john f kennedy speech 1962 rhetorical analysis

Speak to Lead!

An analysis of John F Kennedy’s Moon speech

JFK’s speech delivered in 1962 at Rice University in favour of the Apollo programme. Is in my opinion one of the best political speeches of the 20 th century. There is a lot that can be learnt from this speech.

As I mentioned in a previous blog post , this speech is a very good example of a speech with a clear purpose and a clear objective. The purpose of this speech is to persuade the audience that going to the Moon is a worthwhile endeavour. The objective is to make listeners see the Moon programme as the next step’s in mankind journey of progress. The objective is to be accomplished using all three components of tradition oratory, Ethos, Logos and Pathos.

Ethos is all about credibility and ethics. JFK’s opens right off the bat with references to the location of the speech to establish some rapport with the audience. He then establishes his mastery of the subject by taking the listeners on a whirlwind tour of scientific progress. Millenia of human history are condensed into just 50 years which is the lifespan of an average person. The following sentence:

“Last month electric lights and telephones and automobiles and airplanes became available. Only last week did we develop penicillin and television and nuclear power, and now if America’s new spacecraft succeeds in reaching Venus, we will have literally reached the stars before midnight tonight.”

Is masterful as it makes discoveries that everybody takes for granted look like recent achievements. It also concludes with reaching the stars which is a handy link to the speech’s topic.

Logos refers to logical arguments and facts. This part of the speech will appeal to logical minds. A lot of the timeline referred to earlier does appeal to the audience on a logical level. But the speech also includes a very factual assessment of the challenges of space flight.

“But if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour.”

This whole paragraph explains the technical challenges associated with the Saturn V rocket. Facts are kept to a minimum and explained in a simple language. Two analogies feature pre-eminently too. The first one compares the height of the rocket to the length of a football field. The second ones compare the systems engineering of the rocket with a fine watch. To me though, the most masterful factual sentence of the speech is this one:

“That budget now stands at $5,400 million a year–a staggering sum, though somewhat less than we pay for cigarettes and cigars every year.”

While smoking was very common in the early 1960s the dangers of tobacco were already known back then. This sentence reduces the space programme to a matter of priorities, discovering a new frontier or indulging oneself.

Pathos is all about appealing to emotions and building a bond with the audience. JFK’s uses a number of techniques to take the audience on an emotional journey with him. The first one is to refer to himself and the audience as ‘we’. In fact, the word ‘we’ is used 46 times throughout the speech. That’s over 2% of the speech’s word count! Everybody is playing a part in this journey into space and the great endeavour will need everybody’s contributions.

Another way in which the speech appeals to emotions is through the use of imagery. Moreover, said imagery refers to symbols that will incite positive feelings in the audience’s minds.  

“Only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war.”

Losing leadership and not embarking on this journey might mean losing the peace and space becoming a warzone.

“We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills.”

This sentence is strengthened by the use of repetitions. The goal is hard and worthy but this sentences also portrays it as a test of energies and skills. This is a subtle challenge to the audience and also an invitation to set asides rivalries towards achieving a common goal.

Persuading with power

Watching a video of the speech provides a few clues regarding its delivery. JFK used s ascript to delivery this speech mainly read from it, making eye contact with the audience for about half of the time. The speech lasted for less than 20 minutes and the pace of speaking was only about 120 words per minute. This is an ideal speaking rhythm for projecting authority. It also provides plenty of time for the audience to absorb the speech as it is delivered. Specific emphasis is given to key words as “doing it right and doing it first.” Eye contact is spread across the audience, which is challenging given the huge size of the audience present.

All in all, this speech is a fine example of a great persuasive speech. Back in the day it wasn’t broadcasted live or widely shown. But it would have a similar impact if delivered today with only minor edits to give reference points to present-day audiences.  

Persuasive speeches can be difficult to get right and are sometimes confused with inspirational speeches. If you too are looking to persuade with power, get in touch with me and let’s craft a speech together.

1 thought on “An analysis of John F Kennedy’s Moon speech”

Thanks alot for the analysis. Really appreciate your viewpoint on this great speech.

I will want to hear more about your analysis of great speeches.

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• < Previous

Home > STUDENT > COMM300 > 3

Communication 300 Papers

Rhetorical analysis of choosing to go to the moon "and do the other things".

