Hell bent for_election-james_p_warburg-1936-90pgs-pol

Hell Bent For Election

BOOKS BY

JAMES P. WARBURG

HELL BENT FOR ELECTION

IT'S UP TO US

THE MONEY MUDDLE

JAMES P. WARB U RG


DOUBLEDAY, DORAN & COMPANY, INC .

Garden City 1936 New York

PRINTED AT THE Country Life Press, GARDEN CITT,Zf .Y.,u .s.A.

COPYRIGHT, 1935BY JAMES P . WARBUROALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ToPHYLLIS

Who helped compile the materialfor this book

and made many helpful suggestionswhile it was being written, and

ToHALF-A-DOZEN FRIENDSwho kindly read the manuscriptand gave much valuable help

and criticism .

PREFACE

As WE APPROACH the Presidential -election ofNovember, 1936, it is well for us to take stockof our present situation and to begin to make upour minds whether we want to continue alongour present course-or change it .

Never in the history of our country has itbeen so necessary for every citizen to exercise in-telligently the rights of citizenship .

Our country is faced with a crisis more seriousthan any mere "depression ."

It is faced by a question more basic than un-employment or low prices or heavy debts .

When you and I go to the polls in November,1936, we shall be voting, not for any one man,not for any one party, not for any one remedy orgroup of remedies, but for the continuance ordiscontinuance of the freedom we have enjoyedunder what for want of a better name we call theAmerican scheme of life .

I speak as one who had but little sympathyvii

Vill

PREFACE

with the Hoover administration ; as one who inearly 1933 had great hopes of what Franklin D.Roosevelt and his New Deal might bring to ourdistressed country, and as one who, after devotingno little time and sincere if ineffective efforttowards the realization of these hopes, now feelsnot only disillusioned but convinced that thepresent administration is doing more harm thangood, that Mr. Roosevelt is no more likely tochange his basic characteristics than is a leopardto change his spots, and that the sooner we havedone with him the better for the country .

I say this reluctantly because, in spite of whatI think and shall say in subsequent pages, ofMr. Roosevelt, I have a feeling of affection forhim which longs to deny what my reason tells meis undeniable . It is much as if I had a brother whowas a locomotive engineer and developed color-blindness. I should continue to love my brother,but I should certainly not feel justified in urginghis employers to continue entrusting him with thelives of others.

Why not then keep silent?Certainly it would be more comfortable to do

so. Certainly, for one who has a living to earn inthis country, it would be more prudent, since, as Iwrite this, the chances of Mr . Roosevelt's beingreelected are certainly no worse than even .

PREFACE ixThere is only one reason why I am impelled

to write : it is the same reason that impels you totry to flag an express train before it reaches abroken culvert .

There is only one way to flag the train before itreaches the fatal spot, and that is to arouse the citi-zens of this country so that they will see the realissues of the coming campaign and to make themassert their will before it is too late . Toward thisend I have been writing and speaking more or lesscontinuously since late in 1933 . And toward thisend I shall continue until the tide is turned, solong as there is free speech in this country .

Until quite recently it was my feeling that thethings to fight were wrong ideas and wrongpolicies rather than the men who originated themor put them into effect . Ideally speaking, I stillthink this to be true .

But we have got beyond the point of speakingideally.

We have got beyond the point of separatingthe President, because he has a lovable person-ality, from his words and actions .

We have got beyond the point of blaming thosewho influence the President-be they radical orreactionary ; be they in office or unofficial ad-visers .

%

PREFACE

In a speech at Butte, Mont ., on September i 9,1932, Mr. Roosevelt himself said"Remember well that attitude and method-

the way we do things, not just the way we saythings-is nearly always the measure of one's sin-cerity."

We have come to the point where we mustappraise Franklin D . Roosevelt by his own stand-ard, for it is only upon a judgment so arrived atthat we can intelligently decide whether to be forhim or against him .

I am against him, and the purpose of this bookis to tell you why .

There would be no reason to do this were itnot for the very definite hope that my feelingsmay find an echo and my reasoning a responseamong those who share in the ever growingrealization throughout the country that we are onthe brink of a momentous decision .

JAMES P. WARBURG.

August 3 1 , 1935 .

Introduction

THE BASIS FOR APPRAISAL

IN SEEKING to reach an intelligent conclusion asto whether we want more of Mr . Roosevelt'sleadership or whether we have had enough, itseems to me that there are several rather simplecriteria-or, to use a Rooseveltian phrase, yard-sticks-open to us

1 . How have his actions since he became Presi-dent compared with his statements and promises,on the strength of which he was elected in No-vember, 1 932 ?

2 . What are his purposes now, and do weagree with them?

3. How effective have been his actions takento carry out his purposes, and how effective arehis future actions likely to be?

4. Granted the importance, under our systemof government, of the individuality of the chiefexecutive, how do we feel after three years' ex-perience about Mr. Roosevelt's individuality?

There may be other and more effective methodsId

X11

INTRODUCTION

of approach, but it seems to me these four yard-sticks offer us a pretty good opportunity to findout what we think .

One very important factor is of course omitted :namely, if not Mr. Roosevelt, then who? How,you may say, can I make up my mind about theelections of 1936 when I don't know who the othercandidate is going to be-nor what he is going tostand for?

You can't, obviously . But it is just becauseof the absence of a definite alternative at thepresent time that I believe we are more likely toreach an objective conclusion about Mr. Roose-velt. Time enough later to make up our mindsabout the advantages and disadvantages of what-ever alternative is offered .And-more important-once you become con-

vinced, if you do become convinced, as I have,that, barring an extreme radical or an extremereactionary, almost anyone would be better thanMr. Roosevelt, who knows but what you may beable to take a hand in the shaping of the alterna-tive ?

Let us then proceed with our appraisal alongthe four lines of inquiry above suggested .


1WORDS VERSUS DEEDS

WHAT WAS THE BASIS upon which Franklin D .Roosevelt was entrusted by the American peoplewith the difficult task of being their President?What caused the people to give him such an over-whelming victory at the polls in 1932?

I think we may answer this question by statingthree major contributory factors :

i . The vote of November, 1932, was in largemeasure a vote against rather than a vote for . Itwas a vote not only against the unpopular Hoovergovernment but in still greater measure a voteagainst all existing business and political leader-ship-in other words, a vote against those whomthe people considered chiefly responsible for thedepression. (To what extent they were re-sponsible and to what extent the depression wascaused by the World War and subsequent de-velopments throughout the world need not con-cern us here . Certainly a wiser business and politi-cal leadership could have done much to avoid

2


some of the excessive manifestations of boom andcollapse.)

2 . The vote of November, 1932, was a votefor the avowed purposes and principles as ex-pressed in the platform of the Democratic partyand in the campaign speeches of Mr . Roosevelt.These documents were in effect a solemn covenantbetween the Democratic candidate and the peoplewho voted for him .Mr.- Roosevelt said in effect, "If you make me

your leader this is what I will do, or at leasttry to do. Mr. Hoover has told you what he willdo, and Mr. Thomas has told you what he willdo. It is up to you to choose whether to vote forMr. Hoover, for Mr. Thomas, or for me ." Andon the basis of these statements of principle andpolicy, on the basis of these solemn promises, theAmerican people went to the polls and over-whelmingly voted against Hoover, againstThomas, and elected Roosevelt .

