One Platform for All

In one of his most eloquent statements, William Scranton last spring warned that the inability of his party to speak with one voice had made it appear as a negative force in U.S. life. Declared he: "All of that can change. Republicans should form a new coalition--with themselves."

Few Republicans would agree more heartily with that sentiment than Melvin Laird, a bright, balding Congressman from Wisconsin, chairman of the 1964 Republican Platform Committee and a man who means to write a document acceptable to all G.O.P. factions. Says Laird: "We're not writing a Goldwater platform, a Rockefeller platform, a Scranton platform or a G.O.P. Governors platform--we're writing a Republican platform."

"The American Position." Laird describes himself as "a creative conservative"; he is tightfisted on fiscal matters, and extremely knowledgeable in foreign affairs. Although only 41, he is serving his sixth term from central Wisconsin's dairy-minded Seventh District, which contains Marshfield (pop. 14,-600), his birthplace and still his home. He earned a B.A. from Minnesota's Carleton College, a Purple Heart in a kamikaze attack on his destroyer in World War II, entered politics through the Wisconsin state senate. Last year he wrote an introduction to a collection of scholarly essays known as The Conservative Papers, in which he expressed the hope that "the conservative position will come to be known more accurately as the American position."

In 1960 Laird was serving as vice chairman of the G.O.P. Platform Committee when Richard Nixon flew to Manhattan, huddled with Nelson Rockefeller, and arrived at the famed "Treaty of Fifth Avenue," which considerably liberalized a platform already drafted. Incumbent President Eisenhower was irked by its implied criticism of his defense policies. Conservatives on the platform went into open revolt, and the situation got so out of hand that Laird had to step in and take over the chairman's gavel from Illinois' inexperienced Charles Percy. Within 20 hours, acting both as cop and conciliator, Laird worked things out. Again, in 1962, he was the chief architect of a Declaration of Republican Principle and Policy, which has been endorsed both by Goldwater and his moderate Republican opponents.

Pinpointing the Principles. This year, to avoid a disruptive clash, Laird consulted frequently with Rockefeller and Goldwater, more recently with Scranton, to pinpoint principles upon which all can agree. He has pleaded with state leaders to name reasonable, rather than emotional delegates to the 106-member Platform Committee (each state selects one man and one woman, as does the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands). The committee will include 16 members of Congress--largest number in the party's history--and Laird is high on its overall competence.

The timetable for this week's public hearings calls for testimony from Rockefeller, Lodge, Scranton and Goldwater at morning sessions, and from some 150 representatives of special-interest groups in the afternoons. Each night an eleven-member drafting committee will digest the day's hearings, relating them to position papers already on hand from the candidates, from academic sources, congressional Republicans, and the prestigious Critical Issues Council, which, under the direction of Milton Eisen hower, has issued eleven detailed papers on such topics as Cuba, civil rights and the Far East.

The Drafting Committee hopes to sit down in earnest Friday night. Its three principal writers are: Bryce Harlow, a former Eisenhower speechwriter; Malcolm Moos, another one-time Eisenhower speechwriter, who has been advising Scranton; Karl Hess, a former Washington newsman and one of Goldwater's key advisers. The drafting group will report to the full Platform Committee, hopefully on Saturday. If sharp disputes between Goldwater and moderates break out, Goldwater should be in excellent shape, since a hefty majority of the committee members favor his candidacy.

"Take the Platform." Actually, Goldwater will go to considerable lengths to avoid a platform fight, since a clash over an emotional issue seems to be the only thing that could blow the convention open and give Scranton a chance. Top Goldwater aides are likely to seek compromise rather than a fight, and to suggest: "You take the platform; we'll take the nomination."

From the preconvention campaign, the various position papers, the 1962 Declaration of Republican Principle and Policy, and the 1960 platform, the outlines of this year's platform discussions already seem clear. They include:

-CIVIL RIGHTS. Goldwater's vote against the civil rights bill set this up as the key issue. If there is to be a major platform battle, Laird believes that it will be between Goldwater delegates who insist that the party advocate repeal of parts of the new bill and moderates who may propose much tougher measures than are included in the bill. Already, Pennsylvania's Senator Hugh Scott, the Scranton spokesman on the Platform Committee, has urged a flat statement that the party considers the bill constitutional, which would go directly against Goldwater's declaration in the Senate that it is not. Laird hopes that all factions can get together on a simple statement pledging vigorous enforcement of the new bill. Goldwater has indicated that he can readily agree to that. Laird may also propose new measures to secure Negro voting rights in the South, another proposal that Goldwater would accept. Since it takes two to tangle, there may not be much of a fight.

-SCHOOL PRAYERS. Laird reports that he has had more requests to be heard by witnesses who want to condemn the 1963 Supreme Court decision banning a state-sponsored recitation of prayer in public schools than on any other issue in contention. He considers the issue a real "sleeper." Conservatives may seek blunt criticism of the decision. Laird himself is sympathetic to the complaints, has warned: "In this world, it is becoming more and more unpopular to be a Christian. Soon it may become dangerous."

-SOUTHEAST ASIA. The platform will undoubtedly criticize the Democratic Administration for the deterioration in the U.S. position in Southeast Asia, and particularly for the worsening military situation in Viet Nam. Neither Henry Cabot Lodge's role as ambassador in Saigon nor his view that it is not a practical subject for partisan debate is likely to deter the delegates. Republicans most likely will advocate a tougher prosecution of that war, or at the least, urge that a basic decision be made either to win the war or pull out.

-MEDICARE. If liberal Republicans are looking for a scrap, they could easily get one by proposing that the G.O.P. endorse a social security-financed system of medical care for the aged. "We'd be bound to resist that," says Goldwater's top platform spokesman, Arizona Congressman John Rhodes. The 1960 platform insisted that any such program must be voluntary so that private medical groups and commercial insurance companies could expand their coverage.

-ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT. One point upon which all delegates will agree is that the platform should roundly condemn the Democrats for failure to investigate fully all ramifications of the Bobby Baker case.

-CUBA. All factions of the party are eager to blast the Democrats for allowing Fidel Castro to maintain a Communist stranglehold on Cuba. More positively, the party seems likely to endorse steps recommended by the Critical Issues Council. They include a U.S. declaration that the U.S. is prepared to use military power "as a last resort" to free Cuba from Communism, the creation and support of a free Cuban government-in-exile, non-intervention with exile raids on Cuba, and the enlistment of allies in tightening the economic boycott of the island.

Laird rejects a proposal made by Goldwater last spring that the platform be limited to a 250-word statement of general principles, but hopes to keep it under 7,000 words. (The 1960 G.O.P. platform ran to some 15,000 words, the Democratic, 21,000.) Laird wants it to include a statement of principles, a section on domestic problems, another on foreign affairs and national security. His major innovation is to lump all of the criticisms of the Democrats into one section.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.