24 JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2025 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 1949: HARRY S TRUMAN TO HARRY S TRUMAN “The Election” December 1948, Editorial President’s credit—as well as to the Republicans’—that this is a nonpartisan policy. Europeans familiar with the vagaries of American diplomacy and Americans who recall our retreat into the shell after World War I could hardly have expected that this country would take the lead in creating an international organization, or that we would launch such an imaginative and audacious project as the European Recovery Plan. There are many, even among our friends, who might not have credited American policy makers with the ability to recognize the dissembled challenge to the free world in time to do something about it. … The election returns are in: the returns on this foreign policy are beginning to come in. We think it not premature to congratulate President Truman and Governor Dewey, the Republicans and the Democrats, and our fellow Americans on the election and on the bi-partisan foreign policy. 1953: HARRY S TRUMAN TO DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER “The Election and the Foreign Service” August 1952, Editorial As their individual preferences or predictions ran, members of the Foreign Service all over the world reacted like everyone else to President Truman’s upset victory in the election. They gasped or grinned at the discomfiture of the pollsters; their eyes were dewy for Mr. Dewey or triumphant for Mr. Truman. The Hatch Act properly proscribes some kinds of political activity for us Federal bureaucrats; but let us hope no American rule or writ ever keeps us from voting for our choice. The mighty and processional spectacle of an American presidential election is a thing to marvel at in the world of today. Few people can appreciate this better than those who represent this government abroad, particularly in countries where the secret ballot is a lie or a myth. … The election meant many things to many people. Whatever else it signified, to most everyone abroad it meant reaffirmation of President Truman’s foreign policy. It is more, not less, to the As these words are being written, all eyes are turned upon Chicago, where the second of the two great nominating conventions has commenced. This year the prospect of a new administration—whether Democratic or Republican— lends special significance for the Foreign Service to its work. Removal of the government employee from politics does not at the same time blind him to the phenomenon of a Presidential election, immunize him against personal convictions, or destroy the awareness of his rights and duties as an American citizen. Consequently, the Journal can hardly ignore the activity to which the attention of Americans, wherever they may be, is irresistibly drawn now and until November. An immediate job of the Foreign Service will be to explain to the people in whose countries we are accredited the amazing machinery of the American presidential election campaign. That should bring out our greatest powers of description, analysis, and interpretation. But this is only the immediate job. Out of these conventions come new leaders, new chiefs, and new policies. Whether the victors put the helm to port or starboard, the ship of state in some degree alters course and, perhaps, alters speed as well. The adjustment places added burdens upon those of the crew who remain, including those who have made our foreign affairs their life’s profession. Upon us in large measure devolves the task of providing background, of outlining present problems, and of applying our knowledge and experience—in short, of providing continuity. As in the past so in the future our new chiefs will, we hope, find us dedicated to the national welfare and ready to serve them as we serve our present chiefs today. After the election, what should we hope for in any new administration? Surely, understanding of the peculiar nature of the [State] Department’s responsibilities and support of its loyal members at home and abroad. Our ability to perform our
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODIyMDU=