Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Dewey–Stassen debate

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Queen of Hearts (talk | contribs) at 03:00, 1 September 2024 (much higher quality img of Dewey). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Harold Stassen supported outlawing the Communist Party.
Thomas E. Dewey opposed outlawing the Communist Party.

Governor of New York Thomas E. Dewey and former governor of Minnesota Harold Stassen engaged in the first United States presidential debate on May 17, 1948. The two candidates were competing for the Republican Party nomination for the 1948 presidential election and held the debate shortly before the Oregon primary election. It focused on a single issue: whether the United States should outlaw the American Communist Party. Stassen argued that it should, while Dewey argued that it should not. The debate was broadcast over radio on approximately 900 networks, with an estimated 40–80 million listeners.

Dewey was the front-runner for the Republican nomination in 1948, but Stassen gained a surge of support as some states held primary elections. Stassen challenged Dewey to a public debate throughout the process. As the Oregon primary election approached, Stassen was the favorite to win its delegates. Dewey agreed to a debate in Portland on the condition that he could set the terms, such as forgoing a live audience.

Both candidates gave a 20 minute speech on his position, and after both had spoken, they were both given 8 1/2 minutes for rebuttal. Stassen believed that the Communist Party was working on behalf of Russia and that failing to ban it would threaten the security of democratic nations. Dewey disagreed, arguing that outlawing the party would be totalitarian and only cause it to work in secret. Stassen made the proposed Mundt–Nixon Bill the center of his argument by incorrectly asserting that its passage would outlaw the Communist Party. Dewey had quotations from Karl Mundt ready to disprove this, and he called Stassen's position a surrender because the bill was not the act of outlawing that Stassen had originally supported.

Dewey's performance was seen as more authentic, drawing from his experience as a prosecutor. He won the Oregon primary and the Republican Party nomination for the 1948 presidential election, but he lost in the general election to incumbent president Harry S. Truman. Stassen's political career effectively ended in 1948 as he went on to lose several elections at various levels of government. The following decades spawned a tradition of public debates between presidential candidates.

Background

Thomas E. Dewey had run against Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1944 presidential election, but Roosevelt ultimately defeated Dewey and won a fourth term.[1] Upon Roosevelt's death the following year, Harry S. Truman succeeded to the presidency.[2] Through 1947 and 1948, a fear of communism swept the United States, and a fear arose of domestic communists sabotaging the nation.[3] As campaigning for the 1948 presidential election began, Czechoslovakia was taken over by a communist government, Russia blockaded Berlin, and civil unrest alleged to be cause by communists occurred in numerous countries.[4]

For the second time, Dewey was the front-runner to be the presidential nominee for the Republican Party.[5] He showed little interest in campaigning for the nomination, essentially remaining inactive as the year's primary elections took place.[6] Instead of campaigning against his rivals for the nomination, Dewey presumed he would be the nominee and began campaigning against Truman.[7] One of Dewey's rivals, former Minnesota governor Harold Stassen, campaigned more vigorously and built a surge of support through his activity in the states that held primary elections.[6] A small number of states held primary elections at the time, and they determined only 77 of the 1,094 delegates that were appointed to select the nominee. Stassen hoped that strong performances in the primary elections would prove his viability as a candidate and earn him support during the nomination process.[8] By April, Stassen was seen as a legitimate threat to Dewey's campaign.[9]

Stassen challenged Dewey to a debate following the New Hampshire primary, but the latter declined. Stassen issued several more challenges throughout the primary election season, insisting he would debate Dewey under any circumstances, so long as it was the subject of an "impartial sponsorship".[6] When Dewey, Stassen, and Douglas MacArthur fought for delegates in the Wisconsin primary, polling suggested that Dewey had as much national public support as the other two candidates combined. He had little to gain from a debate, while it risked elevating one of his opponents.[5]