3. Finally, there was the personality of thethree candidates-or rather the personalities ofHoover and Roosevelt, for it can hardly be saidthat the personality of the Socialist candidateplayed any very important part . On the one handthere was Mr. Hoover, tired, frightened, with nohold over Congress and but little influence on thepopular imagination ; on the other hand we had

WORDS VERSUS DEEDS

3the fresh and dramatic figure of a man whosecourage in conquering physical disability andwhose innate sense of showmanship rendered hima popular hero made to order for the moment .

We are here concerned with the second ofthese contributory factors .

Let us have a look at some promises made in1932.

Unemployment and Labor Legislation

"1 . A federal appropriation of $5,000,000,000for immediate relief for those in need, to sup-plement state and local appropriations ." (Thispromise seems to have been adequately fulfilledby the FERA .)

"2 . A federal appropriation of $5,ooo,ooo,-0oo for public works and roads, reforestation,slum clearance, and decent homes for the workers,by federal government, states and cities ." (Thispromise seems likewise to have been fulfilled bythe PWA and CCC and other agencies.)

"3. Legislation providing for the acquisitionof land, buildings and equipment necessary to putthe unemployed to work producing food, fuel andclothing and for the erection of housing for theirown use." (Something of this sort is being triedin various experimental communities in one ofwhich Mrs. Roosevelt has taken a great interest ;

4


likewise the Under Secretary of Agriculture, Rex-ford Tugwell, is working along these lines .)

"4. The six-hour day and the five-day weekwithout a reduction of wages ." (The Black billfor the establishment of a thirty-hour week wasnot passed by Congress.)

"5. A comprehensive and efficient system offree public employment agencies." (A compre-hensive system has been established ; its efficiencyis a matter of opinion .)

"6. A compulsory system of unemploymentcompensation with adequate benefits, based oncontributions by the government and by em-ployers." (The Social Security Act provides forsuch a system, with additional contributions byemployees .)

"7. Old age pensions for men and women sixtyyears of age and over." '(Provided by SocialSecurity Act for those over sixty-five years ofage .)

"8. Health and maternity insurance ." (Pro-vided by Social Security program.)

"g. Improved systems of workmen's compen-sation and accident insurance ." (See Senate bill2793, introduced May 9, 1 935, by SenatorWagner.)

"io. The abolition of child labor ." (See NRAand proposed constitutional amendment .)

WORDS VERSUS DEEDS 5-"ii. Government aid to farmers and small

home-owners to protect them against mortgageforeclosure, a moratorium on sales for nonpay-ment of taxes by destitute farmers and unem-ployed workers." (This promise was more thanfulfilled, since a moratorium was extended notonly for nonpayment of taxes but also for nonpay-ment of interest and principal of mortgage debts .)

" I2 . Adequate minimum wage laws ." (Thesewere established by the NRA.)

Note : The NRA and the Frazier LemkeMortgage Moratorium Act were subsequentlydeclared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court,but this does not alter the fact that Mr. Roose-velt tried to fulfill the promises involved in thesetwo pieces of legislation .

So far, on the face of it, the above looks like apretty complete record of fulfillment-in fact, anexcellent record .

Why is it not, then, an excellent argument forMr. Roosevelt's reelection?

Because it is a record of fulfillment, not ofpromises made by Mr. Roosevelt or by the Demo-cratic party, but a record of fulfillment of thepromises made by the Socialist candidate, Mr .Norman Thomas .

The twelve points I have just enumerated are

6


word for word the first twelve planks in theplatform of the Socialist party on which Mr .Thomas ran for President in 1932 and polledless than nine hundred thousand votes .

Does that surprise you?And now let us see what the Democratic plat-

form had to say on these subjects . Here are theplanks on which Mr. Roosevelt polled almosttwenty-three million votes

"i. An immediate and drastic reduction of gov-ernmental expenditures by abolishing uselesscommissions and offices, consolidating depart-ments and bureaus and eliminating extravagance,to accomplish a saving of not less than 25 percent in the cost of federal government ; and wecall upon the Democratic party in the States tomake a zealous effort to achieve a proportionateresult." (As against this promise we have thewhole galaxy of federal boards, commissions andoffices which comprise the New Deal alphabet .We have added more than one hundred thousandfederal employees, not counting those on relief oremployed by the Public Works Administration orthe Civilian Conservation Corps . As against thepromise to reduce the cost of federal governmentby 25 per cent we have witnessed an increase suchas there has never before been in the history of

WORDS VERSUS DEEDS

7our country. That is how promise number one wasfulfilled .)

"2. Maintenance of the national credit by afederal budget annually balanced on the basis ofaccurate executive estimates within revenues,raised by a system of taxation levied on the prin-ciple of ability to pay ."

In regard to this plank Mr . Roosevelt hadquite a little to say in his campaign speeches, par-ticularly that delivered in Pittsburgh on October29, 1932 . The following excerpts are worth call-ing to mind .

a) "I regard reduction in federal spending asone of the most important issues in this cam-paign. In my opinion it is the most direct andeffective contribution that government can maketo business ."

b) "Before any man enters my cabinet he mustgive me a twofold pledge of, first, absolute loyaltyto the Democratic platform and especially theeconomy plank ; and, second, complete coopera-tion with me looking to economy and reorganiza-tion of his department."

c) "Our federal extravagance and improvidencebear a double evil ; our whole people and our busi-ness cannot carry its excessive burdens of taxa-tion; second, our credit structure is impaired by

8


the unorthodox federal financing made necessaryby the unprecedented magnitude of these deficits .

"Instead of financing the billion-dollar deficitof 1931 in the regular way, our governmentsimply absorbed that much of the lending capacityof the banks, and, by so much, impaired the creditavailable for business ."

d) "I shall carry out the plain precept of ourparty, which is to reduce the cost of the currentfederal government operations by 25 per cent .Of course that means a complete realignment ofthe unprecedented bureaucracy that has assembledin Washington in the last four years ."

These are all quoted from Mr. Roosevelt'sown words spoken at Pittsburgh about threeweeks before he was elected .

Two other quotations will suffice to show thatCandidate Roosevelt's Pittsburgh speech-whichby now must have become somewhat of a baddream to President Roosevelt-was by no meansthe only utterance of this sort made during thecampaign by the man who subsequently madeMr. Hoover's expenditures seem like an attemptat extravagance by a timid Scotchman .

On July 30, 1932, Candidate Roosevelt said :

"With these declarations the Democratic partysets its face against the time-serving and dis-

WORDS VERSUS DEEDS

9

astrous fiscal policy of recent years-when thedepression began the administration, instead ofreducing annual expenses to meet decreasing rev-enues, became sponsor for deficits, which atthe end of this fiscal year will have added $5,00o,-ooo,ooo to the national debt . To meet this stag-gering deficit the administration has resorted tothe type of inflation which has weakened publicconfidence in our credit both at home and abroad .. . . Let us have the courage to stop borrowingto meet deficits. Stop the deficits I"

And at Sioux City, Ia., on September 29, 1932,we have this little gem

"I accuse the present administration of beingthe greatest spending administration in peacetime in all our history, and which has piled bureauon bureau, commission on commission, and hasfailed to anticipate the dire needs of reduced earn-ing power of our people."

