nominees would be. There was no discussion of party loyalty, there was no pledge.

Senator ERVIN. I might interject to say I was elected to the Senate in 1954 under those circumstances. Nobody else would run and I think it is the most pleasant way to run for political office.

Senator BAYH. If our witness would yield? I envy both of them for having that experience.

Dr. BAILEY. There was no pledge and there was no commitment made to any candidate. In the ensuing campaign I preferred Senator Thurmond or Governor Reagan to President Nixon. After the national conventions were held, I supported Governor Wallace, and I voted for him in the general election. I, along with many, was surprised that the Republican Party won in North Carolina. As an example of how lightly the position of Republican elector was taken, I had even forgotten that I was the elector until I was reminded of it by Dr. Stroud, the Second District Republican chairman, shortly before the general election. I did not think much more about being an elector until President Nixon began making appointments 2 weeks or so before the scheduled meeting of the electoral college. The names of men whose records I am familiar with began appearing in the news as appointees to high advisory positions for the executive branch of our Government; that forced me to realize that we are not going to get the changes in policy which we need and the electorate has so clearly shown that it wants.

One of these men, Mr. Robert D. Murphy, was presented by the press as being one "who believes in taking a no-nonsense stand in the face of Communist threats.” The record shows that in Lebanon and in the Dominican Republic, Communist regimes rose to power shortly after his presence in those countries. As President Roosevelt's personal envoy in Algeria, he told the Algerian Nationalists in 1942 that the end of colonialism was an American goal. Now, they have communism. This is not to say that he is responsible for these occurrences, but it certainly doesn't make him stand out as a successful anti-Communist diplomat.

Mr. Henry A. Kissinger, Mr. Paul W. McCracken, and Mr. Daniel Moynihan are other appointees who, along with Mr. Murphy, are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr. Moynihan is even on the national board of Americans for Democratic Action and was one of the authors of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. The Council on Foreign Relations, called "The Invisible Government” by Dan Smoot in his book by this title, is an organization which seeks to undermine our national sovereignty and merge us with other nations under a one-world government, perhaps like the United Nations. Since the 1950's, men who are members of this internationalist organization have managed to have themselves appointed to the highest policymaking positions in our Government, regardless of which party was in office. The goals of the Council on Foreign Relations appear to be uncomfortably close to those of the international Communist criminal conspiracy.

At about that time, President Nixon endorsed the Johnson no-win policy in Vietnam which includes our Government supplying, directly or indirectly, about 80 percent of the materials which the Communist enemy has to use against our own men. He also asked Chief Jus

tice Earl Warren to remain in his position until June 1969. No reasons whatsoever can justify imposing him upon the American people for another term of the Supreme Court. At about the same time, efforts were made in the name of the Nixon administration to test the response of the public to a permanent income surtax. These are the incidents which awakened me from the slumber which would have directed my vote to be cast for President Nixon.

Another fact which could not be ignored was the overwhelming victory by Governor Wallace in my congressional district. He polled 46.1 percent of the vote, Vice President Humphrey had 31.6 percent, and President Nixon was third with 22.3 percent. This left no doubt about the wishes of the people in the district. Should they have been denied under a representative system of government ?

With this information, I realized that it was incumbent upon me to make a decision based upon loyalty to my country rather than loyalty to my political party. As you might imagine, it was not the easiest course to take, and it was not taken without serious thought.

It was all too clear that the consequences might not be pleasant. It was obvious that the opponents of the electoral college would use my vote as ammunition in their attempts to abolish it. However, I wanted to emphasize the importance of the electoral college in our form of government, and it seemed that far too few citizens had an adequate understanding of it. The electoral college is much more vital to our Republic today than it was when it was conceived by our Founding Fathers. As I understand it, they established it because it gave to the individual States the right to select our President, and an equally important reason for it is that, due to poor means of communication, a very small percentage of the population had access to information which would permit them to vote intelligently. Electors were intended to be chosen from those citizens who were informed about affairs of state. Today, we have a far worse situation as far as an informed electorate is concerned, for some are not only uninformed, but most are intentionally misinformed. I am sure that all of you readily see how our mass communications media can be used to mold public opinion. We all know that this is being done. A vivid example of this is the treatment which my own electoral vote received. If my vote was so newsworthy that it was reported by most of the newspapers, radio stations, and television stations, then the reasons for the vote were equally newsworthy. I freely gave this information to the Associated Press, the United Press International, television stations and radio stations.

It is interesting that every remark which I made about the differences between Republics and democracies and all references to the fact that our Government is supplying Communist troops who are fighting our men were cut from television films. I requested equal time from the National Broadcasting Television Network to reply to the derogatory remarks made about me by Senator Muskie and Representative O'Hara on television, and a copy of this telegram was sent to the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. That was on January 4, and I have yet to hear from it.