Skyler M. Kona Follow

On September 12, 1962, president John F. Kennedy visited Rice University in Houston, Texas, and delivered what is commonly known as one of the most iconic speeches in American history. The speech, titled “Address at Rice University on the Nation's Space Effort”, but more widely known as “We Choose to go to the Moon”, was an attempt to gain further support for the nation's efforts in the Space Race against the Soviet Union. In his speech, Kennedy uses various techniques in order to further boost the audience's understanding of the situation, as well as, crucially, inspiring them to lend their support to these efforts. The speech today is seen as a symbol of victory, given that since then, America has successfully landed the first astronauts on the Moon, but at the time the speech was given, it was difficult to gain public support while the nation was losing the Space Race. This paper is an examination on the rhetoric of the speech, and why it worked well.

https://youtu.be/XUVg8pipYTg

JFK, John F Kennedy, Moon Landing, Rhetoric, Rice University, We Choose to go to the Moon

Citation Style

Since December 15, 2022

Included in

Speech and Rhetorical Studies Commons

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately, you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections

Author Corner

• Submit Work
• HSU Library
• Graduate Studies
• HDS Non-exclusive Distribution License
• Submission Process

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Essay Service Examples Sociology Rhetorical Strategies

Rhetorical Analysis of John F. Kennedy's Moon Speech

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Related essay topics.

Get your paper done in as fast as 3 hours, 24/7.

Related articles

Most popular essays

• Rhetorical Strategies

The essay “Waste” by Wendell Berry, written in 1989, is a powerful and insightful essay in which...

• Conservation of Forest
• Conversation

In Aldo Leopold’s piece, “The Land Ethic” it creates an effective rhetorical analysis with its...

• Martin Luther King

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, leader in the Civil Rights Movement, in his letter ‘Letter from...

• Effective Communication
• Literary Criticism

Monsters, as explain by Richard Kearney, are, “…something in us, made manifest in our response to...

Clarence Jones, a close advisor to Martin Luther King Jr., delivered a powerful and insightful...

Fia Cumming’s (2000) “Higher fuel tax slows us down; NEWS EXTRA” published by Sun Herald; a Sunday...

Persuasion is the art of influencing people’s attitudes and behaviors either through speech or...

• Malala Yousafzai

Malala Yousafzai suffered very brutal wound to the head, but yet she continued to further her...

• Olaudah Equiano
• Slave Trade

The non-fiction piece “The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano” was written by...

Join our 150k of happy users

• Get original paper written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!

“We choose to go to the Moon”

"We choose to go to the Moon", officially titled the address at Rice University on the nation's space effort, is a September 12, 1962, speech by United States President John F. Kennedy to further inform the public about his plan to land a man on the Moon before 1970.

President Pitzer, Mr. Vice President, Governor, Congressman Thomas, Senator Wiley, and Congressman Miller, Mr. Webb, Mr. Bell, scientists, distinguished guests, and ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate your president having made me an honorary visiting professor, and I will assure you that my first lecture will be very brief.

I am delighted to be here, and I’m particularly delighted to be here on this occasion.

We meet at a college noted for knowledge, in a city noted for progress, in a state noted for strength, and we stand in need of all three, for we meet in an hour of change and challenge, in a decade of hope and fear, in an age of both knowledge and ignorance. The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds.

Despite the striking fact that most of the scientists that the world has ever known are alive and working today, despite the fact that this nation’s own scientific manpower is doubling every 12 years in a rate of growth more than three times that of our population as a whole, despite that, the vast stretches of the unknown and the unanswered and the unfinished still far outstrip our collective comprehension. 

No man can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come, but condense, if you will, the 50,000 years of man’s recorded history in a time span of but a half-century. Stated in these terms, we know very little about the first 40 years, except at the end of them advanced man had learned to use the skins of animals to cover them. Then about 10 years ago, under this standard, man emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter. Only five years ago man learned to write and use a cart with wheels. Christianity began less than two years ago. The printing press came this year, and then less than two months ago, during this whole 50-year span of human history, the steam engine provided a new source of power. 

Newton explored the meaning of gravity. Last month electric lights and telephones and automobiles and airplanes became available. Only last week did we develop penicillin and television and nuclear power, and now if America’s new spacecraft succeeds in reaching Venus, we will have literally reached the stars before midnight tonight.

This is a breathtaking pace, and such a pace cannot help but create new ills as it dispels old, new ignorance, new problems, new dangers. Surely the opening vistas of space promise high costs and hardships, as well as high reward. 

So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait. But this city of Houston, this State of Texas, this country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by those who moved forward — and so will space. 

William Bradford, speaking in 1630 of the founding of the Plymouth Bay Colony, said that all great and honorable actions are accompanied with great difficulties, and both must be enterprised and overcome with answerable courage. 

If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred. The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space. 

Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it — we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.

Yet the vows of this nation can only be fulfilled if we in this nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world’s leading space-faring nation.

We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.

There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? 

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. 

It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the presidency. 

In the last 24 hours, we have seen facilities now being created for the greatest and most complex exploration in man’s history. We have felt the ground shake and the air shattered by the testing of a Saturn C-1 booster rocket, many times as powerful as the Atlas which launched John Glenn, generating power equivalent to 10,000 automobiles with their accelerators on the floor. We have seen the site where five F-1 rocket engines, each one as powerful as all eight engines of the Saturn combined, will be clustered together to make the advanced Saturn missile, assembled in a new building to be built at Cape Canaveral as tall as a 48-story structure, as wide as a city block, and as long as two lengths of this field.