And how were these promises fulfilled?By the greatest series of budget deficits in the

history of our country. The Hoover deficits,which Candidate Roosevelt found so indefensible,totaled about $7,000,000,000 in four years .

President Roosevelt's deficits in two years havetotaled over $7,500,000,000 .

President Roosevelt's expenditures, actual for

IO


1 934 and estimated for 1935 and 1936, amountto over $24,000,000,000 .According to the estimate of Chairman

Buchanan of the House Appropriations Com-mittee, the session of Congress which adjournedon August 26, 193S, appropriated some $10,250,-000,000.

From George Washington to Woodrow Wil-son, which covers a period of 124 years, our fed-eral government spent $24,521,845,000 .

If Candidate Roosevelt's criticism of Presi-dent Hoover's fiscal policy was sound-and theAmerican people on November 4, 1932, seem tohave indicated their feeling that it was sound-what must be said of President Roosevelt's fiscalpolicy?

Relief, Public Works, and Social SecurityIn examining the Democratic platform of 1932

we find very little in regard to the above head-ings-at least, very little as compared to theSocialist platform or the subsequent actions ofthe Roosevelt administration .

Plank number five reads

"Extension of federal credit to the states toprovide unemployment relief wherever the dimin-ishing resources of the states make it impossiblefor them to provide for the needy ; expansion of

WORDS VERSUS DEEDS

II

the federal program of necessary and useful con-struction affected with a public interest, such asflood control and waterways, including the St .Lawrence Great Lakes deep waterways ; thespread of employment by a substantial reductionin the hours of labor, the encouragement of theshorter week by applying that principle in govern-ment service ; advance planning of public works ."

And one other plank"We advocate unemployment and old-age in-

surance under state laws ."That is all you can find in the Democratic plat-

form on the subject of relief expenditure, publicworks expenditure, and social security. That isall the majority of the American people voted forin 1932. They voted for a balanced budget, forreduced cost of federal government, for reliefpayments by the states and by the federal govern-ment to the states only where the states were un-able to carry the burden alone . They voted for"advance planning of public works," for unem-ployment and old-age insurance under state laws .

Had they voted the Socialist ticket they wouldhave voted for $5,000,000,000 of federal reliefpayments, for $5,000,000,000 of public works ex-penditure, for federal laws providing unemploy-ment and old-age insurance, for federal control

12


of wages and hours and working conditions-inshort, for exactly what Mr. Roosevelt has givenus, or tried to give us .

,4gricultureAs to farm relief, this is what the Democratic

platform promised

Plank number seven reads"For the restoration of agriculture, the nation's

basic industry, we advocate better financing offarm mortgages through reorganized farm bankagencies at low rates of interest, on an amortiza-tion plan, giving preference to credits for theredemption of farms and homes sold under fore-closure ; extension and development of the farmcooperative movement and effective control ofcrop surpluses so that our farmers may have thefull benefit of the domestic market . Enactmentof every constitutional measure that will aid thefarmer to receive for basic farm commoditiesprices in excess of cost of production ."

In another part of the Democratic platformunder things condemned, we find

"We condemn the extravagance of the FarmBoard, its disastrous action which made the gov-

WORDS VERSUS DEEDS

13

ernment a speculator in farm products, and theunsound policy of restricting agricultural produc-tion to the demands of domestic markets ."

Could any more appropriate language be foundin which to condemn the fundamental policies ofthe .AAA? Is there anywhere in the Democraticplatform any indication that Mr . Roosevelt in-tended to do the very things for which he con-demned his predecessor, only on a vastly magni-fied scale, or that he intended to make his Secre-tary of Agriculture an absolute czar over thefarmers of the United States? Did anyone whovoted for Mr. Roosevelt on the strength of hispreelection promises think he was voting for pay-ing bounties to farmers not to grow crops, to killpigs, and to restrict production to the demandsof the domestic market? Did anyone vote to placeabsolute power in the federal government to de-termine what farmers were to raise and how muchand under what conditions?

Did anyone think Mr. Roosevelt, after con-demning-justly I think-the actions of Mr .Hoover's Farm Board, would turn around andmake Uncle Sam the world's biggest and stupidestspeculator in agricultural products?

The platform promises relief on mortgages,and this was granted through the federal land

14


banks and the Home Owners' Loan Corporation .The platform says nothing about mortgage

moratoria, although, as we have seen, theSocialist platform did .

The platform of the Democratic party saysnothing about a central federal control over allagricultural enterprise with a view toward estab-lishing a nationally planned economy directedfrom Washington .

But the Socialist platform contains this veryclear statement

"The creation of national, regional, and stateland utilization boards for the purpose of dis-covering the best uses of the farming land of thecountry, in view of the joint needs of agriculture,industry, recreation, water supply, reforestation,etc., and to prepare the way for agricultural plan-ning on a national, and ultimately on a worldscale."

Again, in the light of subsequent action, it ishard to believe that these were the words of Nor-man Thomas's party and not the words of Frank-lin D. Roosevelt .

Here are three pertinent quotations of whatFranklin D. Roosevelt did say :

i . On June 17, 1932 : "We must at once takethe Farm Board out of speculation in wheat and

WORDS VERSUS DEEDS

15

cotton, try out a new plan to insure getting surpluscrops out of the country without putting the gov-ernment into business ."

Making loans to cotton farmers against cottonat a price in excess of the world market price,and without the liability of the borrower to makegood any loss, is not, I suppose, speculation t

And the "new plan" of getting surplus cropsout of the country turns out to be a plan to de-stroy crops and prevent their being raised ; to pegprices above the world price, thus stimulatingforeign production and making reasonably surethat we shall never regain our lost foreignmarkets .

2. On July 2, 1932 : "We should immediatelyrepeal those provisions of law which compel thefederal government to go into the market to pur-chase, to sell, or to speculate in farm products ina futile attempt to reduce farm surpluses ."

Mr. Roosevelt might have added : "But wemust pass a law permitting the government to doall these things."

3. On July 30, 1932 : "Our party says clearlythat not only must government income meet pro-spective expenditures, but this income must be ob-tained on the principle of ability to pay . This is

16


a declaration in favor of a graduated income in-heritance and profits tax and against taxes on foodand clothing."

And what is the processing tax, pray, except atax on food and clothing, levied on all alike with-out the slightest reference to "ability to pay"?

Note : To avoid any misunderstanding of theabove quotation in reference to income, inherit-ance, and profits taxes, it must be realized thatMr. Roosevelt at no time advocated or pledgedan increase of such taxes . He merely reaffirmedhis belief in the principle of such methods of taxa-tion. In fact, in his Pittsburgh speech of October19, 1932, he said : "I hope it will not be necessaryto increase the present scale of taxes."

