DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE FIRST AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE KENNEDY- NIXON (SEPTEMBER 26, 1960)
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE FIRST AMERICAN
PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE KENNEDY- NIXON (SEPTEMBER 26, 1960)
HOWARD K. SMITH, MODERATOR: Good evening. The television and radio
stations of the United States and their affiliated stations are proud to
provide facilities for a discussion of issues in the current political campaign
by the two major candidates for the presidency. The candidates need no
introduction. The Republican candidate, Vice President Richard M. Nixon, and
the Democratic candidate, Senator John F. Kennedy. According to rules set by
the candidates themselves, each man shall make an opening statement of
approximately eight minutes' duration and a closing statement of approximately
three minutes' duration. In between the candidates will answer, or comment upon
answers to questions put by a panel of correspondents. In this, the first
discussion in a series of four uh - joint appearances, the subject-matter has
been agreed, will be restricted to internal or domestic American matters. And
now for the first opening statement by Senator John F. Kennedy.
The Analysis: The Initiation (I) Generic
Structure
Opening:
-
Greeting
Good evening
-
Announcing sponsor
of debate
The television and radio stations
of the United States and their affiliated stations are proud to provide
facilities for a discussion of issues in the current political campaign by the
two major candidates for the presidency
Introducing the participants
-
The Candidates
The Republican candidate, Vice President
Richard M. Nixon, and the Democratic candidate, Senator John F. Kennedy.
Structuring the debate organization
-
Providing debate rules
According to rules set by the
candidates themselves, each man shall make an opening statement of
approximately eight minutes' duration and a closing statement of approximately
three minutes' duration. In between the candidates will answer, or comment upon
answers to questions put by a panel of correspondents.
-
Revealing the debate scope (topic area)
In this, the first discussion in a
series of four uh - joint appearances, the subject-matter has been agreed, will
be restricted to internal or domestic American matters
Inviting arguments:
-
Selecting the first speaker
And now for the first opening
statement by Senator John F. Kennedy
Senator
Kennedy: Response (R)
Mr. Smith, Mr. Nixon. In the election of 1860, Abraham Lincoln said
the question was whether this nation could exist half-slave or half-free. In
the election of 1960, and with the world around us, the question is whether the
world will exist half-slave or half-free, whether it will move in the direction
of freedom, in the direction of the road that we are taking, or whether it will
move in the direction of slavery. I think it will depend in great measure upon
what we do here in the United States, on the kind of society that we build, on
the kind of strength that we maintain. We discuss tonight domestic issues, but
I would not want that to be any implication to be given that this does not
involve directly our struggle with Mr. Khrushchev for survival. Mr. Khrushchev
is in New York, and he maintains the Communist offensive throughout the world
because of the productive power of the Soviet Union itself. The Chinese
Communists have always had a large population. But they are important and
dangerous now because they are mounting a major effort within their own
country. The kind of country we have here, the kind of society we have, the
kind of strength we build in the United States will be the defense of freedom.
If we do well here, if we meet our obligations, if we're moving ahead, then I
think freedom will be secure around the world. If we fail, then freedom fails.
Therefore, I think the question before the American people is: Are we doing as
much as we can do? Are we as strong as we should be? Are we as strong as we
must be if we're going to maintain our independence, and if we're going to
maintain and hold out the hand of friendship to those who look to us for
assistance, to those who look to us for survival? I should make it very clear
that I do not think we're doing enough, that I am not satisfied as an American
with the progress that we're making. This is a great country, but I think it
could be a greater country; and this is a powerful country, but I think it
could be a more powerful country. I'm not satisfied to have fifty percent of
our steel-mill capacity unused. I'm not satisfied when the United States had
last year the lowest rate of economic growth of any major industrialized
society in the world. Because economic growth means strength and vitality; it
means we're able to sustain our defenses; it means we're able to meet our
commitments abroad. I'm not satisfied when we have over nine billion dollars
worth of food - some of it rotting - even though there is a hungry world, and
even though four million Americans wait every month for a food package from the
government, which averages five cents a day per individual. I saw cases in West
Virginia, here in the United States, where children took home part of their
school lunch in order to feed their families because I don't think we're
meeting our obligations toward these Americans. I'm not satisfied when the
Soviet Union is turning out twice as many scientists and engineers as we are.