The Wisconsin State Journal offered to host a debate between the two candidates leading up to the Wisconsin primary, but Dewey refused.[10] Stassen made another attempt in Wisconsin when he asked Dewey to appear alongside him when addressing the Wisconsin Association of Cooperatives in what was implicitly understood to be a debate, but Dewey instead had members of the association meet him privately on his farm in New York.[11] Stassen also challenged McArthur to a debate but was refused by this candidate as well.[12] Stassen again challenged Dewey to debate after Dewey's campaign released his itinerary; Stassen's campaign announced that it too would be campaigning in Milwaukee on April 1. Dewey gave no reply.[5] The issue of the Communist Party was first raised leading up to the Wisconsin primary when Dewey declared on April 1 that communists should remain in the open and Stassen declared on April 2 that the Communist Party should be outlawed.[13] Stassen again took advantage of Dewey's itinerary in Nebraska, responding by announcing they would be campaigning in the same place on the same day and suggesting a debate. Again, Dewey declined.[14]

Organizing a debate

Campaigning in Oregon

Stassen found an opening for a debate when Dewey entered himself into Oregon's primary election.[6] This election was critical for the viability of both of their respective campaigns.[15][16] Unlike in the previous primary elections, Stassen was the favorite to win in Oregon, polling 13 points ahead of Dewey in the most recent Gallup poll,[16] and Dewey was the one compelled to campaign more vigorously.[17][18] Stassen in turn dedicated little time to the state, only occasionally appearing in the month leading up to the primary election.[19]

Although Stassen had intended to start campaigning on May 17, Dewey's sudden activity prompted him to move his schedule up three days, saying that he wished to make time for a debate.[20] He had been asked about a debate while on Meet the Press, with the reporter indicating there was a rumor that Dewey had challenged Stassen.[21] Dewey's campaign aide portrayed Stassen's change in schedule as an excuse by a panicking campaign, saying that Dewey did not intend to participate in any debate.[20] Stassen made his proposal to outlaw the American Communist Party the centerpiece of his rhetoric when he arrived in Oregon,[22] and it became the key issue for the state's primary election.[23]

Debate negotiations

Dewey standing with supporters in May 1948

The program director of the KPOJ radio station, Tom Swafford, noticed that the Communist Party ban was their strongest disagreement and wished to see a debate on the subject. The station's owner, Philip L. Jackson, was interested in the idea, but his company was affiliated with the Democratic Party. Instead, Jackson passed the idea to Reed College president Peter H. Odegard. Stassen accepted Odegard's invitation. Dewey declined, but he expressed interest in debating the Communist Party issue because he deemed it dangerous enough that it warranted "a full discussion".[24] His aide Paul Lockwood ultimately convinced him to participate. Lockwood in turn was convinced by Swafford, who argued that shirking a debate would affect Dewey's image.[25]

Stassen was losing his advantage in Oregon and needed the debate to revitalize his campaign.[24] His strong desire to debate meant that Dewey had significant leverage over the terms.[16] Negotiations took place between Robert Elliott, working for Stassen, and John C. Higgins, working for Dewey, on May 13.[26] Dewey's team wanted the Multnomah Country Republican Central Committee to sponsor the debate and for the scope limited to the question of the Communist Party.[24] His campaign was to set the location and the format.[27] Dewey decided that the debate should be held in a small studio without a live audience; the energy of Stassen's audiences had been an asset to this point, and holding the debate privately meant that their physical appearance would not be a factor, as Stassen's height and build made him an imposing figure next to Dewey.[16][25]

Stassen initially refused to concede on having an audience.[25] He wished to hold it in the Portland Ice Arena,[26] or at the Portland Civic Auditorium, the latter seating up to 5,000 spectators.[25] Swafford visited Stassen at his hotel room, and—in a meeting that took place in the bathroom while Stassen was shaving, still in his pajamas—convinced Stassen that he would not need an audience if he was confident in his ability to debate Dewey. Stassen reportedly told Swafford, "all right, I'll debate that little son of a bitch anywhere, anytime, on any subject".[28]