IndustryAnd now as to industrial problems, the Demo-

cratic platform promised"Strict and impartial enforcement of the anti •

trust laws to prevent monopoly and unfair tradepractices and the revision thereof for the betterprotection of labor and the small producer anddistributor."

That is all you can find to foreshadow thewhole gigantic NRA fiasco. That is all the people

WORDS VERSUS DEEDS

17

who voted for Mr. Roosevelt expected him to do .Contrast this statement of policy with the first

section of the Socialist platform, which I havealready quoted, and which Mr. Roosevelt has sonearly fulfilled .

Instead of the promised "strict and impartialenforcement of the anti-trust laws," the NRAsuspended the anti-trust laws, fostered monopoly,helped the big at the expense of the small in-dustrialist, and produced some ten thousandprinted pages of arbitrary rulings, which, untilthe Supreme Court made an end of this Romanholiday, had all the binding force of duly enactedlaws .

Did anyone vote for business controlled by dic-tatorship ?

Did anyone vote for arbitrary authority overwages, hours of work, prices, and conditions ofcompetition to be placed in the hands of whateverindividuals the President might choose to select?

Even the Socialist platform sought only to ac-complish the reforms to which it was committedby the enactment of appropriate laws, or if neces-sary by an orderly amendment to the Constitution .

If we had had a Nazi or Fascist party in 1932,perhaps it might have written a platform thatwould conform to what Mr. Roosevelt tried tofoist upon the country under the wings of the

18


Blue Eagle. But, if we had had a Nazi or Fascistparty in 1932, I doubt if its candidate would havepolled as many votes as Mr. Norman Thomas.

The Currency

In taking up this highly controversial topic letme make it clear that I am not here concernedwith the rightness or wrongness of what has beendone, but only with its consistency or inconsistencywith what the people voted for in 1932 . To pointout the inconsistency is not by any means to con-demn as wrong. Some things that were done in thefield of money and banking seemed to me rightand justified ; others seemed neither right norjustified.

What did we vote for as to currency in 1932?Currency and fiscal policy go hand in hand . We

have already seen that we voted for reduced gov-ernmental expenditures and for a balancedbudget, and that Mr. Roosevelt condemned thepolicy of his predecessor in incurring budgetdeficits . Coupled with this statement as to fiscalpolicy the Democratic platform had this to sayabout the currency

"A sound currency to be preserved at allhazards . . ."

That statement meant, if it meant anything to

WORDS VERSUS DEEDS

19

the millions of people who voted for Roosevelt, agold standard currency.

For one thing, you don't talk about "preserv-ing" something that you haven't got. If Mr.Roosevelt had in mind making the basic changesin our currency which he afterwards made, itseems to me he would have said, "A sound cur-rency to be established and thereafter preserved ."

Apart, however, from any mere inference dueto a choice of words, I think it is perfectly plainthat no one thought he or she was voting for thereduction of the gold content of the dollar, norfor an irredeemable currency, nor for the repudi-ation of the gold clause in the bonds of the UnitedStates government, when voting for "a soundcurrency to be preserved at all hazards"-anymore than anyone thought he or she was votingfor a policy of piling up deficits when voting forMr. Roosevelt .

The usual defense made by the New Dealersis that the course of events forced the action takenand that the resulting New Deal dollar is a "soundcurrency." I have stated fully in my previous writ-ings why I do not "think either statement correct, .but that is not the point at issue here .

Suppose the "New Deal dollar" is a sound cur-rency-which I do not think it is-certainly it isnot what you or I or anyone else thought of when .

20


we went to the polls in the autumn of 1932. IfMr. Roosevelt had said in 1932 what he said inhis famous message to the London Conference inJuly, 1933, do you think you would have votedfor him? Suppose he had made this statement :

"Old fetishes of so-called internationalbankers" (such as the gold standard) "are beingreplaced by efforts to plan national currencies withthe objective of giving to those currencies a con-tinuing purchasing power which does not greatlyvary in terms of the commodities and needs ofmodern civilization ."

You yourself-if you are not familiar withsuch things-might not have been disturbed bysuch a statement . It might even have appealed toyour emotional dislike of "so-called internationalbankers." But I can assure you that it would havedeeply disturbed every responsible business execu-tive, every large employer of labor, and theleaders of the labor organizations themselves . Itwould have disturbed them so profoundly thatthe repercussions of their disturbance would havebeen felt in every home in the country. At the veryleast it would have led to an instant demand thatMr. Roosevelt define what steps he intended totake in order to produce such a "planned nationalcurrency" which "would not vary greatly in termsof commodities and needs of modern civilization ."

WORDS VERSUS DEEDS

21

And if, as the result of such questions, theDemocratic platform had stated as to currency

i . We favor the establishment of a currencyredeemable in gold only when as and if the Secre-tary of the Treasury shall consider it in the bestinterests of the nation to have it redeemable.

2. We favor confiscating all gold at its presentprice of $20.67 an ounce and thereafter raisingthe price to $35-

3- We favor a managed currency, managed byvesting in the executive at Washington completeand arbitrary authority to restore the price levelof 1926 and thereafter maintain a dollar whichwill not vary in purchasing or debt-paying power,and4. We favor the repudiation of the gold clause

in the obligations of the United States govern-ment.

I do not hesitate to say that if the Democraticplatform had contained these or similar planks,Mr. Roosevelt would never have been elected.(I have not even attempted to write a plankwhich would do justice to the Rooseveltian ideason silver .)

And why should it not have contained suchplanks ?

Why not, if, as the platform itself states, "aparty platform is a covenant with the people to be

22


faithfully kept by the party when entrusted withpower, and that the people are entitled to knowin plain words the terms of the contract to whichthey are asked to subscribe?"Mr. Roosevelt did not make any very clear

statements in amplification of the Democraticparty's currency plank . I must say that I for onedid not think any amplification was necessary .Others, however, who knew him better than I,did express distrust of the general endorsement of"a sound currency to be preserved at all hazards ."As it turns out they were justified, but Mr.Roosevelt bitterly resented any such suspicion .Some of his statements in this regard are the fol-lowing

"It is obvious that sound money is an inter-national necessity, not a domestic considerationfor one nation alone ."

Contrast this statement, made on July 30,1932, with the message to the London MonetaryConference one year later, which I have alreadyquoted.

On November 4, 1932, Mr . Roosevelt madethis striking statement

"One of the most commonly repeated misrep-resentations by Republican speakers, including the

WORDS VERSUS DEEDS

23

President, has been the claim that the Demo-cratic position with regard to money has not beenmade sufficiently clear. The President is seeingvisions of rubber dollars. This is only a part ofhis campaign of fear . I am not going to charac-terize these statements. I merely present the facts .The Democratic platform specifically declares`We advocate a sound currency to be preservedat all hazards .' That is plain English ."

If that statement means anything at all, it cer-tainly does not mean an intention to redefine com-pletely what a "sound currency" is, and to goahead and establish precisely the kind of "rubberdollar" that Mr. Hoover was afraid of .

And finally, how do you like this one?

"The business men of the country, battlinghard to maintain their financial solvency and in-tegrity, were told in blunt language in DesMoines, Iowa"-by President Hoover-"howclose an escape the country had had some monthsago from going off the gold standard . This, ashas been clearly shown since, was a libel on thecredit of the United States . . . .