Newspapers did not receive my statement from the wire services. A member of the editorial board of the New York Times called me and requested a copy of my statement explaining my vote. I gladly sent it,

trying tation ust importahat if

along with a copy of the “Invisible Government” by Dan Smoot which he also requested. They did print a lead editorial condemning me and the electoral college, but if they printed my statement at all, it was well hidden because I watched for it for 10 days. How could the citizens of the country form an opinion about this intelligently if they were told only one side of the story? This is the reason that the electoral college is more important in present-day elections than it was at the time that the Constitution was written.

The electoral college is also a guarantee that the minority voice can be heard. If it is abolished, it will become infinitely more difficult for a third political party to become influential on the national scene. Who is it who would deny the American citizens the right to vote as they wish? Interestingly, many of the same men who claim to represent minority groups at election times are the very ones who are trying to abolish the electoral college.

Our Vation was founded, has prospered, and survived as a Republic. By far the most important point which I would like to bring to your attention is the fact that if the electoral college is abolished or emasculated, we will be transformed by the same stroke of the pen into a political democracy. Our Founding Fathers went to great lengths to keep us from having a democracy because they knew that no democracy in history has survived. Yet, we are dangerously close to becoming one today on the national level. The definition of democracy as given in the 1928 U.S. Army Training Manual is as follows:

A gorernment of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic-negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

In the 1952, “The Soldier's Guide,” Department of the Army Field Manual, it had been changed as follows:

Meaning of democracy. Because the United States is a democracy, the majority of the people decide how our Government will be organized and runand that includes the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The people do this by electing representatives, and these men and women then carry out the wishes of the people.

This is very strange indeed. I would like to paraphase here and point out that the definition of democracy in 1928 certainly should be the same as the present day. Why is it that this was changed? That was in 1933. Those Army Training Manuals were destroyed.

Senator BAYH. Would you vield just a minute? I couldn't help reading your statement last night in which you compared the definitions of democracy. Maybe it would be helpful to interject a definition of democracy by Webster. I hardly feel that the Army Training Manual is going to guarantee my 13-year-old son an “A” in his English class if he had to rely on definitions like this one by the 1928 Army Training Manual.

Dr. BAILEY. I appreciate what you are saying, but I think we also have to consider the fact that sometimes definitions as well as history is determined by those who write it, too.

Excuse me, I will go on now with this, if you like. Until 1913, the U.S. Senators were elected by their respective State legislative bodies, and they represented their State governments in their relationships with the Federal Government. The Senators were responsible to the State government, a relatively small and organized body of men, rather than to the people of the State in general. This is an extremely important distinction to make, for now the State governments are not represented at the Federal level in a like manner. This change was the first of two big steps which will change our Republic into a democracy. The other step will be abolition or emasculation of the electoral college. I think that, if this information were presented to the American people, they would strongly favor preserving the electoral college.

In closing, I have found that holding the office of elector is a very responsible position, and it should not be taken lightly as is the case today. It demands time-consuming study, fortitude, total allegiance to our country, and a love of all that we hold dear in our American way of life. I am appealing to your good judgment and your own love of country, with the hope that you will seriously consider the possibility of restoring presidential electors to the positions which they were originally intended to hold. It is my sincere belief that it will serve the best interests of our country, and that our generation will be able to pass it on to our heirs stronger than it was when we inherited it.

Senator BayH. Thank you very much, Dr. Bailey. We appreciate your taking the time to be with us.

Senator Ervin, do you have questions you would like to ask this constituent of yours?

Senator ERVIN. Incidentally, I did something the New York Times and the news media did not do according to your statement. I put your statement, explaining why you cast a vote for Wallace rather than Nixon, in the Congressional Record and used it in the course of debate on the Muskie-O'Hara resolution.

Dr. BAILEY. Yes, sir; I saw that and I appreciate it very much. Senator ERVIN. I was sort of intrigued by this observation. You said today we have a far worse situation. In other words, after you pointed out that originally the presidential electors were chosen because they were better informed than the people generally and owing to the lack of adequate communications in that day, you make this statement on page 5 "today we have a far worse situation as far as an informed electorate is concerned. For some are not only uninformed but most are intentionally misinformed." You are referring there to your conviction about the impact of the news media on the people of this country?

Dr. BAILEY. Yes, sir; absolutely.

Senator ERVIN. You take the position that, I think was very well expressed, if I may be pardoned for saying so, by Josh Billings. He was a great humorist but putting great truths in amusing aspects. He said “it is better to be ignorant than to know what ain't sok and so your position is, you think that the news media, to a large extent, is slanted in one direction instead of being objective in disseminating the news, that it is propagandizing and that by reason of that, people may be led to their ignorance by being misinformed instead of, as Josh Billings would say, “what ain't so ?"

Dr. BAILEY. Yes; I think there are really two reasons. We all know that we and our friends are very, very busy in our everyday life and

« 上一頁繼續 »