Marxist Bulletin No. 4
Expulsion from the Socialist Workers Party
Document 7
Report to New York Branch on suspensions By Farrell Dobbs
I. Presentation
Comrades, the purpose of my report tonight is to inform you of a
disciplinary action taken by the Political Committee. On November 1, the
Political Committee suspended from membership in the party comrades Robertson,
Mage, White, Harper and Ireland. The action was taken after a report had been
received from the Control Commission which the Political Committee had asked to
conduct an investigation of the Robertson-Mage-White group. At the outset I
want to remind you of the Constitutional provisions that specify the procedure
to be followed in a matter of this kind. The Party Constitution invests the
Control Commission with full authority to investigate any individual or
circumstance within the Party as it may deem necessary. The Commission is
authorized by the Constitution to designate representatives to participate in
such matters if the Commission so chooses. The authority of the Control
Commission supersedes any local investigation or trial. It applies even in
strictly local branch matters where, in the judgment of the Control Commission,
its investigation is needed.
In the case before us, we are dealing with a national problem and
that is why action has been taken directly by the Control Commission rather
than proceeding through a branch investigation. As the Constitution provides,
the Control Commission presents its findings to the Political Committee for
action. The decision of the Political Committee is binding upon the Party
branch--upon all Party branches--and the branch has no authority in the matter.
The comrades who have been suspended from membership by the Political Committee
can appeal from that suspension to the plenum of the National Committee.
Pending any action by the plenum on the matter, the decision of the Political
Committee has full force and effect and the branch must by Constitutional
mandate comply with the Political Committee directive on these suspensions. The
report I am presenting tonight is therefore given for your information and not
for any action by the branch.
As a further preface, I will undertake to present a brief sketch
of the background factors involved in this case to help clear up some possible
confusion concerning basic party procedures and principles and the enforcement
of party discipline. For several years, as youre all generally aware, we
have been having a continuous literary discussion in the party, involving first
the Chinese question, then later including the Negro struggle and then taking
into its scope the question of the world movement. This process, as you know,
culminated finally in a general pre-convention discussion that began last
spring. Now this long period of literary discussion, on the questions I
mentioned, was a special circumstance due to a series of unusual factors
stemming from the peculiar nature of those three questions at that particular
juncture. This circumstance could well have given newer members of the party an
unclear picture of our basic procedure. It could seem from the nature of that
discussion that internal discussion is always in order within the party. It
could seem that party policy can be tossed up for grabs at any time by anybody
who so chooses. Thats not the case. The party is not a perpetual
discussion circle. The party discusses in order to decide and it decides in
order to act. It simply took longer than usual on the three questions involved.
But firm decisions on those and other disputed questions were made at the
convention of the Party last July.
In addition to the circumstance of the long
literary discussion, some confusion also resulted from the conduct of minority
groups within the Party in the course of the discussion. What had been
authorized as, a literary discussion was carried beyond the literary form. Not
by chance, not by accident, not out of ignorance, but by deliberate act.
Comrades, particularly young comrades, were invited into private séances
for coffee and conversation to give them a one-sided view of the dispute within
the party and warp their capacity for objective political judgment before they
ever had a chance to participate in an open confrontation in the Party in a
formal way. Spokesmen for minorities on the branch floor resorted to one and
another ruse to shoot angles on various points on the agenda to introduce their
political line and did so with the aim of trying to make it appear that the
party has no set policy on anything. Branch procedures were disrupted, you may
recall; majority rule flaunted; tendencies toward paralysis inflicted upon the
branch by points of order, points of personal privilege, points of procedure,
challenging the rule of the chair. In short, the party was subjected to a
demonstration of factional hooliganism.
Let me touch on some provocative acts on the part of the
Robertson-Mage-White group. Last winter, you will recall, they set up a
so-called study group here in New York. It was supposed to be for minority
supporters and what they called sympathizers of the minority. It
was led by Comrade Mage, who was going to present his views which, as everybody
in the branch knew, were in opposition to the majority views. And this
so-called study group was organized behind the back of the party in violation
of party procedures. The Robertson-Mage-White group was called to order by the
Political Committee for this violation of procedure, after the correct
procedure had been explained, as you will recall when Comrade Tom Kerry, as
National Organization Secretary, appeared before the New York branch on the
question.