"No adequate answer has been made to themagnificent philippic of Senator Glass the othernight, in which he showed how unsound was thisassertion . And I might add that Senator Glass

24


made a devastating challenge that no responsiblegovernment would have sold to the country securi-ties payable in gold if it knew that the promise,yes, the covenant embodied in these securities, wasas dubious as the President of the United Statesclaims it was."

On March 12, 1 933-a week after Roosevelthad become President-the United StatesTreasury issued $800,000,00o of obligations pay-able "in United States gold coin of the presentstandard of value"-the same covenant above re-ferred to by Mr. Roosevelt a few days before hewas elected.

Additional securities followed shortly after,bearing the same covenant .On May 7, 1 933, President Roosevelt in a

radio broadcast to the people announced his in-tention to repudiate this covenant .

And on June 5, 1933, the covenant was abro-gated by act of Congress .

The point is not whether we agree or disagreewith the President's judgment or reasoning . Thepoint is that if he had such a conviction in regardto the gold clause and intended to act upon it,it would seem that the people had a right to knowabout it before they were asked to vote .

WORDS VERSUS DEEDS 25

Social Ownership

It would be an easy matter to continue quitea little further the comparison between the Demo-cratic and Socialist platforms, but I think thepoint has already been made sufficiently clear .One might point out, for example, that recog-nition of Soviet Russia-which may have been agood or a bad thing-was a plank in the Socialistplatform, but that neither Mr . Roosevelt nor theDemocratic party let us in on the secret that itwould be one of the first acts of the New Dealerswhen they came into power. Similarly, one maybe for or against the elimination of tax-exemptsecurities ; it was called for by the Socialist plat-form-not by the Democratic ; Roosevelt is onrecord as favoring action towards this end .

To the reader who would like to pursue thismatter further I recommend a careful readingof Dr. Tugwell's various writings, and a study ofwhat avowed Socialists have to say about theNew Deal.

I shall deal here with only one further item inthe comparison. In a way it is the most importantitem of all .

Probably the reaction produced in the readerby what I have said so far is one of unpleasantsurprise at the degree to which Mr . Roosevelt

26


has fulfilled the promises of the Socialist platform.Most of us, I think, are only vaguely aware ofwhat Socialism is or what Mr . Thomas promisedin his platform. But the reader would at thispoint probably console himself with an observa-tion something like this

"After all, Socialism means public ownership ofproperty as opposed to the private ownership towhich we are accustomed under capitalism . Whatharm is there in it if Mr. Roosevelt adopted afew planks from the Socialist platform-whatharm is there in it if he tries to improve the con-ditions of labor and agriculture-so long as theessential aim of Socialism, the public ownershipof property, remains unrealized?"

To this very reasonable and probable reactionon the part of the reader I would like to makeanswer as follows

i . Mr. Roosevelt's Secretary of the Treasuryis publicly on record as favoring the ownershipby the United States Treasury of the FederalReserve banks .

2. The chairman of the Senate Committee onInterstate Commerce is publicly on record asfavoring government ownership of the railroads .

3. The Tennessee Valley Authority exists andis operating. It is a huge power-producing and

WORDS VERSUS DEEDS

27

distributing unit, set up in a region which waspreviously served by private industry. Mr. Nor-man Thomas commends it as an excellent exampleof pure Socialism.

The administration has publicized exceedinglywell its "yardstick rates" in the Tennessee Val-ley. It has publicized less well the cost of theproject. We have heard vaguely of an expenditureof $5o,ooo,ooo, and when billions of dollars ofthe taxpayers' money are being tossed around, amere $50,ooo,ooo does not seem like very much .

But-it is not a mere $50,000,000 that is be-ing spent in the Tennessee Valley . The plain truthof it is that the expenditures in the TennesseeValley alone in the next five years will probablybe something in excess of $300,000,000, andeventually something like a billion dollars .

That is on one item .The administration's power projects form a

network over the entire country . So far over$300,000,000 have been allotted on so-called"make ready appropriations." Much larger billsare to come.

The announced purpose is to bring light andpower at less cost to the consumer .

The probable result will be the partial elimina-tion of the private power companies, which means

28


the partial wiping out of the savings of some fiveand a half million investors .

And, so far as cheaper light and power are con-cerned, Mr. Roosevelt said in a recent broad-cast, "Facts are relentless ."

So they are.The fact here is :If you deduct the subsidy of taxpayers' money

from the Tennessee Valley Authority and fromits rates now in effect, the "yardstick rates" ofwhich the administration speaks so proudly arehigher than the rates charged by the private com-panies serving the same territory ; and, even withthe advantages of the subsidies for which the tax-payer foots the bill, they are but slightly lower .

What has happened in the Tennessee Valleywill doubtless happen in all the other governmentprojects. It is difficult to see how it can be other-wise .

The taxpayer must always foot the bill forsuch examples of "pure Socialism ."

In addition to pointing out these significantitems I should like to draw the reader's atten-tion to one other fact. We are living in a timewhen it is fashionable to be "social-minded ." Thatin itself is a good thing. But we make the mis-take of taking for granted that anything that isproposed for the good of the less fortunate ele-

WORDS VERSUS DEEDS

29

ments in our social structure will actually redoundto their benefit .

If Socialism really would be such a great thingfor American labor, why is the American Federa-tion of Labor opposed to it?

If Mr. Roosevelt is right in thinking that whenwe voted for him in 1932 we were really votingfor what he has since given us, why did theSocialists poll only 884,781 votes?

Was it just because the American people likedMr. Roosevelt so much better than Mr . Thomas?

Let me stress once more that this chapter isnot intended as an argument against Socialism . Iam against Socialism, and even more against itstwo misbegotten offspring, Communism andFascism. But I am not arguing that case here . Iam concerned solely with finding a fair answer tothe first of our four questions :"How have Mr. Roosevelt's actions since he

became President compared with his statementsand promises on the strength of which he waselected in November, 1932?"

I think a fair answer would be the following :"He has done a few things that he promised to

do-more things that he promised not to do-and still more things that his Socialist opponentpromised to do ."

30


In order to evaluate properly the true sig-nificance of this answer I think it is necessary toadd :

"He has carried out his promises where it mat-tered least, and failed to do so where it matteredmost."

He carried out, for example, the promises torepeal the eighteenth amendment (which wouldprobably have been repealed under any adminis-tration) ; to give independence to the Philippines ;to get us to adhere to the World Court (withoutsuccess) ; and to put through the St . LawrenceWaterways Treaty (also without success) .

He brought about a certain amount of hasty re-form of our banking and investment system ; theproblem is by no means solved and requires care-ful study in order that the much needed real re-form may some day be accomplished .

On the negative side he has failed to reduce thecost of federal government, to balance thebudget, to maintain a "sound currency," to takegovernment out of business, or to maintain thefundamental principles of the American order .

He has led us into an orgy of wild spending un-dreamed of prior to his administration, "piledcommission on commission and bureau on bureau,"and set up, or tried to set up, a federal dictator-

WORDS VERSUS DEEDS

31

ship over all the various factors that affect thelives of our citizens .

