The good feelings between Congress and the President that had cooled Washington's political heat last January were notably missing after this year's State of the Union message. Criticism from Democratic leaders was more outspoken, and Republicans lyrically referred to the speech as "superb, superlative, and sublime." Even the President failed to repeat last year's plea for "harmony and good will" as he attempted to set a liberal Republican platform that could bring victory in November with or without his name on the ballot.

Peace, prosperity, and progressive social legislation seem to constitute Eisenhower's formula for success. Although many of his foreign and domestic proposals are commendable, at least in theory, it is regrettable that he had to paint such a rosy background for his program. Conditions--both at home and abroad--are just not that good.

Slums, juvenile delinquincy, falling farm income, crowded mental hospitals, under-staffed and over-crowed schools are all dramatic indications that the state of the Union may not be as healthy as the President says. And it is hard to deny that the U.S. is facing a crisis in foreign affairs as the Soviets begin to smile their way into Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Even in the field of national defense, which should be the President's forte, recent criticisms have shown that not only may the U.S. have dangerously weakened its ground forces, but also that it may have fallen behind the Soviets in nuclear weapons.

Despite Eisenhower's optimistic picture of American and world conditions, which seem to be based more on electoral hopes than facts, there are many proposals in the message which deserve support from the Democratic Congress. His foreign aid and trade programs, particularly, should receive high priority, although the offer of long-term economic aid would have sounded more impressive abroad if the President had recommended assistance for its own sake and not as an anti-communist weapon.

In certain domestic fields, too, the President's program should receive support from Democratic strategists. Expansion of social security and other social welfare proposals certainly sound good within the President's general terms, and flood insurance is something that both parties should uphold. The President seems to have come around to the Democratic position on a pay-as-you-ride highway construction program, so there should be enough support for this important measure. A review of the McCarran-Walter Immigration Act is another suggestion that ought to be adopted.

Although these proposals ought to satisfy both liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans, there are other areas in which liberals should not say "Me Too," but should go beyond the President's recommendations. In his housing proposal, the President has asked for a meagre 35,000 federal units for each of the next two years, while the 1950 census classified 15,000,000 homes "substandard." In school construction, too, the President's recognition of the need for increased federal aid is encouraging, but the amount he reportedly will request falls short of the minimum necessary to attack one of the nation's most serious problems.

Actually, there was very little new or startling in the President's message. His farm and tax policies have already created some noise, but the message was generally quiet and self-satisfied. His proposals seemed to recognize most of the important problems--even if his solutions were not always adequate. The President's optimistic view of the state of the nation, and the state of the world, is justifiable only it he meets these problems with the full force of government.