Within these last 19 months at least 45 satellites have circled the earth. Some 40 of them were “made in the United States of America,” and they were far more sophisticated and supplied far more knowledge to the people of the world than those of the Soviet Union.

The Mariner spacecraft now on its way to Venus is the most intricate instrument in the history of space science. The accuracy of that shot is comparable to firing a missile from Cape Canaveral and dropping it in this stadium between the 40-yard lines.

Transit satellites are helping our ships at sea to steer a safer course. Tiros satellites have given us unprecedented warnings of hurricanes and storms, and will do the same for forest fires and icebergs.

We have had our failures, but so have others, even if they do not admit them. And they may be less public.

To be sure, we are behind, and will be behind for some time in manned flight. But we do not intend to stay behind, and in this decade, we shall make up and move ahead.

The growth of our science and education will be enriched by new knowledge of our universe and environment, by new techniques of learning and mapping and observation, by new tools and computers for industry, medicine, the home as well as the school. Technical institutions, such as Rice, will reap the harvest of these gains.

And finally, the space effort itself, while still in its infancy, has already created a great number of new companies, and tens of thousands of new jobs. Space and related industries are generating new demands in investment and skilled personnel, and this city and this state, and this region, will share greatly in this growth. What was once the furthest outpost on the old frontier of the West will be the furthest outpost on the new frontier of science and space. Houston, your city of Houston, with its Manned Spacecraft Center, will become the heart of a large scientific and engineering community. During the next five years the National Aeronautics and Space Administration expects to double the number of scientists and engineers in this area, to increase its outlays for salaries and expenses to $60 million a year; to invest some $200 million in plant and laboratory facilities; and to direct or contract for new space efforts over $1 billion from this center in this city.

To be sure, all of this costs us all a good deal of money. This year’s space budget is three times what it was in January 1961, and it is greater than the space budget of the previous eight years combined. That budget now stands at $5,400,000 a year — a staggering sum, though somewhat less than we pay for cigarettes and cigars every year. Space expenditures will soon rise some more, from 40 cents per person per week to more than 50 cents a week for every man, woman and child in the United States, for we have given this program a high national priority — even though I realize that this is in some measure an act of faith and vision, for we do not now know what benefits await us. 

But if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to Earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun — almost as hot as it is here today — and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out — then we must be bold. 

I’m the one who is doing all the work, so we just want you to stay cool for a minute. [laughter]

However, I think we’re going to do it, and I think that we must pay what needs to be paid. I don’t think we ought to waste any money, but I think we ought to do the job. And this will be done in the decade of the sixties. It may be done while some of you are still here at school at this college and university. It will be done during the term of office of some of the people who sit here on this platform. But it will be done. And it will be done before the end of this decade.

I am delighted that this university is playing a part in putting a man on the moon as part of a great national effort of the United States of America.

Many years ago, the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it? He said, “Because it is there.” 

Well, space is there, and we’re going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God’s blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked. 

Digital Scholarship@UNLV

• Submit Research
• < Previous

Home > Theses and Dissertations > 150

UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones

The cuban missile crisis speech: an analysis of text evolution.

Ashlyn Gentry , University of Nevada Las Vegas

Degree Type

Degree name.

Master of Arts in Communication Studies

Communication

David Henry, Committee Chair

First Committee Member

Thomas R. Burkholder

Second Committee Member

Donovan Conley

Graduate Faculty Representative

Stephen Bates

Number of Pages

On October 22, 1962, President John F. Kennedy delivered a televised speech announcing the presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba. This speech has been a subject of scholarship in the field of communication, yet no critic has performed a comprehensive analysis of its multiple drafts and their relationship to the final version. By using a comparative analysis, one can examine the process of presidential decision-making, the translation of those decisions into prose, and the strategic language used to communicate a particular message. This project follows the evolution of Kennedy's address, tracing the changes from one draft to the next, in an attempt to understand the ways in which the administration used the art of oratory to convey a political decision of significant consequence.

Cuban Missile Crisis; John F. Kennedy; Presidential address; Speechwriting; Sorensen; Theodore C.

• Disciplines

Communication | Rhetoric | Speech and Rhetorical Studies

File Format

Degree grantor.