He has flouted the Constitution which he sworean oath to support .

He has made a laughing stock of the sanctity ofour national promises .

And he has done all this in the name of anemergency which, if it ever did justify such ac-tions, certainly justifies them no longer .

2PRESENT PURPOSES

"IT IS NOT always fair," says Frank R. Kent,who is a good Democrat, "to quote a man's wordsagainst him after a long lapse of time . Often, onthe spur of the moment, or in the heat of a fight,men say or write things for which they shouldnot be held to too strict accountability . Conditionschange and men change with them. No one shouldbe condemned for changing his mind if he has asound reason to change.

"Nevertheless," he continues, "men who hopeto become President of the United States are ex-pected to weigh their words well and mean whatthey say. Consistency and steadfastness in theWhite House are vital to the welfare of thenation. If the people cannot depend upon thepromises of their President they are in a bad way .When a President or a candidate for the Presi-dency, in a prepared speech to the country, makesa solemn pledge and takes a definite and un .

32

PRESENT PURPOSES 33equivocal stand, the obligation to live up to hiswords is far heavier than on the ordinary man ."

We have seen in the preceding chapter thatFranklin D. Roosevelt has failed badly to live upto this obligation .

We have seen very clearly that he did not keephis promises to the people .

But let us be fair . Conditions certainly didchange rapidly and drastically during the winterof 1932-1933 . Not enough, to be sure, to war-rant or excuse so complete a reversal or so mani-fold a repudiation of solemn pledges as that per-petrated by Mr. Roosevelt, but enough, perhaps,to prevent our stopping right there and saying

"Oh, well, a man who goes back on his promiseslike that doesn't belong in the White House underany circumstances."

And so we come to the second of the four yard-sticks on the basis of which we were going to tryto make up our minds about Mr . Roosevelt ;namely

"What are his present purposes and do weagree with them?"Mr. Walter Lippmann once wrote of Mr .

Roosevelt that "his mind is not very clear, hispurposes are not simple, and his methods are notdirect."

34


From my own first-hand observation duringseveral months of close contact in the early daysof the Roosevelt Administration, I honestly sub-scribe to this analysis . In fact, I should go a littlefurther on all three counts .

I should say that Mr . Roosevelt's purposes con-sist of three major elements : the desire to be ahero ; the desire to give everyone a "moreabundant life" ; and the desire to be "clever ."

As to the first and last elements-the desire tobe a hero and the desire to be clever-I shall havemore to say when we come to consider Mr . Roose-velt's individuality-our fourth and last yard-stick.

As to the second element, Mr . Roosevelt de-fined the "social objective" on June 7, 1935, asfollows

"To try to increase the security and happinessof a larger number of people in all occupationsof life and in all parts of the country ; to givethem more of the good things of life ; to give thema greater distribution, not only of wealth in thenarrow terms, but of wealth in the wider terms ;to give them places to go in the summertime-recreation ; to give them assurance that they arenot going to starve in their old age ; to give honestbusiness a chance to go ahead and make a reason-

PRESENT PURPOSES 35able profit, and to give everyone a chance to earna living ."

If this definition means anything it means thatMr. Roosevelt's objective is precisely the same asthat of any other government . What governmentwould not, if it could do these things, be glad todo them? What statesman, whether radical orreactionary, would not subscribe to this doctrineas a pious hope? How else could Mussolini, orHitler, or Stalin, or the Emperor Haile Selassieof Abyssinia define his social objective?

But there is more than a mere naive benevo-lence behind this general purpose . There is theconviction that Franklin Delano Roosevelt knowshow to do these things, and that the way to dothem is "to be clever" and not let the people in onwhat is really going on. There is the convictionthat, given the widest possible range of "permis-sive powers"-the Rooseveltian synonym for dic-tatorial powers-Franklin Delano Roosevelt willbe the Moses that leads his people out of thewilderness .

Behind this apparently vague and harmlessstatement of purpose there lurks the convictionthat it is the proper function of the federal gov-ernment at Washington to manage every detailof the economic life of the nation in such a way

36


as to give everyone his or her proper share of"the good things of life ."

Do you see where this leads?It leads inevitably to the conclusion that "the

good things of life" do not include freedom ofspeech and thought and action-do not, in fact,include any of the liberties which are so care-fully guaranteed to us under the Constitution .Mr. Roosevelt would indignantly deny this

implication .Mr. Roosevelt's enemies would indignantly

affirm it and add that of course Mr . Rooseveltwants to be a dictator.

My own view is that Mr. Roosevelt's mind-which Mr. Lippmann says is "not very clear"-is so exceedingly unclear that he does not realizethat the only way he can possibly do what hewants to do is by being a dictator . And that thenhe can only do it if, in addition to making himselfomnipotent, he can also make himself omniscient .Once upon a time Mr. Roosevelt realized that

the centralization of power in the hands of thefederal government would inevitably lead to dis-aster because it would break down upon thefrailty of the human beings in whose hands thepower would rest .

Once upon a time Mr. Roosevelt said

PRESENT PURPOSES 37"The doctrine of regulation and legislation by

`master minds,' in whose judgment and will all thepeople may gladly and quietly acquiesce, has beentoo glaringly apparent at Washington duringthese last ten years . Were it possible to find`master minds' so unselfish, so willing to decideunhesitatingly against their own personal inter-ests or private prejudices, men almost godlike intheir ability to hold the scales of justice with aneven hand, such a government might be to theinterests of the country ; but there are none suchon our political horizon, and we cannot expect acomplete reversal of all the teachings of history ."

But that was said by Mr . Roosevelt on March2, 1930, when, as Governor of New York, he wasmore interested in states' rights than he is todayas President of the United States . That was saidwhen Mr. Roosevelt still realized the limitationsof human power.

Much as I dislike to say so, it is my honest con-viction that Mr. Roosevelt has utterly lost hissense of proportion . He sees himself as the oneman who can save the country, as the one manwho can "save capitalism from itself," as the oneman who knows what is good for us and what isnot. He sees himself as indispensable . And whena man thinks of himself as being indispensable-

38


be it to his family, his business, his city, or hiscountry-that man is headed for disaster .

But-to come back to our question-what areMr. Roosevelt's present purposes, and do weagree with them?

I should say that his foremost purpose was thecentralization of power in the federal govern-ment at Washington. We can see this purposeclearly expressed as to industry in the NRA, as toagriculture in the AAA, as to banking in theEccles proposals, as to public utilities in the TVAand Wheeler-Rayburn bill, the Guffey bill, andothers . We can see this purpose as to labor inthe Wagner bill, as to "social security" in theFERA, the Social Security bill, and the FederalHousing Administration . We can see it in count-less other expressions and manifestations everyday .

Do we agree with this purpose?No, we do not . And for reasons which no one

has expressed better than Franklin D . Rooseveltat the time when he was Governor of the Stateof New York .

