Robert A. Taft Quotes (1889-1953)

“[A]s a practical matter, the President is nearly always made a dictator in wartimes. But if we begin to do that every time Congress thinks there is an emergency, which is the theory we have pursued for some years, it takes very little, after a while, to make an emergency.”

“There are some places where it may even be wise to commit some land troops if we can see a reasonable chance of success. Korea does not seem to be such an area, but the entire continent of Africa is connected with Asia, and certainly we should assist in defending the Suez Canal as a means of maintaining our connections by sea, and northern Africa where we hold valuable air bases. It may be possible to assist Spain. I should suppose that Singapore and the Malay peninsula could be defended by land troops if sea and air power is available on both sides of the peninsula. The extension of such aid by land troops, however, is a dangerous experiment as we found in Korea. I doubt if we should enter into any commitments in advance, or undertake the job at all unless we are sure it is well within our capacity, and almost certain of success.”

“The principal purpose of the foreign policy of the United States is to maintain the liberty of our people. Its purpose is not to reform the entire world or spread sweetness and light and economic prosperity to peoples who have lived and worked out their own salvation for centuries, according to their customs, and to the best of their ability. We do have an interest, of course, in the economic welfare of other nations and in the military strength of other nations, but only to the extent to which our assistance may reduce the probability of an attack on the freedom of our own people. After liberty, peace must be the goal of our policy and of our leaders—more than has been in recent years. In order to assure progress and happiness for our people, we must avoid war like poison, except when it is absolutely essential to protect our liberty. War not only produces pitiful human suffering and utter destruction of things worth while but it actually may end our own liberty, certainly for the time being. From our experience in the last two world wars, it actually promotes dictatorship and totalitarian government throughout the world. It is almost as disastrous for the victor as for the vanquished. War is to be preferred only to the destruction of our liberty.”

“In my opinion, we must have an armed force sufficiently large to repel any attack which might be made. If the possible attackers in the future build up instruments of war which might be used against us, we must build faster. Can we permanently maintain our naval forces at their increased strength, and an army of seven hundred fifty thousand men, with 1, 250,000 reserves by voluntary enlistment, without compelling men to serve against their will? Surely, as a permanent policy, the question answers itself. It is only a question of making the service sufficiently attractive. We seem to be assuming that it is a sacrifice to go into the Army; that it is the most unpleasant occupation in the United States, and one which every boy instinctively avoids. That should be far from the case. In time of war the Army is dangerous; but if we prepare adequately we should not be at war, and the Army for the most part is a peacetime, highly specialized occupation, with only a chance of danger. Experience shows that men do not avoid an occupation because there is a chance of danger. There are dangerous civilian occupations—work with high-tension wires, work in tunnel construction, work in coal mines—and there is never any difficulty in finding men interested in those occupations. The Army has many advantages—a clean and regular life without responsibility, an attraction in the very discipline and order which appeals to some men and offends others very greatly. There are few occupations in which men could be induced to volunteer for $21 a month, and yet today we are enlisting, over twenty-five thousand men a month. In July we enlisted over thirty thousand. The voluntary-enlistment plan has not broken down. In spite of inadequate pay and three-year enlistments, it has accomplished everything which has been asked of it. Up to this time Congress has not even declared that a larger army is necessary. We can hardly blame the enlistment system for not providing an army which we have not actually authorized. No appeal has been made by the President for enlistment. Surely a general campaign led by the President, and organized on a voluntary basis throughout the United States, can secure even half a million men if that many should be necessary. There are many million men unemployed.”

“This is a quality that has appeared often enough in American history — and outside America as well. Senators like Ted Kennedy have been prominent before, bearing names like Henry Clay or Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater and Hubert Humphrey. Governors like New York Republican Nelson Rockefeller or Alabama Democrat George Wallace. A Congressman like Jack Kemp. Non-office holders like Martin Luther King in the United States or Mohandas Gandhi in India or Nelson Mandela in South Africa (who later became president of his country) can, through sheer force of personality, come to dominate the political scene of the day without ever bearing a single official title.”