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Repository Citation

Gentry, Ashlyn, "The Cuban Missile Crisis Speech: An analysis of text evolution" (2009). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones . 150. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/1391147

IN COPYRIGHT. For more information about this rights statement, please visit http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/

Since July 12, 2010

Included in

Rhetoric Commons , Speech and Rhetorical Studies Commons

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement | Terms of Use

Privacy Copyright

All items in Digital Scholarship@UNLV are protected by original copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — John F. Kennedy — Analysis Of Rhetorical Strategies Used By John F. Kennedy In His Inaugural Speech

Analysis of Rhetorical Strategies Used by John F. Kennedy in His Inaugural Speech

• Categories: John F. Kennedy Rhetoric

About this sample

Words: 469 |

Published: Sep 1, 2020

Words: 469 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

In summary, John F. Kennedy's 1961 inaugural speech aimed to unite both Americans and the global community, using various rhetorical strategies effectively. Repetition was a key strategy to emphasize his call for peace. Phrases like "Let both sides" and "to those" connected with a broader audience, underlining his commitment to international cooperation. Pathos appealed to Americans' loyalty and compassion, emphasizing unity in facing common challenges. This emotional connection aimed to change perspectives toward other nations. Direct address reinforced his point, acknowledging the ambitious task of achieving global peace but encouraging citizens to start the journey together.

Table of contents

Prompt examples for the "jfk steel speech rhetorical analysis" essays, jfk steel speech rhetorical analysis essay.

• Exploring Rhetorical Strategies Analyze the use of rhetorical strategies such as repetition, pathos, and direct address in John F. Kennedy's steel speech and how they contribute to the effectiveness of his message.
• The Power of Repetition Examine the instances of repetition in JFK's speech and discuss their significance in reinforcing his central message of unity and responsibility.
• Pathos and Emotional Appeal Analyze the emotional impact of JFK's speech on the audience and its role in conveying his call for global responsibility.
• The Art of Direct Address Analyze how JFK's direct address to the audience strengthens his call to action and responsibility.
• JFK's Vision for a Unified World Discuss how Kennedy's speech aims to unite not only Americans but all citizens of the world in pursuit of common goals.

Works Cited

• ampbell, R., & Jamieson, K. H. (1990). Deeds Done in Words: Presidential Rhetoric and the Genres of Governance. University of Chicago Press.
• Coleman, D. (2003). The Rhetoric of American Exceptionalism: Critical Essays. McFarland.
• Griffin, C. L. (2009). A First Look at Communication Theory. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Kennedy, J. F. (1961). Inaugural Address. Retrieved from https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/historic-speeches/inaugural-address
• Kennedy, J. F. (1963). A Strategy of Peace. Retrieved from https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/historic-speeches/a-strategy-of-peace
• Medhurst, M. J. (1989). Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Rhetoric of the Middle Way. Greenwood Press.
• Pfau, M., & Parry-Giles, S. J. (2010). Rhetoric and Communication Perspectives on Domestic Terrorism: Counterterrorism Policy and Presidential Leadership. Lexington Books.
• Simons, H. W. (2002). Persuasion in Society. SAGE Publications.
• Smith, C. (1991). Rhetoric and Human Consciousness: A History. Allyn & Bacon.
• Zarefsky, D. (2009). Public Speaking: Strategies for Success. Pearson.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Government & Politics Literature

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 788 words

2 pages / 1133 words

3 pages / 1150 words

2 pages / 1055 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on John F. Kennedy

Former President John F. Kennedy in his Presidential Inaugural Address, delivers a hopeful, inspiring speech about the actions he will take and the actions he expects citizens to take to achieve world peace. Kennedy’s purpose is [...]

On January 20, 1961, John F. Kennedy delivered an inaugural address that has since become one of the most iconic speeches in American history. His oration was not merely a ceremonial formality; it was a poignant call to action, [...]

John F. Kennedy's inaugural address is widely regarded as one of the most powerful speeches in American history. Delivered on January 20, 1961, it marked the beginning of Kennedy's presidency and set the tone for his [...]

The Second World War was an international conflict fought from 1939 to 1945 involving Germany, Italy, and Japan, who were known as the Axis powers, and France, Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union, who were [...]

The 35th president of the United States, John F. Kennedy, in his first Inaugural Address, aims to inspire Americans by outlining his plans for the future as he is being sworn into office. Kennedy’s purpose is to gain the [...]

On January 20, 1961, John F. Kennedy delivered his iconic inaugural address, a speech that is often hailed as one of the greatest in American history. The speech marked the beginning of Kennedy's presidency and set the tone for [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

News Conference 30, April 11, 1962

President John F. Kennedy State Department Auditorium, Washington, D.C. Wednesday, April 11, 1962, 3:30 p.m.

Official White House Transcript

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. I have several announcements to make.

Simultaneous and identical actions of United States Steel and other leading steel corporations, increasing steel prices by some 6 dollars a ton, constitute a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest.