Here is some more of the speech from whichI have just quoted :

"The preservation of this home rule by thestates is not a cry of jealous commonwealths

PRESENT PURPOSES

39seeking their own aggrandizement at the expenseof sister states. It is a fundamental necessity ifwe are to remain a truly united country . Thewhole success of our democracy has not beenthat it is a democracy wherein the will of a baremajority of the total inhabitants is imposed uponthe minority, but because it has been a democracywhere, through a dividing of government intounits called states, the rights and interests of theminority have been respected and have alwaysbeen given a voice in the control of ouraffairs . . . .

"Now, to bring about government by oligarchymasquerading as democracy, it is fundamentallyessential that practically all authority and controlbe centralized in our national government. Theindividual sovereignty of our states must first bedestroyed, except in mere minor matters of legis-lation. We are safe from the dangers of any suchdeparture from the principles on which this coun-try is founded just so long as the individual homerule of the states is scrupulously preserved andfought for whenever they seem in danger .

"Thus it will be seen that this home rule is amost important thing-the most vital thing-ifwe are to continue along the course on which wehave so far progressed with such unprecedentedsuccess . . . .

¢O


"Let us remember that from the very begin-ning differences in climate, soil conditions, habits,and mode of living in states separated by thou-sands of miles, rendered it necessary to give thefullest individual latitude to the individual states .Remembering that the mining states of the Rock-ies, the fertile savannahs of the South, the prair-ies of the West, and the rocky soil of the NewEngland states created many problems, intro-duced many factors in each locality which haveno existence in others, it is obvious that almostevery new or old problem of government mustbe solved, if it is to be solved to the satisfactionof the people of the whole country, by each statein its own way."

That is my whole case against President Roose-velt's major purpose, far more ably stated byGovernor Roosevelt than I could hope to stateit myself .

In conclusion-so far as this second yardstickis concerned-let me make it clear that there arein the Roosevelt program many items with which,as items, I am in thorough sympathy. I believe inbetter working conditions ; in the abolition ofchild labor ; in regulation to protect the publicinterest in transportation and public utilities ; insocial insurance ; in bank reform, and so forth.

PRESENT PURPOSES

41But I do not believe that these things are ex-

clusively or even primarily the concern of federalgovernment.

I do not believe in arbitrary authority to "regu-late" being vested in men any more than isabsolutely necessary.

I do believe in regulation by duly enacted laws .I believe that the government's proper func-

tion is to act as a referee who sees that the rulesare obeyed .

I do not believe the referee should from timeto time pick up the ball and run with it himself.

Nor do I believe that the referee should fromtime to time change the rules of the game, unlessa majority of all the players have first agreed tothe proposed change .

I believe that Mr . Roosevelt fundamentallymeans well, that he honestly sees himself as up-holding the American tradition, but that he hasso hopelessly lost his bearings that he does notrealize what road he is on nor where it leads.

For example, he did not realize when hestopped people in the South from planting cottonthat they would inevitably use their land to plantsomething else. They happened to choose pea-nuts, and as a result Mr. Roosevelt soon foundhimself having to pay people not to plant pea-nuts. Even after this experience he did not realize

42


that when he stopped the planting of peanuts hewould be forced inevitably to the next step, whichis perhaps the ultimate absurdity ; namely, thecontrol of the potato crop .

Most people do not as yet realize that wehave on our books a new federal law under whichit is to be made a penal offense for anyone togrow more than five bushels of potatoes without aspecial license ; and not only that, but it is a penaloffense punishable by a $1,000 fine or imprison-ment for one year, or both, to buy any potatoeswhich are not either stamped with the specialstamp or packed in the special kind of packageprescribed by the law .Mr. Roosevelt would have indignantly denied

in 1933 that his AAA program would lead tosuch a law governing the purchase and sale ofpotatoes ; just as he would doubtless deny withequal indignation today that the laws already en-acted will inevitably lead to more and more fed-eral regulation unless and until the whole programof centralized control is abandoned .

I believe that Mr . Roosevelt is so charmedwith the fun of brandishing the band leader'sbaton at the head of the parade, so pleased withthe picture he sees of himself, that he is no longercapable of recognizing that the human power tolead is limited, that the "new ideas" of leader-

PRESENT PURPOSES

43ship dished up to him by his bright young men inthe Brain Trust are nothing but old ideas thathave been tried before, and that one cannot up-hold the social order defined in the Constitutionand at the same time undermine it .

Could any President, who had not lost hissense of proportion, have written, as Franklin D .Roosevelt wrote on July 6, 1935, to the chairmanof a legislative committee of Congress, urgingthe passage of a piece of legislation (the Guffey-Snyder coal bill)

"I hope your committee will not permit anydoubt as to the constitutionality, however reason-able, to block the suggested legislation ."

Could any President who had not lost his senseof proportion, have characterized a unanimousdecision of the United States Supreme Court(the NRA decision) as putting the country back"to the horse and buggy days"?

"I, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, do solemnlyswear that I will faithfully execute the office ofthe President of the United States and will, to thebest of my ability, preserve, protect, and defendthe Constitution of the United States, so help meGod."

Could any man, who swore that oath on March4, 1933, and who had not lost his sense of pro-

44.


portion, express in no uncertain terms his desirethat Congress disregard any doubts, "howeverreasonable," as to the constitutionality of a meas-ure the passage of which he himself was demand-ing?

So much for the second yardstick .

3ARE MR. ROOSEVELT'S ACTIONS

EFFECTIVE?

IN THE PRECEDING CHAPTER I have stated whatI conceive to be Mr. Roosevelt's major purpose-that is, the centralization of power in the fed-eral government, to the end that the federal gov-ernment may be able to give the people "a moreabundant life." I have stated that I do not believein this purpose, because, as Mr . Roosevelt him-self pointed out a few years ago, centralizationof power in the federal government is not, inthis country, the way to arrive at "a more abun-dant life"-unless we wish to change all our basicconcepts as to what constitutes freedom andhappiness.

(I might have added that, when Mr . Rooseveltseeks to centralize power in the federal govern-ment, he seeks in effect to centralize it, not in thefederal government as a whole, but in the Execu-tive-that is, in himself . I might have added that,if there is to be centralized power, it would be

45

46


better and safer to centralize it in a carefullybalanced government in which the legislative andjudiciary branches are equally important withthe executive.)

It is not necessary to go further into detail .Most citizens are not particularly interested inthe Constitution as a theory . They are interestedin the practical advantages and disadvantages ofliving in a country governed as ours has been gov-erned under the Constitution, or of living in acountry where supreme authority is vested in acentral government .

What I am saying is that you cannot have both .What I am saying is that Mr . Roosevelt be-

lieves in centralized authority-although formerlyhe did not-and that I think he is wrong in nowholding that adherence to our traditional orderis going back to "the horse and buggy days ."

And so, having answered our first two ques-tions, we come to the third

"How effective have been Mr. Roosevelt'sactions taken to accomplish his purposes, and howeffective are his future actions likely to be?"

I should answer this rather difficult questionas follows :

i. His actions taken to accomplish the cen-tralization of power in a federal bureaucracy havebeen highly effective . He has accomplished a

ARE MR. ROOSEVELT'S ACTIONS EFFECTIVE? 47centralization of power such as we have never .,seen in this country, such as was never contem-plated or permitted by the Constitution, and suchas undoubtedly will be found in large measureunconstitutional by the Supreme Court .