What you may not know is that not long thereafter comrades
Robertson, Mage and White jointly submitted a statement to the National
Committee in which they denounced the Political Committee for its intervention
with respect to their so-called study group that was organized in violation of
party procedure. They said that they will abide by what they termed the
democratic centralist practices discipline and responsibilities normal to the
Trotskyist movement. They declared that they will not surrender what they
term the necessary and essential attributes and functions of an organized
and internally democratic tendency. Now thats a slick piece of
double talk but it leaves some questions. What do the leaders of the
Robertson-Mage-White group consider normal in Party procedures?
What attributes and functions do they consider necessary and
essential to their group? That they didnt explain. But later on we
were to get a plainer definition of what the leadership of the
Robertson-Mage-White group considers normal, necessary, and
essential practices.
You will recall that shortly before the convention serious charges
were made concerning the conduct of the Robertson-Mage-White group by Comrade
Wohlforth in an article that was published in Discussion Bulletin, Vol.
24, No. 27. The charges of Comrade Wohlforth involved the party loyalty of the
Robertson-Mage-White group on three main counts: a hostile attitude toward the
party, a practice of double recruiting--recruiting people into the group and
then seeking to bring them into the party--and the projection of a split
perspective. In his article Comrade Wohlforth quoted from a Robertson-Ireland
document and a Harper statement. When the Wohlforth charges appeared, acting in
my capacity as National Secretary, I asked Comrade Robertson for copies of the
Robertson-Ireland and Harper documents. He rejected this request and said the
proper procedure would be to convene a Control Commission inquiry. I then asked
Comrade Wohlforth for copies of the documents he had quoted. He too rejected my
request, saying the documents he quoted were private political
material. Thats where matters stood shortly before the convention.
The party leadership took no further action at that time and I want to touch
briefly on the reasons why.
In a political dispute, particularly a serious political dispute
of the kind we were engaged in before the convention, it is best generally to
try to avoid organizational controversies. Warn those who are guilty of
violations of correct procedure, explain correct procedures, explain the party
principles, but try to avoid mixing up political and organizational issues. In
general it is best first to resolve the political issues on a political basis
and then deal with the organizational problems confronting the party. Another
factor that should be kept in mind is that organizational violations,
particularly when they assume an intensive character in the course of a deep
political controversy, are very often simply an organizational form of
expression of political differences, a form of expression that can involve very
fundamental questions concerning the character of the party, as is true of the
case now before us. It was for these reasons that the party leadership took no
further action in the period prior to the convention. But the action on these
organizational matters was only temporarily postponed; it was not cancelled, it
was not relegated to the Greek kalends. In those circumstances, some comrades
could get the mistaken impression that factionalists can get away with anything
in the party. Thats not the case. First we reach a decision on the
political issues in dispute, and then we proceed to deal with indiscipline and
disloyalty.
In that connection the convention marked a definitive stage in the
development of the internal party dispute. The political issues were firmly
decided at the convention by an overwhelming majority. In the argument leading
up to those decisions the minorities had received a full opportunity to present
their views. Recall the huge volume of discussion bulletins that were published
and recall the fact that the bulk of the material in those bulletins was
submitted by minorities. Recall the generous time allotments that were given to
minority reporters and minority speakers in the branches and in the convention.
There was no suppression of their right to express their views. All that
happened was that they lost the political argument in the party.
While they were waging that political argument
they raised a great hue and cry, a great clamor, about the democratic rights of
minorities. They tried to create an impression that democracy is a possession
only of a minority, and that if youre a majorityite, youre
automatically an anti-democratic hooligan whos got no rights, but who is
just abusing the rights of poor, innocent, victimized minorities. Well
thats not the case either. Party democracy involves more than the
democratic rights of minorities, even though you wouldnt think so from
the attitude the minorities have manifested. They have claimed special license
to defy majority rule. Why? Because, they argue, they constitute an organized
group, because theyve differentiated themselves in that organized way
from the party as a whole. They act as though the majority had no authority
whatever concerning their factional conduct in the party. They attempt to
picture the majority of the party as simply a rival faction, and on that basis
they claim equal factional rights with the majority of the party, contending
that the majority cant interfere in their internal factional affairs.