In this serious hour in our nation's history, when we are confronted with grave crises in Berlin and Southeast Asia, when we are devoting our energies to economic recovery and stability, when we are asking Reservists to leave their homes and families for months on end, and servicemen to risk their lives -- and four were killed in the last two days in Viet Nam -- and asking union members to hold down their wage requests, at a time when restraint and sacrifice are being asked of every citizen, the American people will find it hard, as I do, to accept a situation in which a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility can show such utter contempt for the interests of 185 million Americans.

If this rise in the cost of steel is imitated by the rest of the industry, instead of rescinded, it would increase the cost of homes, autos, appliances, and most other items for every American family. It would increase the cost of machinery and tools to every American businessman and farmer. It would seriously handicap our efforts to prevent an inflationary spiral from eating up the pensions of our older citizens, and our new gains in purchasing power.

It would add, Secretary McNamara informed me this morning, an estimated one billion dollars to the cost of our defenses, at a time when every dollar is needed for national security and other purposes. It would make it more difficult for American goods to compete in foreign markets, more difficult to withstand competition from foreign imports, and thus more difficult to improve our balance of payments position, and stem the flow of gold. And it is necessary to stem it for our national security, if we are going to pay for our security commitments abroad. And it would surely handicap our efforts to induce other industries and unions to adopt responsible price and wage policies.

The facts of the matter are that there is no justification for an increase in the steel prices. The recent settlement between the industry and the union, which does not even take place until July 1st, was widely acknowledged to be non-inflationary, and the whole purpose and effect of this Administration's role, which both parties understood, was to achieve an agreement which would make unnecessary any increase in prices.

Steel output per man is rising so fast that labor costs per ton of steel can actually be expected to decline in the next twelve months. And in fact, the Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics informed me this morning that, and I quote: "Employment costs per unit of steel output in 1961 were essentially the same as they were in 1958. "

The cost of major raw materials, steel scrap and coal, has also been declining, and for an industry which has been generally operating at less than two-thirds of capacity, its profit rate has been normal and can be expected to rise sharply this year in view of the reduction in idle capacity. Their lot has been easier than that of a hundred thousand steel workers thrown out of work in the last three years. The industry's cash dividends have exceeded 600 million dollars in each of the last five years, and earnings in the first quarter of this year were estimated in the February 28th Wall Street Journal to be among the highest in history.

In short, at a time when they could be exploring how more efficiency and better prices could be obtained, reducing prices in this industry in recognition of lower costs, their unusually good labor contract, their foreign competition and their increase in production and profits which are coming this year, a few gigantic corporations have decided to increase prices in ruthless disregard of their public responsibilities.

The Steel Workers Union can be proud that it abided by its responsibilities in this agreement, and this government also has responsibilities, which we intend to meet.

The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are examining the significance of this action in a free, competitive economy.

The Department of Defense and other agencies are reviewing its impact on their policies of procurement, and I am informed that steps are underway by those Members of the Congress who plan appropriate inquiries into how these price decisions are so quickly made, and reached, and what legislative safeguards may be needed to protect the public interest.

Price and wage decisions in this country, except for very limited restrictions in the case of monopolies and national emergency strikes, are and ought to be freely and privately made, but the American people have a right to expect in return for that freedom, a higher sense of business responsibility for the welfare of their country than has been shown in the last two days.

Some time ago I asked each American to consider what he would do for his country and I asked the steel companies. In the last 24 hours we had their answer.

QUESTION: Mr. President, --

THE PRESIDENT: Just one -- I have one other statement here.

Mr. Hatcher is going to release a statement in regard to the release of the Guards. Let me say in summary that Secretary McNamara and I have carefully reviewed our progress in achieving permanent increases in our military strength. We have concluded that the rate of progress of this effort is such that if there is no serious deterioration in the international situation between now and August, we shall be able in that month to release all those who were called involuntarily. Our continuing strength after this release will be much increased over what it was a year ago.

Just as an example, the number of our combat-ready Army Divisions in active service after the release will be 16, as against 11 a year ago. The release is not the result of any marked change in the international situation, which continues to have many dangers and tensions. It is the result, rather, of our successful buildup of permanent instead of emergency strength.

The units we release will remain available, in a new and heightened state of combat readiness, if a new crisis should arise, requiring their further service. I know that I speak for all of our countrymen in expressing our appreciation to all those who served, under the adverse conditions of living in camps and being taken away from their families. And their service, and the willingness of the great, great majority of all of them to do this uncomplainingly, I think, should be an inspiration to every American.

And lastly, last Saturday I issued an Executive Order creating a Board of Inquiry to inquire into the issues involved in the current labor dispute in the West Coast maritime industry. The Board of Inquiry filed its written report with me today. In its unanimous report, the Board stated, quote:

"The current strike, if continued, will affect approximately 130 cargo and passenger ships, including those which constitute the principal mode of transportation of passengers and vital cargo to and from the State of Hawaii."