I'm not satisfied when many of our teachers are inadequately paid, or when our children
go to school part-time shifts. I think we should have an educational system
second to none. I'm not satisfied when I see men like Jimmy Hoffa - in charge
of the largest union in the United States - still free. I'm not satisfied when
we are failing to develop the natural resources of the United States to the
fullest. Here in the United States, which developed the Tennessee Valley and
which built the Grand Coulee and the other dams in the Northwest United States
at the present rate of hydropower production - and that is the hallmark of an
industrialized society - the Soviet Union by 1975 will be producing more power
than we are. These are all the things, I think, in this country that can make
our society strong, or can mean that it stands still. I'm not satisfied until
every American enjoys his full constitutional rights. If a Negro baby is born -
and this is true also of Puerto Ricans and Mexicans in some of our cities - he
has about one-half as much chance to get through high school as a white baby. He
has one-third as much chance to get through college as a white student. He has
about a third as much chance to be a professional man, about half as much
chance to own a house. He has about uh - four times as much chance that he'll
be out of work in his life as the white baby. I think we can do better. I don't
want the talents of any American to go to waste. I know that there are those
who want to turn everything over to the government. I don't at all. I want the
individuals to meet their responsibilities. And I want the states to meet their
responsibilities. But I think there is also a national responsibility. The
argument has been used against every piece of social legislation in the last
twenty-five years. The people of the United States individually could not have
developed the Tennessee Valley; collectively they could have. A cotton farmer
in Georgia or a peanut farmer or a dairy farmer in Wisconsin and Minnesota, he
cannot protect himself against the forces of supply and demand in the market
place; but working together in effective governmental programs he can do so.
Seventeen million Americans, who live over sixty-five on an average Social
Security check of about seventy-eight dollars a month, they're not able to
sustain themselves individually, but they can sustain themselves through the
social security system. I don't believe in big government, but I believe in
effective governmental action. And I think that's the only way that the United
States is going to maintain its freedom. It's the only way that we're going to
move ahead. I think we can do a better job. I think we're going to have to do a
better job if we are going to meet the responsibilities which time and events
have placed upon us. We cannot turn the job over to anyone else. If the United
States fails, then the whole cause of freedom fails. And I think it depends in
great measure on what we do here in this country. The reason Franklin Roosevelt
was a good neighbor in Latin America was because he was a good neighbor in the
United States. Because they felt that the American society was moving again. I
want us to recapture that image. I want people in Latin America and Africa and
Asia to start to look to America; to see how we're doing things; to wonder what
the resident of the United States is doing; and not to look at Khrushchev, or
look at the Chinese Communists. That is the obligation upon our generation. In
1933, Franklin Roosevelt said in his inaugural that this generation of
Americans has a rendezvous with destiny. I think our generation of Americans
has the same rendezvous. The question now is: Can freedom be maintained under
the most severe tack - attack it has ever known? I think it can be. And I think
in the final analysis it depends upon what we do here. I think it's time
America started moving again.
The Analysis of The Response (R) Generic
Structure
Opening:
-
Expressing
gratitude
Mr. Smith, Mr. Nixon
Overviewing the Topic:
-
Stating the
issue
In the election of 1860, Abraham
Lincoln said the question was whether this nation could exist half-slave or
half-free. In the election of 1960, and with the world around us, the question
is whether the world will exist half-slave or half-free, whether it will move
in the direction of freedom, in the direction of the road that we are taking,
or whether it will move in the direction of slavery. I think it will depend in
great measure upon what we do here in the United States, on the kind of society
that we build, on the kind of strength that we maintain.
We discuss tonight domestic issues,
but I would not want that to be any implication to be given that this does not
involve directly our struggle with Mr. Khrushchev for survival. Mr. Khrushchev
is in New York, a nd he maintains the Communist offensive throughout the world
because of the productive power of the Soviet Union itself. The Chinese
Communists have always had a large population. But they are important and
dangerous now because they are mounting a major effort within their own
country. The kind of country we have here, the kind of society we have, the
kind of strength we build in the United States will be the defense of freedom.
If we do well here, if we meet our obligations, if we're moving ahead, then I
think freedom will be secure around the world. If we fail, then freedom fails.