Thats a concept absolutely alien to the Socialist Workers
Party. The minority has the right to present its views in internal discussion
when issues are in dispute and a decision is being reached by the party. The
majority has the right to enforce the party decisions, and the right and the
duty to see that everybody in the party abides by the basic principles of the
party. In the last analysis, comrades, the majority is the party. Ill
tell you why. The role of the majority as the decisive force in the party flows
right straight from the principle of majority rule. The right of the majority
to decide is just as fundamental as the democratic right of a minority to
present its views. In fact its vital to the health and functioning of a
revolutionary socialist combat party which we are working to organize.
The party has the right by majority decision to supervise the
public activities of its members and to regulate all internal party affairs.
For example: Minorities have the right to express their views internally when
discussion has been formally authorized on an issue in dispute within the
party. The party has the right by majority decision to regulate that internal
discussion. Or again, minorities have the right within our party to form an
organized group and nobody is challenging that right, nobody is seeking to
impair that right. All thats happening is that, because the party through
its majority insists upon the organized groups of minorities within the party
living up to the principles and policies of the party, a phony hue and cry has
been raised that were trying to suppress factions. Thats not true
at all. All that the majority of the party is insisting on is that organized
minorities within the party live by, and within, the principles of the party
and that they be loyal to the party. And the party has the right by majority
decision to enforce disciplined and loyal conduct by organized minorities
within its ranks.
Now the reality of a party majority does not necessarily infer the
existence of a majority faction. Basically it means party action by majority
decision. There may or may not be a majority faction, but the party majority
has the right to organize itself as a faction, just as minorities are granted
that right. The existence of organized minority groups within the party does
not, as the minorities try to make it appear, automatically make the party
majority simply a rival factional group. The fact is there is not a majority
faction in the party today. The majority of the comrades in this party act
simply as members who relate themselves to the party as a whole. A majority of
the comrades in this party today function only through formally constituted
party bodies. They do not differentiate themselves in perpetuity from the rest
of the party on a special group basis. Theirs is a correct attitude.
Its a big mistake, comrades, to think of the Socialist
Workers Party as though it were simply a loose federation of factions. The
party is not an all-inclusive political jungle that allows itself to be
perpetually torn by factional warfare. That is not the nature of our party.
Historically our party has striven to constitute itself as a politically
homogeneous body. Membership in this party presupposes basic agreement on
program and on party principles. It is that basic component in the party that
cements us and permits political compatibility, even though we have differences
of opinion from time to time over one or another issue. It is those basic
factors that permit us to maintain objective conduct internally and to keep an
equilibrium, and a dynamism and a stability in the party with respect to
carrying forward the work of the party, even though we may be having
differences of opinion about one or another point. Now the fact that
historically we have striven to be a basically homogeneous party does not at
all mean that we are a monolithic party. Not at all, not at all. The record is
crystal clear. All down through the years of the existence of our party--and it
certainly has been proven to the hilt in the most recent times--there has been
ample room within the party for political differences, even major differences
of serious import. The record is crystal clear that organized tendencies and
factions are permitted to exist in our party, but there is something else that
wants to be kept crystal clear as well. These organized tendencies and factions
must abide by party principles and they must be wholly loyal to the party.
Some of these basic concepts got lost from view to a certain
extent during the pre-convention period. But now the convention is over and
these principles have to be emphasized and practiced and enforced. In that
sense the democratic rights of the party majority come to the fore now with
full force and effect. The political decisions have been made by the
convention; the line for the party work has been set; the discussion is ended
until it is again officially authorized. We proceed now to party-building work
on the basis of the convention decisions and on no other basis. No minority
will be permitted to run wild inside the party. No internal disruption will be
allowed. Flaunting of party principles, violations of party loyalty will not be
tolerated.
Now, at the convention, Comrade Robertson repeated his assertion
that no information would be given concerning the Wohlforth charges unless a
Control Commission inquiry was convened. Shortly after the convention, the
Political Committee referred the matter to the Control Commission for
investigation. Hearings were held by the Control Commission across a period of
several weeks, and a report was submitted under date of October 24, 1963, to
the Political Committee. In its report the Control Commission stated: (See text
of C. C. report elsewhere in this bulletin).
The report of the Control Commission makes clear
that the leadership of the Robertson-Mage-White group characterizes our party
as a centrist party upon which they declare open season. It makes clear that
they put group discipline before party discipline. It makes clear that
theyre loyal only to the group and that they have no loyalty to the
party. Its a hostile attack on the party from within and illustrates what
they consider normal, necessary and essential practices within our
party. The party has the right to tell the engineers of that scheme,
youll have to try it from outside the party, you cant get away with
it from within our ranks. And its the duty of the leadership of the
party, before all others, to defend the integrity of the party against this
attack. Otherwise the leadership would deserve to be tossed out of office and
replaced by leaders who will meet their responsibilities to the party, and
its with that consciousness that the Political Committee has acted in
this matter.