Other reports I have received clearly manifest that a continuation of this strike imperils the national health and safety. I have therefore instructed the Attorney General to seek an injunction against this strike, under the national emergency provisions of the Labor-Management Relation Act of 1947. While an injunction will restore the West Coast maritime industry to full operation, and return the striking members to work for 80 days, it should not, and I hope will not, interfere in any way with efforts towards full settlement.

I call upon the parties to make that effort, to achieve that settlement quickly. However, the public interest does not permit further delay in applying for an injunction. Consequently, I have made the decision to direct the Attorney General to apply for an appropriate order.

QUESTION: Mr. President, the unusually strong language which you used in discussing the steel situation would indicate that you might be considering some pretty strong action. Are you thinking in terms of requesting or reviving the need for wage-price controls?

THE PRESIDENT: I think that my statement states what the situation is today. This is a free country. In all the conversations which were held by members of this Administration and myself with the leaders of the steel union and the companies, it was always very obvious that they could proceed with freedom to do what they thought was best within the limitations of law. But I did very clearly emphasize on every occasion that my only interest was that in trying to secure an agreement which would not provide an increase in prices, because I thought that price stability in steel would have the most far-reaching consequences for industrial and economic stability and for our position abroad, and price instability would have the most far-reaching consequences in making our lot much more difficult.

When the agreement was signed, and the agreement was a moderate one, and within the range of productivity increases, as I have said -- actually, there will be reduction in cost per unit during the next year. I thought, I was hopeful, we had achieved our goal. Now the actions that will be taken will be -- are being now considered by the Administration. The Department of Justice is, particularly in view of the very speedy action in other companies who have entirely different economic problems facing them than did United States Steel, the speed with which they moved, it seems to me to require an examination of our present laws, and whether they are being obeyed, by the Federal Trade Commission, particularly to the Department of Justice. And I am very interested in the prospective investigations that will be conducted in the House and Senate, and whether we shall need additional legislation, which I would come to very reluctantly. But I must say the last 24 hours indicates that those with great power are not always concerned about the national interest.

QUESTION: In your conversation with Mr. Blough yesterday, did you make a direct request that this price increase be either deferred or rescinded?

THE PRESIDENT: I was informed about the price increase after the announcement had gone out to the papers. I told Mr. Blough of my very keen disappointment and what I thought would be the most unfortunate effects of it. And of course we were hopeful that other companies who I have said, have a different situation in regard to profits and all of the rest than U.S. Steel. They all have somewhat different economic situations.

I was hopeful particularly in view of the statement in the paper by the President of Bethlehem in which he stated -- though now he says he is misquoted -- that there should be no price increase, and we are investigating that statement. I was hopeful that the others would not follow the example, and therefore the pressures of the competitive market place would bring United States Steel back to their original prices. But the parade began. But it came to me after the decision was made. There was no prior consultation or information given to the Administration.

QUESTION: Mr. President, now that General Clay is coming home from Berlin, don't you think that service wives have borne the brunt of our gold shortage long enough, and should be permitted to join their soldier husbands in Europe? After all, you could almost say that service couples have had to bear a "cross cost of gold" alone, and in a very lonely way. Spring is here, and everyone knows that the GIs can get into much less trouble and do their jobs better if their wives and kids are with them.

THE PRESIDENT: I agree, and we are very sympathetic, and we are trying to make an analysis of how important this saving is to our general problem. As I said, it costs us three billion dollars to maintain our forces and bases overseas. That money must be earned by a surplus of exports over imports. I have asked Secretary McNamara to try to reduce that in the next 12 to 18 months by a billion, one hundred million, in order to try to bring this gold flow into balance, and that means taking a third out of the Defense Department without reducing its strength. So that's why these women are bearing hardships and these families, and that is why I contrast it with such unhappiness to the last 24 hours, because the fact of the matter is if we are not able to compete, if this results in a larger increase of imports from foreign markets, and therefore lowers our dollar advantages, then those wives are going to have to stay home.

QUESTION: Mr. President, when the Strategic Air Command had a false alarm for a few moments last fall, were you notified, and if not, do you think you should have been, and have you made arrangements to be, if there are any cases in the future ?

THE PRESIDENT: That story, in my opinion, was overstated. There was a breach in the communications between the base at Thule and our Continental Command. As you know, we are on a 15 minute alert. This lasted for a few seconds. General Power alerted those forces which are on a standby basis. There are constant drills. It was not that we were, as I saw in some papers, really those in Europe, a few seconds from war, because the fact of the matter is it would have taken many, many -- several hours before they could have taken off, and begun to fly, and we were always in control. So that I thought General Power took the right action before anything was done which would in any way have threatened the security of the United States. Of course, the communications would have become immediate, but there is always this problem of being on the alert.