-
Supporting
points
Therefore, I think the question
before the American people is: Are we doing as much as we can do? Are we as
strong as we should be? Are we as strong as we must be if we're going to
maintain our independence, and if we're going to maintain and hold out the hand
of friendship to those who look to us for assistance, to those who look to us
for survival? I should make it very clear that I do not think we're doing
enough, that I am not satisfied as an American with the progress that we're
making. This is a great country, but I think it could be a greater country; and
this is a powerful country, but I think it could be a more powerful country.
I'm not satisfied to have fifty percent of our steel-mill capacity unused. I'm
not satisfied when the United States had last year the lowest rate of economic
growth of any major industrialized society in the world. Because economic
growth means strength and vitality; it means we're able to sustain our
defenses; it means we're able to meet our commitments abroad. I'm not satisfied
when we have over nine billion dollars worth of food - some of it rotting -
even though there is a hungry world, and even though four million Americans
wait every month for a food package from the government, which averages five
cents a day per individual.
Stating Solutions
-
Encouraging
I should make it very clear that I
do not think we're doing enough, that I am not satisfied as an American with
the progress that we're making. This is a great country, but I think it could
be a greater country; and this is a powerful country, but I think it could be a
more powerful country. I'm not satisfied to have fifty percent of our
steel-mill capacity unused. I'm not satisfied when the United States had last
year the lowest rate of economic growth of any major industrialized society in
the world. Because economic growth means strength and vitality; it means we're
able to sustain our defenses; it means we're able to meet our commitments
abroad. I'm not satisfied when we have over nine billion dollars worth of food
- some of it rotting - even though there is a hungry world, and even though
four million Americans wait every month for a food package from the government,
which averages five cents a day per individual. I saw cases in West Virginia, here in the United States, where
children took home part of their school lunch in order to feed their families
because I don't think we're meeting our obligations toward these Americans. I'm
not satisfied when the Soviet Union is turning out twice as many scientists and
engineers as we are. I'm not satisfied when many of our teachers are
inadequately paid, or when our children go to school part-time shifts. I think
we should have an educational system second to none. I'm not satisfied when I
see men like Jimmy Hoffa - in charge of the largest union in the United States
- still free. I'm not satisfied when we are failing to develop the natural
resources of the United States to the fullest. Here in the United States, which
developed the Tennessee Valley and which built the Grand Coulee and the other
dams in the Northwest United States at the present rate of hydropower
production - and that is the hallmark of an industrialized society - the Soviet
Union by 1975 will be producing more power than we are.
-
Clarifying
the solutions
These are all the things, I think,
in this country that can make our society
strong, or can mean that it stands still. I'm not satisfied until every
American enjoys his full constitutional rights. If a Negro baby is born - and
this is true also of Puerto Ricans and Mexicans in some of our cities - he has
about one-half as much chance to get through high school as a white baby. He
has one-third as much chance to get through college as a white student. He has
about a third as much chance to be a professional man, about half as much
chance to own a house. He has about uh - four times as much chance that he'll
be out of work in his life as the white baby. I think we can do better. I don't
want the talents of any American to go to waste. I know that there are those
who want to turn everything over to the government. I don't at all. I want the
individuals to meet their responsibilities. And I want the states to meet their
responsibilities. But I think there is also a national responsibility. The
argument has been used against every piece of social legislation in the last
twenty-five years. The people of the United States individually could not have
developed the Tennessee Valley; collectively they could have. A cotton farmer
in Georgia or a peanut farmer or a dairy farmer in Wisconsin and Minnesota, he
cannot protect himself against the forces of supply and demand in the market
place; but working together in effective governmental programs he can do so.
Seventeen million Americans, who live over sixty-five on an average Social
Security check of about seventy-eight dollars a month, they're not able to
sustain themselves individually, but they can sustain themselves through the
social security system. I don't believe in big government, but I believe in
effective governmental action. And I think that's the only way that the United
States is going to maintain its freedom. It's the only way that we're going to
move ahead. I think we can do a better job. I think we're going to have to do a
better job if we are going to meet the responsibilities which time and events have
placed upon us.
-
Giving
Recommendation (Emphasis)
We cannot turn the job over to
anyone else. If the United States fails, then the whole cause of freedom fails.
And I think it depends in great measure on what we do here in this country. The
reason Franklin Roosevelt was a good neighbor in Latin America was because he
was a good neighbor in the United States. Because they felt that the American
society was moving again. I want us to recapture that image. I want people in
Latin America and Africa and Asia to start to look to America; to see how we're
doing things; to wonder what the resident of the United States is doing; and
not to look at Khrushchev, or look at the Chinese Communists. That is the
obligation upon our generation. In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt said in his
inaugural that this generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny. I
think our generation of Americans has the same rendezvous. The question now is:
Can freedom be maintained under the most severe tack - attack it has ever
known? I think it can be. And I think in the final analysis it depends upon
what we do here. I think it's time America started moving again.
MR. SMITH: And now the opening statement by Vice President Richard
M. Nixon.
Mr. Nixon : Response (R)
Mr. Smith, Senator Kennedy. The things that Senator Kennedy has
said many of us can agree with. There is no question but that we cannot discuss
our internal affairs in the United States without recognizing that they have a
tremendous bearing on our international position. There is no question but that
this nation cannot stand still; because we are in a deadly competition, a
competition not only with the men in the Kremlin, but the men in Peking. We're
ahead in this competition, as Senator Kennedy, I think, has implied. But when
you're in a race, the only way to stay ahead is to move ahead. And I subscribe
completely to the spirit that Senator Kennedy has expressed tonight, the spirit
that the United States should move ahead. Where, then, do we disagree? I think
we disagree on the implication of his remarks tonight and on the statements
that he has made on many occasions during his campaign to the effect that the
United States has been standing still. We heard tonight, for example, the
statement made that our growth in national product last year was the lowest of
any industrial nation in the world. Now last year, of course, was 1958. That
happened to be a recession year. But when we look at the growth of G.N.P. this
year, a year of recovery, we find that it's six and nine-tenths per cent and
one of the highest in the world today. More about that later. Looking then to
this problem of how the United States should move ahead and where the United
States is moving, I think it is well that we take the advice of a very famous
campaigner: Let's look at the record. Is the United States standing still? Is
it true that this Administration, as Senator Kennedy has charged, has been an
Administration of retreat, of defeat, of stagnation? Is it true that, as far as
this country is concerned, in the field of electric power, in all of the fields
that he has mentioned, we have not been moving ahead. Well, we have a
comparison that we can make. We have the record of the Truman Administration of
seven and a half years and the seven and a half years of the Eisenhower
Administration. When we compare these two records in the areas that Senator
Kennedy has - has discussed tonight, I think we find that America has been
moving ahead. Let's take schools. We have built more schools in these last
seven and a half years than we built in the previous seven and a half, for that
matter in the previous twenty years. Let's take hydroelectric power. We have
developed more hydroelectric power in these seven and a half years than was
developed in any previous administration in history. Let us take hospitals. We
find that more have been built in this Administration than in the previous
Administration. The same is true of highways. Let's put it in terms that all of
us can understand. We often hear gross national product discussed and in that
respect may I say that when we compare the growth in this Administration with
that of the previous Administration that then there was a total growth of
eleven percent over seven years; in this Administration there has been a total
growth of nineteen per cent over seven years. That shows that there's been more
growth in this Administration than in its predecessor. But let's not put it
there; let's put it in terms of the average family. What has happened to you?
We find that your wages have gone up five times as much in the Eisenhower
Administration as they did in the Truman Administration. What about the prices
you pay? We find that the prices you pay went up five times as much in the
Truman Administration as they did in the Eisenhower Administration. What's the
net result of this? This means that the average family income went up fifteen
per cent in the Eisenhower years as against two per cent in the Truman years.
