Vice President George Bush made some pertinent points when he questioned the appropriateness of the Democrats’ “instant criticism” of President Reagan’s recent Central American policy speech. Speaking in Washington to the American Chambers of Commerce in Latin America, Bush contrasted Republican support for President Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis with the quick Democratic blast of Reagan’s arms-economic program to bulwark our closest neighbors against leftist subversion and revolution. I-le was referring to the Demo-assigned speech of Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut who assailed Reagan’s plan in sharp language on national television minutes after the President’s address. “Suppose, immediately following President Kermedy’s speech (in October 1962), a member of the Republican opposition in the Senate had appeared on television to deliver an address saying that the President’s response to the Cuban missile crisis was wrong and his description of the Soviet threat to our hemisphere was exaggerated?” Bush asked. ‘ News accounts further quoted the vice president: “Suppose, in fact, that this speech by an opposition senator had been prepared – and network time to answer the president had been demanded – even before the opposition knew what the President was going to say’? “What would have been the effect of this picture of a divided America on Nikita Khrushchev and the Soviet hierarchy in their . assessment of American intentions about the placing of missiles in Cuba’?” ‘1’he two-party system is one of the strengths of American democracy. Testing of ideas, proposals, and policies in the crucible of partisan debate can mature thinking and result in sounder decisions. But is an immediate national television speech calling the President’s plan “a formula for failure” a fitting way to respond when matters of national and hemispheric security are involved? We’d like to see Congress and the two political parties re-evaluate the whole scheme of instant opposition responses to high-level speeches on subjects of crucial import to the nation. Quick partisan calls for rejection – even before consideration and debate – smack of arrogance and shooting from the hip, and do nothing toward unifying the nation. Moreover, they can demean the office of President. and commander-in-chief and are not befitting to the dignity of the ination’s highest legislative body. With Busih, we believe a return to the ”bipartisan spirit of 1962” is needed in seeking to prevent a future crisis from threatening our nation and hemisphere. Congress has a vital role in the shaping of foreign policy. Partisan and bipartisan consensus on delicate issues can best be reached through give-and-take discussion within the legislative framework.