QUESTION: Mr. President, if I could get back to steel for a minute, you mentioned an investigation into the suddenness of the decision to increase prices. Did you -- is it the position of the Administration that it believed it had the assurance of the steel industry at the time of the recent labor agreement that it would not increase prices? Is that a breach of their --

THE PRESIDENT: We did not ask either side to give us any assurance, because there is a very proper limitation to the power of the government in this free economy. All we did in our meetings was to emphasize how important it was that there be price stability, and we stressed that our whole purpose in attempting to persuade the union to begin to bargain early and to make an agreement which would not affect prices, of course was for the purpose of maintaining price stability. That was the thread that ran through every discussion which I had, or Secretary Goldberg had. We never at any time asked for a commitment in regard to the terms, precise terms of the agreement, from either Mr. McDonald or Mr. Blough representing the steel company, because in our opinion that would be passing over the line of propriety. But I don't think that there was any question that our great interest in attempting to secure the kind of settlement that was finally secured was to maintain price stability, which we regard as very essential at this particular time. That agreement provided for price stability -- up till yesterday.

QUESTION: Mr. President, could you interpret for us the significance of General Clay's return? Does it mean that the Administration now believes that the Berlin crisis is negotiable?

THE PRESIDENT: No, no. When he came with us, as you know, he was the responsible officer on the Continental Can Company, and he said he would take leave of absence till January. And then in January we asked him to stay further, but he has said for several months now that he really felt that his obligation was to return. He has recommended very highly the responsible Americans who are there. When he comes back tomorrow I am going to ask him, and I am sure he will respond, to continue to act as consultant to me on the matter of Berlin, to make periodic visits and to be available to return there at any time that we should conclude that his presence would be valuable. So that we have -- I noticed that Mayor Brandt said that General Clay might be more helpful to the cause here than he would be even there, and I think that what the Mayor meant was that his experience there and his work in the last seven months would be very valuable to the Administration. So his service continues and the problem in Berlin continues.

QUESTION: Mr. President, in your statement on the steel industry, sir, you mentioned a number of instances which would indicate that the cost of living will go up for many people if this price increase were to remain effective. In your opinion, does that give the steel workers the right to try to obtain some kind of a wage increase to catch up?

THE PRESIDENT: No, rather interestingly, the last contract was signed on Saturday with Great Lakes, so that the steel union is bound for a year, and of course I am sure would have felt like going much further if the matter had worked out as we had all hoped. But they have made their agreement and I am sure they are going to stick with it, but it does not provide for the sort of action you have suggested.

QUESTION: Still on steel, Senator Gore advocated today legislation to regulate steel prices somewhat in the manner that public utility prices are regulated, and his argument seemed to be that the steel industry had sacrificed some of the privileges of the free market because it wasn't really setting its prices on a supply and demand, but what he called "administered prices."

Your statement earlier, and your remarks since, indicate a general agreement with that kind of approach. Is that correct?

THE PRESIDENT: No, Mr. Morgan. No, I don't think that I have stated that. I would have to look and see what Senator Gore has suggested. I am not familiar with it. What I said was that we should examine what can be done to try to minimize the impact on the public interest of these decisions, although we had, of course, always hoped that those involved would recognize that.

I would say that what must disturb Senator Gore and Congressman Celler and others -- Senator Kefauver, will be the suddenness by which every company in the last few hours, one by one as the morning went by, came in with their almost, if not identical, almost identical price increases, which isn't really the way we expect the competitive private enterprise system to always work.

QUESTION: Mr. President, would you clarify, please, the United States position in the New Guinea dispute between The Netherlands and Indonesia? Recently there have been reports of displeasure from The Netherlands that proposals put forward by the United States were not fair to The Netherlands.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I agree. I think everybody is displeased, really, with our role, because our role is an attempt -- Ambassador Bunker's role has been, under the direction of U Thant, to try to see if we can bring some adjustment to prevent a military action which would be harmful to the interests of both countries with which we desire to be friendly, so I suppose it is hard to think of any proposal that we could make which would be welcome on both sides.

I am hopeful that if we can be useful, we will continue to try to be. If both sides feel that we cannot be, then perhaps others can take on this assignment, or perhaps it can be done bilaterally. But Ambassador Bunker is a diplomat of long experience and great skill, and our only interest is to see if we can have a peaceful solution which we think is in the long-range interests of the Free World -- of our Allies -- with whom we are allied, the Dutch, and the Indonesians, whom we would like to see stay free. So that the role of the mediator is not a happy one, and we are prepared to have everybody mad if it makes some progress.

QUESTION: Mr. President, in connection with the steel situation again, is there not action that could be taken by the Executive Branch in connection with direct procurement of steel under the Administration of the Agency for International Aid -- I mean the Agency. For example I think the government buys about a million tons of steel. Now could not the government decide that only steel -- steel should be purchased only at the price, say, of yesterday, rather than today, and also in case ---

THE PRESIDENT: That matter was considered, as a matter of fact, in a conversation between the Secretary of Defense and myself last evening, but at that time we were not aware that nearly the entire industry was about to come in, and therefore the amount of choice we have is somewhat limited.