Preparation

Neither candidate did any campaigning the day before the debate.[29] Stassen worked with anti-communist senator Joseph McCarthy to prepare.[27] Dewey had Elliott V. Bell, his most valued speechwriter, come to Portland for the debate. Instead of their usual back-and-forth process that produced several drafts, they produced a draft by studying Stassen's previous speeches and preparing possible responses.[29] They based his speech on one that he had delivered in Portland on May 3.[30] To rehearse, he had his team pitch questions at him and criticize his answers in a mock debate.[31] Dewey also had his chief researcher, John Burton, and his counsel, Charles D. Breitel, produce a swathe of information about anti-subversion laws and congressional hearings. The team transcribed the key details onto note cards for Dewey to have for the debate.[32]

Proposal to outlaw the Communist Party

Stassen's proposal

A September 1948 caricature of Stassen and Dewey

Although it was not listed among his formal policy positions, Stassen proposed that the Communist Party should be outlawed, playing on the strong anti-communist mood that had grown popular in the United States.[33] He had floated the idea on June 14, 1947, in a nationally broadcast address. This was after long consideration of the idea privately, where he conducted research and considered his own political philosophy.[34] Stassen's position was that the Communist Party functioned as a fifth column working at the behest of Russia,[33] and stopping it was necessary to prevent World War III.[35] He proposed outlawing communist parties in all "peace loving nations of the world".[36] Among other accusations, Stassen repeated the common belief that communists were behind labor disputes in the United States.[34] He argued that it did not violate the constitution to criminalize attempts to overthrow the United States government,[33] and that freedom of speech does not grant "the right to destroy".[24] He likened the situation to that of nations like Colombia and Czechoslovakia where legal communist parties challenged the democratic process, seizing power entirely in the latter nation.[34]

New York was the primary target of Stassen's rhetoric as he described the city as a center of communist activity. Touting what he described as his own success in purging communism from Minnesota, Stassen released a 12-point plan to eradicate communism in New York. It proposed banning communists from public occupation and labor activities and described bi-partisan cooperation between executives and justice departments at every level of government to the effect of prosecuting communists.[34] Stassen accused opponents of his plan of having "a soft, coddling policy", comparing them dismissively to Henry A. Wallace.[27] He disagreed with other anti-communist measures, such as the Taft–Hartley Act, which he felt did not do enough to protect civil rights and due process for those accused of being communists.[37]

Dewey's opposition

Both Dewey and incumbent president Harry S. Truman opposed banning the Communist Party,[22] and Dewey contested Stassen's assertion that communism was a problem in New York.[38] Dewey believed that outlawing the party would be an act of totalitarianism,[33] feeling that actions should be prosecuted rather than beliefs,[39] and he criticized the premise of banning an idea by force.[40] His advisors tried to dissuade him from campaigning on the rights of suspected communists, but he said to them: "if I'm going to lose, I'm going to lose on something I believe in".[41]

The most common argument against a ban on the Communist Party was that it would only cause communists to operate in secret.[22] Dewey likened communists to worms, saying that they thrived underground and needed to be kept in sight.[27] He pointed to his career as a prosecutor and then as governor, arguing that he was successful in quelling communists because they were kept out in the open.[23] Dewey compared Stassen's proposal to an unsuccessful ban in the Russian Empire prior to the Russian Revolution.[33] Stassen countered that the Communist Party already practiced clandestine operations in addition to its legal status as a party, and that being allowed to operate legally gave it an advantage.[42]

Debate

Setup and broadcast

The debate began at 6:00 p.m. on May 17 in the KEX studio in Portland, from which it was broadcast by approximately 900 radio stations.[25] All of the major networks were allowed to air the debate, and all did with the exception of CBS.[28] The number of listeners was estimated to be between 40 million and 80 million, making it one of the most popular broadcasts in history at the time.[27] Such was the interest that the number of long-distance calls in the United States went down by 25% for the duration of the debate.[19]