I now want to read to you the full text of the Political Committee
decision on this case: (See text of P.C. Motion of November 1 elsewhere in this
bulletin).
A plenum has been scheduled for the last week-end in December.
The National Committee at that time will make its own decisions concerning the
question of further disciplinary action. But it is reasonable for the comrades
to assume that the Plenum of the National Committee will affirm the following
basic obligations as conditions for party membership: Members of the party must
comply with convention decisions; members of the party must adhere to party
principles; members of the party must have unconditional loyalty to the party.
And no one will be allowed to stand immune from these basic obligations.
II. Summary
Comrades, as I have listened to the minority spokesmen in the
discussion here tonight. Ive been reminded more and more of summer TV
schedules. The whole thing was a re-run. They dont have any more sense of
proportion on a fundamental question of this kind than they had in earlier
times when they were maneuvering to get the floor to talk about a subject that
wasnt properly before the branch in the first place. Theyve got no
sense of proportion at all in any way, shape or form.
We hear the same old argument: all the suspensions can mean is
that the party is confronted with a crisis and why dont you sneaky
bureaucrats who are running the party with an iron hand tell what the crisis
is, instead of frying to fog the comrades up with organizational measures.
Thats the theme. There is a crisis, they say. Comrade Wohlforth adds to
Comrade Steves remarks on that count that the crisis is one of growing
minorities and the majority doesnt know what to do about it except to
take organizational action. Well Ill let you in on a little secret.
Youre going to find out there isnt any crisis in the party.
Youre going to find out just the opposite. This party is solid. This
party knows the score. The party means business and it intends to enforce its
principles. That was the meaning of the party convention. The convention not
only decided on the political issues in dispute. The convention made itself
crystal clear on its attitude toward the question of loyalty and discipline
within the party, and that was a mandate from the democratically-elected
delegates at the democratically-conducted convention of this party to the
leadership. The leadership is duty bound to carry out that mandate.
Now all kinds of Philadelphia lawyers arguments, or sea
lawyers argument, or whatever you want to call them, are brought in here.
Did the Control Commission question Comrade White in connection with the
suspension action? No, Comrade White was not here in New York, so he was not
called before the Control Commission. It wasnt necessary. Comrade White
is a leader of record in the Robertson-Mage-White group, and when leaders stand
up and proclaim themselves as leaders and take responsibility for a line,
theyve got to accept the consequences of that line. Comrade White falls
in that category.
Why do we suspend now? Why dont we wait for the plenum?
Those questions are just an indirect way of asking why we are doing anything at
all about disloyalty. We didnt have any trial proceedings, one spokesman
for the minority says. Another one complains that the Control Commission
dragged their hearings out for weeks and weeks and weeks. They argue up one
side of a question or down the other depending on what little axe they want to
grind at the moment.
Why does the Political Committee suspend now? Because its
confronted with a fact of disloyalty to the party. Its the duty of the
Political Committee to act and it acted. The Political Committee has referred
the question of further disciplinary action to the plenum, not because
theres any doubt in the Political Committees mind about whats
got to be done, but because were confronted with so important a question
of disloyalty and indiscipline that it must be brought to the attention of the
plenum, and the plenum should bring it to the attention of the whole party.
Tim says the Control Commission report mentions not one single
action by the Robertson-Mage-White minority, all it shows is that they stated a
point of view. He says that point of view was stated over a year ago. Well,
about a year ago, Tim Wohlforth disavowed that point of view. But not a single
one of the leaders of the Robertson-Mage-White group has done so, and not a
single person speaking in the name of that group here tonight did so. They
wiggle like greased pigs and raise all kinds of diverting, distorting, vulgar
arguments--from the point of view of Bolshevik political concepts and
organizational principles if you please. They do everything but disavow
their hostility to the party. They do everything but disavow their practices of
double recruiting. They do everything but disavow their split perspective in
the party. They do everything but disavow their intentions to conduct a raiding
operation and a wrecking operation from inside the party. The whole intent,
aim, line and practice of the group, as it is promulgated and taught by its
leadership and carried out, is set forth in those documents, and thats a
declaration of war upon the party. If this party doesnt know how to meet
that kind of a declaration of war, we might just as well all put on our hats
and coats, go out, lock the door, throw the key away and let the landlord worry
about where hes going to get next months rent because well be
out of business as a party.
