Worried by the "pattern of frustration and division" which has dogged our foreign policy for the past two years, McGeorge Bundy, associate professor of Government, is supporting Eisenhower as the man best able to "break the log-jams and unite a divided country."

Bundy feels that "ineffectiveness" of Democratic leadership and "irresponsibility" of one wing of the Republican party has resulted in a "long series of overheated, sterile 'great debates' which have frozen U.S. foreign policy and destroyed the basis of consensus upon which major new stops must rest."

Eisenhower, he believes, is "best fitted both by personality and political position to create an effective and widespread bipartisan policy which combines strength and flexibility."

"The American political system," he added, "operates so that no one party can carry through a foreign policy without the support of the opposition leaders. Any policy which has to have congressional support needs two-party backing. Much of our trouble today is due to the arrogant and irresponsible disregard of this reality by the Truman administration in 1949 and early 1950."

Stevenson, on the other hand, would be unable to unite the nation, Bundy thinks. "This would be particularly true," he added, "if the rumor is correct in suggesting that Stevenson would pick as Secretary of State Averell Harriman, who has aroused widespread and legitimate annoyance by engaging in bitterly partisan acts while holding an office dependent on bi-partisan support."

Bundy also feels that if in the future we have to do things which involve concessions--either for bargains with the Russians or more complete co-operation with our allies--Eisenhower will be in a much better position than Stevenson. "When concessions seem necessary," he explained, "public support can be gained only by a man whom you can trust to act in the national interest."

It is not a question of Stevenson's patriotism, he said, but rather the amount of public support he can raise on a critical issue. Ike, according to Bundy, can carry American opinion along with him.

Another result of Eisenhower's election, Bundy says, would be that "the ground would be cut out from under the demagogues who have been trying to make capital out of the fear and danger of the period. The best way to deal with the fact that many honest people listen to McCarthy is to get an administration so unquestionably and clearly trustworthy that no one will listen to him."

The argument that Ike would be hamstrung by "isolationist" members of his own party "ignores three relevant considerations," according to Bundy.

The first is the record of the 80th congress. He pointed out that this is the congress which launched the Marshall plan, and the Greek-Turkish aid program and laid the groundwork for NATO.

Secondly, Bundy feels that much of the "isolationism" of certain Republicans is a "function of the fact that they are members of an opposition party faced by an unco-operative administration which they therefore feel a right and obligation to oppose."

Replying to the question whether Eisenhower had surrendered to Taft, Bundy answered, "Certainly not. I should be surprised if such Democratic sloganeering makes much of an impression on genuinely independent voters. Nothing in Ike's general position has been changed since he has been nominated. Governor Stevenson has flatly misrepresented Ike on this issue. Anyone who looks closely at the records of the quality of men closest to Ike can get further clarification of this view for Sherman Adams and Robert Cutler are hardly Taftites."

"What Eisenhower has done," Bundy said, "is to accept the support of all branches of his party and in return to urge a general support for all Republicans. I doubt whether anyone can show me where Stevenson has refused support to any Democrat. I will add that it is more candid for Ike to support McCarthy while opposing his methods than it is for Stevenson to profess ignorance of the views of Senator McCarran."

However, Bundy said that he has a high regard for Stevenson's record in foreign policy. He added that Eisenhower, if elected, "could do much worse than to appoint Stevenson to a high office.