Without a public audience, the studio was populated by fewer than 50 technicians and campaign aides.[27] Also present was the press, 24 members in the room and 62 more observing from the next room through a window.[31] Having campaigned more heavily than before, Dewey had strained his voice, recovering from laryngitis only days before the debate.[43] Stassen had just arrived in Portland the day before, tired from his own campaigning and afflicted with the flu.[28] He began by shaking hands with Dewey, allowing photographers to capture him standing alongside his opponent, who was about one foot shorter than him.[19] The candidates were seated at tables with their respective teams 20 minutes before the debate.[44] Dewey sat alongside Paul Lockwood, Elliott V. Bell, and Robert Ray. Stassen was joined by Ed Larson, Ted Gamble, Fred A. Seaton, and Joseph McCarthy.[19] Each candidate had a speaking stand in front of his table, where he stood and spoke into four microphones.[45]

Donald R. Van Boskirk, chairman of the Multnomah County Republican Committee, served as moderator.[26] The schedule offered each candidate two opportunities to speak over the course of 57 minutes. Each candidate was given 20 minutes for an initial speech, with Stassen going first. After Dewey gave his 20 minute speech, Stassen had 8 1/2 minutes for a rebuttal and Dewey then had 8 1/2 minutes to respond.[28]

Synopsis

Stassen's speech

Stassen used the first minutes of his speech to describe the things he saw in World War II and implored that World War III must be prevented. He listed several political goals, including the prevention of inflation and depression, the expansion of housing and natural resource development, improvement of civil rights and labor rights, strengthening the military, and supporting the United Nations.[44] Turning to the issue of communism, Stassen argued that the Communist Party worked for Russia and sought to take over democratic nations, citing the example of Czechoslovakia.[46]

Stassen proposed that the United States should pass a law that bans organizations which seek to overthrow the American government on behalf of a foreign nation. He identified the Mundt–Nixon Bill as such a law, demonstrating this by citing the concerns of Communist Party leadership. To support the need for this law, Stassen listed the communist states and the circumstances that led to their creation, identifying a legal communist party as a common aspect. To argue that outlawing the Communist Party would not infringe on rights, he used a ban in Canada as an example.[47] Stassen concluded by posing four questions to Dewey: whether communist organizations are controlled by Russia, whether these organizations exist to take over democratic nations, whether they threaten future peace, and whether the threat warrants a military response.[48] He explained his reasoning by saying the right of Americans not to be drafted outweighed the right of communists to destroy.[30]

Dewey's speech

Dewey began by responding to Stassen's first three questions, reading off each one followed by his answer: "certainly".[30] He rejected the logic of Stassen's fourth question, arguing that forcing the Communist Party to operate in secret would be more likely to cause future military conflict.[49] Dewey then questioned Stassen's support for the Mundt–Nixon Bill as a means to outlaw the Communist Party. Quoting Karl Mundt, he established that the bill would not outlaw the Communist Party and that Mundt would oppose such action. Dewey then considered what outlawing the party would entail, determining that it would entail the removal of communists from the ballot and the prosecution of people discovered to be communist.[50]

To dispute the point that banning the party would protect the United States, he cited several nations where the party held political power despite being illegal.[51] Dewey followed this with the argument that banning a party would give up the nation's principles of freedom and make it totalitarian, describing his time prosecuting criminal rackets without using the dictatorial approach that many wanted. He concluded by mentioning the failed ban of the Communist Party of Canada, which was repealed after communists spied on the nation's nuclear program while operating in secret.[52]

Stassen's rebuttal

In his rebuttal, Stassen argues that the Mundt–Nixon Bill's outlawing of conspiracies to establish a totalitarian government on behalf of another nation would effectively ban the Communist Party. He said that if Dewey supported passing this bill, then the two are in agreement. Stassen disagreed that the laws are sufficient to fight communism, pointing to New York's large proportion of communists and the lack of convictions of communists. He drew from his own time as governor of Minnesota, where he felt there were insufficient laws to prosecute communists.[53] Stassen ended his rebuttal with a warning that communists may cause strikes and violence in the United States.[54]