QUESTION: Sir, part two on this thing. In the case of identical bids which the government is sometimes confronted with, they decide to choose the smaller business unit rather than the larger.

THE PRESIDENT: I am hopeful that there will be those who will not participate in this parade and will meet the principle of the private enterprise competitive system in which everyone tries to sell at the lowest price commensurate with their interests. And I am hopeful that there will be some who will decide that they shouldn't go in the wake of U.S. Steel. But we have to wait and see on that, because they are coming in very fast.

QUESTION: Mr. President, two years ago after the settlement, I believe steel prices were not raised.

THE PRESIDENT: That's right.

QUESTION: Do you think there was an element of political discrimination in the behavior of the industry this year?

THE PRESIDENT: I would not -- and if there was, it doesn't really -- if it was, if that was the purpose, that is comparatively unimportant to the damage that -- the country is the one that suffers. If they do it in order to spite me, it really isn't so important.

QUESTION: Mr. President, to carry a previous question just one step further, as a result of the emphasis that you placed on holding the price line, did any word or impression come to you from the negotiations that there would be no price increase under the type of agreement that was signed?

THE PRESIDENT: I will say that in our conversations we asked for no commitments in regard to the details of the agreement or in regard to any policies of the union or the company. Our central thrust was that price stability was necessary and that the way to do it was to have a responsible agreement, which we got.

Now at no time did any one suggest that if such an agreement was gained that it would be still necessary to put up prices. That word did not come until last night.

QUESTION: Mr. President, there has been a price increase in Cuba as well. Mr. Castro has increased the price that he has put on human life in the release or the tentative release of the prisoners captured in the abortive invasion attempt last year. Would you comment on this, please?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that all of us had hoped that the day when men were put on the block had long ago passed from this Hemisphere. And it has from every country until very recently in Cuba.

I think Mr. Castro knows that the United States government can not engage in a negotiation like that, and he knows very well that the families cannot raise these millions of dollars.

It's rather interesting -- so what he has done really in effect is sentence them to thirty years in prison -- it is rather interesting that Castro himself, when he engaged in an operation under a dictator whom he had been harshly critical of, that he was let out of prison, after an open trial, in fifteen months. He regards for his own countrymen, not the countrymen who from his point of view may have been wrong, but who fought in the open, and who took their chances, and who are young men -- he regards the appropriate treatment for them, and for thousands of other Cubans, to be this long prison sentence of thirty years which, in my opinion, is why Mr. Castro is increasingly isolated in the company of free men.

QUESTION: Mr. President, the steel industry is one of a half dozen which has been expecting tax benefits this summer through revision of the depreciation schedules. Does this price hike affect the Administration's actions in this area?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it affects our budget. Secretary Dillon and I discussed it this morning. Of course, all this matter is being very carefully looked into now.

QUESTION: The Presidents of Mexico and of Brazil announced the principle of adherence to non-intervention between the Communist and the capitalist blocs. Does this accord with what President Goulart told you when he was here in Washington?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I haven't seen the joint statement, but I am sure it does. I think we are bound together through the Organization of American States. It's difficult to comment on a joint statement that I have not read, but I think that President Goulart says the same in Mexico as he does in Washington.

QUESTION: Mr. President, General Lemnitzer has just recently conferred our Legion of Merit on a Japanese officer who apparently planned the Pearl Harbor attack. Can you think of any particular reason for this award?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The reason that was given was that he had been a distinguished officer of the Japanese Air Force, that his relations with the United States had been extremely cooperative. He was acting as a military officer, and I thought that -- I think that these kinds of days of the war are over. I thought that it was appropriate. He's a distinguished flier, and while we all regret Pearl Harbor and everything else, but we are in a new era in our relations with Japan, fortunately.

QUESTION: Mr. President? Sir, what are you going to do about American soldiers getting killed in Viet Nam?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I am as -- extremely concerned about American soldiers who are, in a great many areas, in hazard. We are attempting to help Viet Nam maintain its independence and not fall under the domination of the Communists. The government has stated that it needs our assistance in doing it. It is very -- and it presents a very hazardous operation. In the same sense that World War II, World War I, Korea, a good many thousands and hundreds of thousands of Americans died. So that these four sergeants are in that long roll. But we cannot desist in Viet Nam. And I think it is -- the fact that these men operated very far from home, very far indeed from Saigon, and great danger, and there are many others. The fact of their contributions, as well as the Wisconsin and Texas National Guard, it is in that setting that I look at the present actions.

Q. (MERRIMAN SMITH, UPI): Thank you, Mr. President.