Steve argues that we only brought up the question of a study
group; that the comrades who were suspended were suspended for their political
opinions. He says this is going to paralyze thought inside the party. All these
arguments he raised in his best judicial manner, that is, before he got back to
his seat and started to heckle other speakers like a hooligan. He leaves out,
among other things, one little point--the matter of loyalty to the party. How
can a person who takes this party seriously be neutral, Steve, when a question
of loyalty to the party is involved?
Henry G. gets up here and calls the Centra1 Commission
professiona1 cops, if you please. What a piece of uncomradely insolence that
was. How do you feel about the question of loyalty to the party? Do you take it
seriously or dont you? Youll find a big majority of this party
does.
Doug makes reference to the Smith Act and the question of advocacy
not acts--dragging in something thats got nothing whatever to do with the
case before us. Our fight against the Smith Act has to do with the right of the
people of this country to organize politically on the basis of any program they
choose, without governmental interference or reprisals, and having organized
politically into a party, to express themselves freely, fight for their
program. We defend these rights for our party and every other party. But we
dont invite opponent parties to enter the Socialist Workers Party to
conduct an inside operation calculated to destroy the party. We say no, if you
want to be an opponent of our party, if you want to be disloyal to our party,
if you want to combat our party, do it from the outside, dont try to do
it on the inside. The same thing goes for those suspended by the Political
Committee. They havent got a right to conduct a wrecking operation inside
this party, but well defend their democratic right to act as an opponent
party apart from us and opposing us in the public arena. Theres a world
of difference, Doug, and its got something to do with fundamental
Bolshevik principles that you ought to refresh your recollection about.
Steve argues that the suspension of the leaders of
the Robertson-Mage-White group means in practice the outlawing of factions in
this party. He drags in, completely out of context, in a very learned,
professorial way, of course, an action of the Bolsheviks under revolutionary
conditions in temporarily suspending factions. He says now our party is
expelling a faction and that means we will allow no more factions inside the
party. Nothing could be further from the truth and you know it, or you ought to
know it. You said youve been 25 years in the party. That would be since
1938. There has been quite a few factions, quite a few tendencies, theres
been quite a rich body of internal party experience in that time. What is being
done now by the Political Committee, in these circumstances, is in direct
accordance with what the policy of the party has been all down through the
whole 25 years youve been in it. If you dont remember it, go back
and refresh your recollection.
Somebody argued we didnt suspend the Marcyites. No, they
walked out. They beat us to the draw. The Cochranites didnt do that. They
got suspended. And they, too, said thats Stalinism, thats the end
of the right of factions inside the Socialist Workers Party. And do you know,
weve had some factions since. And weve tolerated them, weve
tolerated them. Its a phony argument that were suppressing the
right of organized dissent in the party, its a fake and a fraud from
beginning to end. Theyre not really arguing for the simple right to have
a faction, theyre arguing for the right to do as they damn please as a
faction, without the party being able to do anything about it. And that they
cant have, that they cant have.
Harry T. says the minority has the right to fight for its ideas.
Nobody denies that, and they sure were given a good chance, and they sure
exercised the opportunity to the best of their ability, and nobody stopped
them. They lost the argument as far as the political issues were concerned. Now
theyve got to face the question of their responsibility to the party in a
very fundamental sense, the members of the Robertson-Mage-White group. Are you
going to be loyal to the party? Are you going to be disciplined? Are you going
to abide by the basic party principles? Or are you going to continue as the
faction has been acting, and screaming, as you did tonight, that this party is
descending into Stalinist monolithism. That can only be viewed by the party as
an attempt to conceal the fact that the group intends to continue acting in an
indisciplined and disloyal manner. Thats something to think about and
think about very seriously.
Arthur Phelps says were getting into the habit of dealing
with political questions organizationally. Well you know, I think theres
quite a good many comrades in the party, who are fed up with the acts of
indiscipline and disloyal conduct on the part of this group and who would say
the opposite is true. Weve let them get away with so much that some
comrades are afraid were getting rusty organizationally. Comrade Phelps
says the PC should present a political analysis of the Robertson-Mage-White
group. Well--after all! -- weve gone through several years
discussion on an ascending scale, with the dispute reaching from one question
to another to another, and finally culminating in a very intensive
pre-convention discussion in which all questions were open for consideration.