Dewey's rebuttal

Dewey began his rebuttal by saying Stassen had surrendered, as support of the Mundt–Nixon Bill was not the same as supporting a ban on the Communist Party. He reiterated that Mundt disagreed with Stassen's interpretation of the bill and that the Communist Party were the only ones who agreed with him.[55] Dewey then read off a list of crimes that would be sufficient to prosecute communists. He expressed support for the provision that members of the Communist Party must register, but questioned the constitutionality of other provisions. Dewey went on to invoke the alien and sedition acts and the censorship efforts of Ambrose Burnside in the Civil War as evidence that ideas should not be banned. He ended his rebuttal by saying that New York was not a haven of communism because he had kept communists out in the open and then defeated them.[56]

Performance

The arguments given by the candidates were the same that they gave while campaigning,[33] but they both took an approach that deviated from their typical campaign behavior.[40] Stassen gave a polished speech, read without passion.[25] Debating came more naturally to Dewey, who had experience as a prosecutor.[33] He abandoned politician-style speaking in favor of a less rehearsed performance reminiscent of a prosecutor's remarks, giving him an air of authenticity that Stassen lacked in the debate.[40][57] From the control room, Swafford was impressed by Dewey's demeanor, describing him as "totally composed, almost detached" while Stassen was speaking and saying that in Dewey's own speech "his pace was deliberate; his tone thoughtful".[19] As Stassen spoke, Dewey took notes on the paper holding his speech, adding the questions that Stassen posed.[30] Dewey took many notes during Stassen's speech. They read:[58]

  • Surrendered
  • American Bar Ass'n quotes
  • N. Y. Socialists—Hughes
  • Italy—1/3 of people in prison
  • Red Flag statutes
  • deJonge v Oregon (1936) 299 U.S. 353
  • American history—Federalist memo
  • Lincoln—disloyal press—Burnside
  • Commies in New York—marches—most irresponsible, disagreeable, noisy, subversive, lying group of worms. Proper underground. But don't drive underground, leave out in open where we can lick 'em.
  • 7 per cent of earth—Bill of Rights
  • Wallace, etc.
  • Don't impair it for the party—World praying for our leadership—Commies hoping we'll surrender our freedom

The major point of contention in the debate was Stassen's characterization of the Mundt–Nixon Bill, which was pending in committee at the time. He falsely claimed that it would ban the Communist Party if passed into law.[33] Dewey and his team had considered whether Stassen would take this approach; they considered it unlikely because it would be a significant blunder, but they prepared themselves by including relevant information about the bill in Dewey's notes.[29] Dewey pressed Stassen heavily on the bill; he identified Stassen's only source for the claim to be the Communist Party, and he used his notes to disprove Stassen's assertion by quoting the bill's creator, Karl Mundt.[57] From here they came to different conclusions about what constituted outlawing.[53]

Stassen mentioned several policy areas in the opening minutes of his speech, which briefly caused Dewey and his team to worry that Stassen would not abide by the agreed upon topic.[44] After addressing Stassen's questions, Dewey read his own speech. He acted dismissively toward Stassen's comments about policy other than communism, mentioning them only once as "the other matters which he brought up".[30] Swafford reported that, following Dewey's speech, Stassen was forcing a smile to mask his worries.[19][57] When Stassen said that all he wanted was for Dewey to support the Mundt–Nixon Bill, Dewey muttered "he has surrendered" to his team, writing and underlining the word surrendered at the top of his notes.[58] Once his own rebuttal began, Dewey declared that Stassen had "completely surrendered" because this was not the proposal to outlaw the Communist Party that Stassen initially demanded.[57] He used the word surrendered a total of four times in the rebuttal.[58]