Now, this is not standing still. But, good as this record is, may I emphasize
it isn't enough. A record is never something to stand on. It's something to
build on. And in building on this record, I believe that we have the secret for
progress, we know the way to progress. And I think, first of all, our own record
proves that we know the way. Senator Kennedy has suggested that he believes he
knows the way. I respect the sincerity which he m- which he makes that
suggestion. But on the other hand, when we look at the various programs that he
offers, they do not seem to be new. They seem to be simply retreads of the
programs of the Truman Administration which preceded it. And I would suggest
that during the course of the evening he might indicate those areas in which
his programs are new, where they will mean more progress than we had then. What
kind of programs are we for? We are for programs that will expand educational
opportunities, that will give to all Americans their equal chance for
education, for all of the things which are necessary and dear to the hearts of
our people. We are for programs, in addition, which will see that our medical
care for the aged are - is - are much - is much better handled than it is at
the present time. Here again, may I indicate that Senator Kennedy and I are not
in disagreement as to the aims. We both want to help the old people. We want to
see that they do have adequate medical care. The question is the means. I think
that the means that I advocate will reach that goal better than the means that
he advocates. I could give better examples, but for - for whatever it is,
whether it's in the field of housing, or health, or medical care, or schools,
or the eh- development of electric power, we have programs which we believe
will move America, move her forward and build on the wonderful record that we
have made over these past seven and a half years. Now, when we look at these
programs, might I suggest that in evaluating them we often have a tendency to
say that the test of a program is how much you're spending. I will concede that
in all the areas to which I have referred Senator Kennedy would have the spe-
federal government spend more than I would have it spend. I costed out the cost
of the Democratic platform. It runs a minimum of thirteen and two-tenths
billions dollars a year more than we are presently spending to a maximum of
eighteen billion dollars a year more than we're presently spending. Now the
Republican platform will cost more too. It will cost a minimum of four billion
dollars a year more, a maximum of four and nine-tenths billion dollar a year
more than we're presently spending. Now, does this mean that his program is
better than ours? Not at all. Because it isn't a question of how much the
federal government spends; it isn't a question of which government does the
most. It is a question of which administration does the right thing. And in our
case, I do believe that our programs will stimulate the creative energies of a
hundred and eighty million free Americans. I believe the programs that Senator
Kennedy advocates will have a tendency to stifle those creative energies, I
believe in other words, that his program would lead to the stagnation of the
motive power that we need in this country to get progress. The final point that
I would like to make is this: Senator Kennedy has suggested in his speeches
that we lack compassion for the poor, for the old, and for others that are
unfortunate. Let us understand throughout this campaign that his motives and
mine are sincere. I know what it means to be poor. I know what it means to see
people who are unemployed. I know Senator Kennedy feels as deeply about these
problems as I do, but our disagreement is not about the goals for America but
only about the means to reach those goals.
The Analysis: The Response (R) Generic Structure
Opening
-
Appreciating Audience
Mr. Smith, Senator Kennedy
-
Initiating Rebuttal by Stating Agreement
The things that Senator Kennedy has said many of us can
agree with. There is no question but that we cannot discuss our internal
affairs in the United States without recognizing that they have a tremendous
bearing on our international position. There is no question but that this
nation cannot stand still; because we are in a deadly competition, a
competition not only with the men in the Kremlin, but the men in Peking. We're
ahead in this competition, as Senator Kennedy, I think, has implied. But when
you're in a race, the only way to stay ahead is to move ahead. And I subscribe
completely to the spirit that Senator Kennedy has expressed tonight, the spirit
that the United States should move ahead.
-
Addressing Rebuttal
Where, then, do we disagree? I think we disagree on the
implication of his remarks tonight and on the statements that he has made on
many occasions during his campaign to the effect that the United States has
been standing still. We heard tonight, for example, the statement made that our
growth in national product last year was the lowest of any industrial nation in
the world. Now last year, of course, was 1958. That happened to be a recession
year. But when we look at the growth of G.N.P. this year, a year of recovery,
we find that it's six and nine-tenths per cent and one of the highest in the
world today. More about that later. Looking then to this problem of how the
United States should move ahead and where the United States is moving, I think
it is well that we take the advice of a very famous campaigner: Let's look at
the record. Is the United States standing still? Is it true that this
Administration, as Senator Kennedy has charged, has been an Administration of
retreat, of defeat, of stagnation? Is it true that, as far as this country is
concerned, in the field of electric power, in all of the fields that he has
mentioned, we have not been moving ahead.