Still Comrade Phelps says we ought to present a political analysis of the
minority! The Robertsonites have had a chance to pop off for a long time and
everybody that knows the time of day knows what their line is and why they
stand for. Were not a perpetual talk shop and were not about to do
a retake on that scene.
Theres another small factor involved. Were dealing now
with the question of basic principles of the party. Were dealing with a
question of protecting the integrity of this party, its inner vitality, its
good and welfare, its whole future. And it so happens that this party has some
well-defined principles that are to be enforced. Its not a matter of
starting a debate now as to whether or not weve got some principles and
if so what we should do about them. The principles are established.
Theyre the fundamental concepts on which this party has been constructed
and theyre going to be enforced.
Now, some sneering reference was made by one of the speakers, I
forget who, to the fact that the Political Committee motion quotes the 1938
resolution. Well that 1938 resolution quoted in the P. C. motion just happens
to be a basic organizational document, adopted at the founding convention of
the party, and it sets forth the basic concepts and principles upon which the
party is organized. Let me tell you something else thats in that
resolution. It describes the task before our party in this country as involving
what can be expected to be one of the most ruthless and irreconcilable
struggles for power in all of history. It states that an organization that is
loosely knit, heterogeneous and undisciplined would be utterly incapable of
accomplishing the revolutionary socialist tasks that the party sets for itself.
That resolution states that the party must make an unconditional demand upon
its membership for complete discipline and 100 per cent loyalty. Those are
basic premises that are fundamental to the very existence of this party, and
the party leadership is charged with the responsibility of scrupulously
protecting not only the rights of minorities, but also the principle of
majority rule in keeping with the concepts of democratic centralism. The party
cannot tolerate indiscipline. The party cannot, and it will not, tolerate
disloyalty. It is the duty of the leadership of this party to see that its
principles are enforced and this leadership is going to see to it.
I come finally to the motion by Comrade Harry T. to demand that
the Political Committee lift the suspensions; the statement by Comrade Edie
that the members control this party and that the members have the right to
reverse the Political Committee; and the ringing pronouncement by Comrade Al S.
that the Dobbs regime is not the party. They turn everything upside down. They
try to make the comrades forget how this party is constructed. Why, you
wouldnt think that this party just went through an actual experience in
which there was a completely democratic discussion, during which the leadership
bent over backwards to assure the fullest democratic rights to minority
oppositions within the party. A discussion in which everyone who had a point of
view on any question before the party had an opportunity to express that view,
had an opportunity to put it in writing and have it published in the bulletin
just as written. Discussion after discussion, debate after debate, with time
allotted for reporters for each viewpoint, were carried on in the branches. The
convention was organized through a democratic election of delegates on the
basis of the branch votes on the resolutions before the party. And that
convention decided the issues in dispute.
The convention selected a Nominating Commission. The Nominating
Commission brought in a slate for the National Committee. Its slate was debated
on the convention floor, other nominations were made, a secret ballot vote was
taken and through that vote a National Committee was elected. The National
Committee in turn designated a Political Committee and designated national
officers, including a National Secretary who happens to be me. Now, Comrade Al,
speaking for the Robertson-Mage-White faction, tries to make that whole
democratic process appear a piece of bureaucracy by simply stating the Dobbs
regime is not the party.
No, of course the Dobbs regime is not the party. What you call the
Dobbs regime is just myself as National Secretary, constituting only one
component part of the leadership. The national leadership -- the regime --
includes the Secretariat of the Political Committee, the members of the
Political Committee and the members of the National Committee, all of whom were
democratically elected by the party. To the best of its ability that national
leadership is carrying out the program and principles on which this party was
founded. It is insisting on the carrying out of the convention decisions. It is
demanding disciplined conduct and loyalty from every member of the party. So
long as the leadership does that there will be no crisis in the party. There
would be a crisis only if the leadership defaulted on its responsibilities. The
leadership is not going to default and the membership is going to back the
leadership, because the action taken by the Political Committee to defend the
fundamental integrity of this party is necessary to the good and welfare of the
party and it will be welcomed by the party.
November 7, 1963
|