Stassen opened the debate slowly, speaking only 450 words in the first four minutes.[44] Dewey also spoke steadily at a rate of 120 words per minute, adjusting his volume rather than his tempo as he made each point.[30] Throughout the debate, Stassen made 39 statements promoting his own position, 25 statements attacking Dewey's, and 5 defending himself from Dewey's attacks. Dewey made 29 statements promoting his own position, 33 attacking Stassen's, and 2 defending himself from Stassen's attacks.[59] Dewey directed all of his attacks toward Stassen, while Stassen split his between Dewey and communists.[60] Statements about policy and about character were split about evenly, making up 48% and 52% of the debate, respectively.[61] One quarter of Dewey's speech went unchallenged by Stassen.[62] At no point was the opposing Democratic Party mentioned.[63]

Aftermath

Dewey giving his nomination acceptance speech

Both candidates said that hey had won the debate.[64] Dewey strengthened his credentials as a liberal, while Stassen came to be seen as the more illiberal candidate.[65] Contemporary commentators saw the debate as unfocused, as both candidates appeared to be arguing based on a different understanding of what outlawing meant.[64]

By describing the Mundt–Nixon Bill as a means to ban the Communist Party, Stassen made himself vulnerable to accusations of extremism.[66] When asked about their bill, Karl Mundt said that it would regulate communist activity, not outlaw the party, while Richard Nixon said that it only outlawed subversive activity. Nixon declared the bill the true winner of the debate.[19] The bill went on to pass a vote in the House of Representatives on May 19 before stalling in the Senate.[64]

The Oregon primary was held on May 21,[67] where Dewey defeated Stassen with 53% of the vote and received all 12 delegates.[68] The party went on to nominate Dewey as their candidate for the presidential election, but Truman defeated Dewey in the general election that November.[59] The issue of the Communist Party, though relatively minor in 1948, took outsized importance in the following decade.[62]

Stassen's poor performance in the debate and subsequent loss in the Oregon primary effectively ended any chance he had of receiving the Republican Party's nomination,[65] and it marked the beginning of Stassen's political decline. He spent the following decades entering and losing elections for various political offices and made several more unsuccessful attempts to receive a presidential nomination.[69] Warren Burger speculated that if Stassen had won in Oregon, he likely would have received the nomination, defeated Truman, and become president.[66]

The debate between Dewey and Stassen was the first presidential debate in the United States.[59] It began a tradition of such events, further popularized by a 1960 debate between presidential candidates Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy.[70]