-
Supporting Rebuttal
Well, we have a comparison that we can make. We have
the record of the Truman Administration of seven and a half years and the seven
and a half years of the Eisenhower Administration. When we compare these two
records in the areas that Senator Kennedy has - has discussed tonight, I think
we find that America has been moving ahead. Let's take schools. We have built
more schools in these last seven and a half years than we built in the previous
seven and a half, for that matter in the previous twenty years. Let's take
hydroelectric power. We have developed more hydroelectric power in these seven
and a half years than was developed in any previous administration in history.
Let us take hospitals. We find that more have been built in this Administration
than in the previous Administration. The same is true of highways. Let's put it
in terms that all of us can understand. We often hear gross national product
discussed and in that respect may I say that when we compare the growth in this
Administration with that of the previous Administration that then there was a
total growth of eleven percent over seven years; in this Administration there
has been a total growth of nineteen per cent over seven years. That shows that
there's been more growth in this Administration than in its predecessor.
But let's not put it there; let's put it in terms of
the average family. What has happened to you? We find that your wages have gone
up five times as much in the Eisenhower Administration as they did in the
Truman Administration. What about the prices you pay? We find that the prices
you pay went up five times as much in the Truman Administration as they did in
the Eisenhower Administration. What's the net result of this? This means that
the average family income went up fifteen per cent in the Eisenhower years as
against two per cent in the Truman years.
-
Emphasizing Rebuttal
Now, this is not standing still. But, good as this
record is, may I emphasize it isn't enough. A record is never something to
stand on. It's something to build on. And in building on this record, I believe
that we have the secret for progress, we know the way to progress. And I think,
first of all, our own record proves that we know the way. Senator Kennedy has
suggested that he believes he knows the way. I respect the sincerity which he m-
which he makes that suggestion. But on the other hand, when we look at the
various programs that he offers, they do not seem to be new. They seem to be
simply retreads of the programs of the Truman Administration which preceded it.
-
Stating The Recommendation
And I would suggest that during the course of the
evening he might indicate those areas in which his programs are new, where they
will mean more progress than we had then. What kind of programs are we for? We
are for programs that will expand educational opportunities, that will give to
all Americans their equal chance for education, for all of the things which are
necessary and dear to the hearts of our people. We are for programs, in
addition, which will see that our medical care for the aged are - is - are much
- is much better handled than it is at the present time. Here again, may I
indicate that Senator Kennedy and I are not in disagreement as to the aims. We
both want to help the old people. We want to see that they do have adequate
medical care. The question is the means. I think that the means that I advocate
will reach that goal better than the means that he advocates. I could give
better examples, but for - for whatever it is, whether it's in the field of
housing, or health, or medical care, or schools, or the eh- development of
electric power, we have programs which we believe will move America, move her
forward and build on the wonderful record that we have made over these past
seven and a half years.
-
Adressing Rebuttal Again
Now, when we look at these programs, might I suggest
that in evaluating them we often have a tendency to say that the test of a
program is how much you're spending. I will concede that in all the areas to
which I have referred Senator Kennedy would have the spe- federal government
spend more than I would have it spend. I costed out the cost of the Democratic
platform. It runs a minimum of thirteen and two-tenths billions dollars a year
more than we are presently spending to a maximum of eighteen billion dollars a
year more than we're presently spending. Now the Republican platform will cost
more too. It will cost a minimum of four billion dollars a year more, a maximum
of four and nine-tenths billion dollar a year more than we're presently
spending. Now, does this mean that his program is better than ours? Not at all.
Because it isn't a question of how much the federal government spends; it isn't
a question of which government does the most. It is a question of which
administration does the right thing. And in our case, I do believe that our
programs will stimulate the creative energies of a hundred and eighty million
free Americans. I believe the programs that Senator Kennedy advocates will have
a tendency to stifle those creative energies, I believe in other words, that his
program would lead to the stagnation of the motive power that we need in this
country to get progress. The final point that I would like to make is this:
Senator Kennedy has suggested in his speeches that we lack compassion for the
poor, for the old, and for others that are unfortunate. Let us understand
throughout this campaign that his motives and mine are sincere. I know what it
means to be poor. I know what it means to see people who are unemployed. I know
Senator Kennedy feels as deeply about these problems as I do, but our
disagreement is not about the goals for America but only about the means to
reach those goals.
Komentar
Posting Komentar