Notes

  1. ^ Smith 1982, pp. 436–437.
  2. ^ Benoit 2002, p. 17.
  3. ^ Ray 1961, pp. 247–248.
  4. ^ Ray 1961, pp. 248–250.
  5. ^ a b c Kirby, Rothmann & Dalin 2013, p. 67.
  6. ^ a b c d Kirby, Rothmann & Dalin 2013, p. 54.
  7. ^ Kirby, Rothmann & Dalin 2013, p. 55.
  8. ^ Kirby, Rothmann & Dalin 2013, p. 105.
  9. ^ Pietrusza 2011, pp. 140–141.
  10. ^ Kirby, Rothmann & Dalin 2013, p. 62.
  11. ^ Kirby, Rothmann & Dalin 2013, p. 64.
  12. ^ Pietrusza 2011, p. 143.
  13. ^ Ray 1961, p. 249.
  14. ^ Kirby, Rothmann & Dalin 2013, p. 78.
  15. ^ Pietrusza 2011, p. 141.
  16. ^ a b c d Kaplan 2018, p. 56.
  17. ^ Kirby, Rothmann & Dalin 2013, pp. 95–97.
  18. ^ Pietrusza 2011, pp. 141–142.
  19. ^ a b c d e f g Kirby, Rothmann & Dalin 2013, p. 103.
  20. ^ a b Kirby, Rothmann & Dalin 2013, p. 100.
  21. ^ Ray 1961, pp. 252–253.
  22. ^ a b c Kirby, Rothmann & Dalin 2013, p. 97.
  23. ^ a b Ray 1961, p. 251.
  24. ^ a b c d Kirby, Rothmann & Dalin 2013, p. 101.
  25. ^ a b c d e f Pietrusza 2011, p. 144.
  26. ^ a b c Ray 1961, p. 254.
  27. ^ a b c d e f Smith 1982, p. 492.
  28. ^ a b c d Kirby, Rothmann & Dalin 2013, p. 102.
  29. ^ a b c Ray 1961, p. 255.
  30. ^ a b c d e f Ray 1961, p. 259.
  31. ^ a b Ray 1961, p. 256.
  32. ^ Ray 1961, pp. 255–256.
  33. ^ a b c d e f g h Kaplan 2018, p. 57.
  34. ^ a b c d Kirby, Rothmann & Dalin 2013, p. 98.
  35. ^ Pietrusza 2011, pp. 142–143.
  36. ^ Ray 1961, p. 250.
  37. ^ Kirby, Rothmann & Dalin 2013, pp. 98–99.
  38. ^ Kirby, Rothmann & Dalin 2013, p. 99.
  39. ^ Smith 1982, p. 491.
  40. ^ a b c Smith 1982, p. 493.
  41. ^ Smith 1982, p. 27.
  42. ^ Kirby, Rothmann & Dalin 2013, pp. 97–98.
  43. ^ Ray 1961, p. 252.
  44. ^ a b c d Ray 1961, p. 257.
  45. ^ Ray 1961, pp. 256–257.
  46. ^ Ray 1961, pp. 257–258.
  47. ^ Ray 1961, p. 258.
  48. ^ Ray 1961, pp. 258–259.
  49. ^ Ray 1961, pp. 259–260.
  50. ^ Ray 1961, p. 260.
  51. ^ Ray 1961, pp. 260–261.
  52. ^ Ray 1961, p. 261.
  53. ^ a b Ray 1961, p. 262.
  54. ^ Ray 1961, pp. 262–263.
  55. ^ Ray 1961, pp. 263–264.
  56. ^ Ray 1961, p. 264.
  57. ^ a b c d Pietrusza 2011, p. 145.
  58. ^ a b c Ray 1961, p. 263.
  59. ^ a b c Benoit 2002, p. 18.
  60. ^ Benoit 2002, p. 21.
  61. ^ Benoit 2002, p. 19.
  62. ^ a b Ray 1961, p. 266.
  63. ^ Benoit 2002, p. 20.
  64. ^ a b c Ray 1961, p. 265.
  65. ^ a b Smith 1982, p. 494.
  66. ^ a b Kaplan 2018, p. 58.
  67. ^ Kirby, Rothmann & Dalin 2013, p. 94.
  68. ^ Pietrusza 2011, p. 146.
  69. ^ Kaplan 2018, p. 3.
  70. ^ Benoit 2002, p. 5.

References

  • Benoit, William L. (2002). The Primary Decision: A Functional Analysis of Debates in Presidential Primaries. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-0-275-97440-4.
  • Kaplan, Lawrence S. (2018). Harold Stassen: Eisenhower, the Cold War, and the Pursuit of Nuclear Disarmament. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 978-0-8131-7488-4.
  • Kirby, Alec; Rothmann, John F.; Dalin, David G. (2013). Harold E. Stassen: The Life and Perennial Candidacy of the Progressive Republican. McFarland. ISBN 978-0-7864-6554-5.
  • Pietrusza, David (2011). 1948: Harry Truman's Improbable Victory and the Year that Transformed America's Role in the World. Union Square Press. ISBN 978-1-4027-6748-7.
  • Ray, Robert F. (1961). "Thomas E. Dewey: The Great Oregon Debate of 1948". In Reid, Loren (ed.). American Public Address: Studies in Honor of Albert Craig Baird. University of Missouri Press. pp. 245–267. LCCN 61-8332.
  • Smith, Richard Norton (1982). Thomas E. Dewey and His Times. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-41741-3.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dewey–Stassen_debate&oldid=1243374877"