2. His actions taken, by means of the vastcentralized powers obtained from a driven andbewildered Congress, in the direction of produc-ing "a more abundant life" have been very largelyineffective .

3. Where these latter actions have been effec-tive-as in the case of relief payments-theireffectiveness is very often of an obviously tem-porary nature . Four and a half billion dollars ayear will effectively prevent millions of peoplefrom starving, but only so long as you go onspending the money to feed them .

To take another example, the agricultural re-lief program has been effective in the sense thatit has put money in the hands of the farmers, butit has not solved their problem. If the AAA isdeclared unconstitutional-as it seems likely itwill be-a new method will have to be devised .And even if this does not happen, the "effective-ness" of the AAA is limited by the length of timethat its costs can be supported .

But that is not the worst of it .

q $


When you say a thing is effective you reallymean two things

You mean that it works-that is, does whatit is supposed to do, and

You mean that it gives you what is wantedwithout incurring a disproportionate sacrifice .

It is my considered opinion that most of Mr .Roosevelt's actions which can be considered effec-tive in the first sense are flagrantly ineffective inthe second .

Take again the same two examples of reliefpayments and the AAA.

As to relief-which is undoubtedly the mostdifficult problem-Mr. Roosevelt was faced withtwo undeniable facts

i. Some form of relief payments had to bedevised to keep the unemployed from starving .

2. Whatever money was to be spent for thispurpose had to come from the people, eventually,in the form of taxes .

This was a problem that existed for monthsbefore Mr. Roosevelt took office-a problem thathe had ample time to think about before he be-came President, or even President-elect .

Knowing the problem and having thoughtabout it, he took in 1932 a very definite, and tomy mind correct, position

He condemned budget deficits .

ARE MR. ROOSEVELT'S ACTIONS EFFECTIVE? 49He recognized that no government can spend

more than it can raise by taxation without render-ing ineffective whatever other actions it may take .

He recognized that "taxes are paid in thesweat of every man who labors ." (Pittsburgh,October i9, 1932 .)

He recognized that relief was primarily a con-cern of the states, and that the federal govern-ment should confine itself to aiding the stateswhenever "the diminishing resources of the statesmade it impossible for them to carry the burdenalone."

The implication of such a program-whichwas, I think, the right program-was that un-employment could be cured only by a revival ofbusiness activity ; that the most the federal gov-ernment could do, pending such a revival, was tohelp the states carry out whatever relief programsthe citizens of each of the states might determine ;and that it was certainly not the function of thefederal government to guarantee every employ-able a job .

That is what Candidate Roosevelt said he be-lieved .

That is not what President Roosevelt says hebelieves now.

President Roosevelt has forgotten what hap-

50


pens to the people of a country whose governmentconsistently spends more than its income .

President Roosevelt has forgotten that themoney he is handing out so generously is moneywhich will have to be paid "in the sweat of everyman who labors."

President Roosevelt has come to believe in theomnipotence and omniscience of a central govern-ment bureaucracy which will determine for thewhole country what it shall eat and drink and dowith its leisure time, and which will find jobs foreveryone that will assure them of "a moreabundant life ."

I am told that this is "good politics ."I fervently hope that 1936 will show that it is

not .I fervently hope and believe that the Amer-

ican people will realizei . That some day they will have to pay in

their own sweat for Mr. Roosevelt's generosity-as well as for his extravagance in setting up ahuge bureaucracy .

2. That a different relief program, such as thatadvocated by Mr . Roosevelt in 1932, would haveproduced the same amount of relief without re-tarding recovery and without abandoning thefundamental principles of home rule .

3 . That there is at least some danger-to put

ARE MR. ROOSEVELT'S ACTIONS EFFECTIVE? 51

it mildly-in the fact that Mr . Roosevelt has puthimself in a position where, in addition to theusual "patronage," he can swing a four and onehalf billion dollar relief fund over the heads ofCongressmen, whenever they show any signs ofbecoming restive under the apparently endlesssequence of "must" legislation demanded by theWhite House .

And now as to the other example, the Roose-velt agricultural program

The idea behind the AAA when it was estab-lished was supposed to be the restoration of thepurchasing power of the farmer. Ultimately thiswas to have been accomplished by "adjustment"of production to consumption through crop con-trol. In the meantime this ultimate objective wasto be hastened by paying bounties to agriculturalproducers, provided they would agree to reducetheir production in accordance with plans madeat Washington. These bounties were to befinanced by "processing taxes" levied upon theconsumers of farm products .

The processing taxes are probably unconstitu-tional and are certainly the kind of tax on foodand clothing against which Mr . Roosevelt specifi-cally committed himself . But that is not the mainpoint .

52


The main point emerges clearly as we watchthe development of the administration of thisprogram of "adjustment." Originally the act waswritten to operate only through the voluntary co-operation of the farmer. As time went on wehad less and less cooperation and more and morecoercion. As time went on we had the BankheadAct, which contains no semblance of voluntarycooperation by the farmer, and, as I write this,we have just witnessed the passage by Congressof certain administration-sponsored amendmentsto the AAA which remove once and for all anydoubt as to where this program is leading .

The administration refers to these amendmentsas mere "clarifying amendments ." As a matter offact, they are much more than that . But I do notobject to calling them "clarifying amendments"because they do clarify, beyond any question ofdoubt, what Mr. Roosevelt is trying to do . For-tunately we have once more President Roose-velt's own words upon which to base ourjudgment.

When he was making his now famous "horse-and-buggy" complaint upon the invalidation ofthe NRA by the Supreme Court, President Roose-velt took particular pains to point out the prob-able effect of this decision upon the rest of theNew Deal. He said that the same reasoning which

ARE MR. ROOSEVELT'S ACTIONS EFFECTIVE? 53had caused the Court unanimously to hold theNRA unconstitutional would probably likewisecause it to invalidate the whole AAA, and headded with obvious chagrin that this would meana return to "the old policy that every farmer wasa lord on his own farm, free to raise whateverand as much of any crop as he pleased ."

It is quite possible that I am completely wrongin my interpretation of what the American peopleand particularly the American farmer want. I amno politician, and Mr . Roosevelt is said to be "thebest politician we have ever had in the WhiteHouse." But it seems to me that to have everyfarmer "a lord on his own farm, free to raisewhatever and as much of any crop as he pleases,"is not such a terrible thing at all . In fact, it seemsto me a pretty good thing-certainly a far betterthing than having Messrs . Wallace and Tugwellsitting in Washington and figuring out what andhow much every farmer is to raise-certainly afar better thing than having a law which forbidsus to raise more than five bushels of potatoes andwhich tries to make us into a nation of spies andinformers .

We are a free people and not a race of Russianpeasants ; and, with all due respect to Mr . Roose-velt and his bureaucratic experts, I see no reasonto suppose that they are the "men almost god-

54


like in their ability to hold the scales of justicewith an even hand" whose existence Mr. Roose-velt himself so wisely doubted back in March,1930 .So, then, I should say that the AAA-our

second example-was effective (though not as ef-fective as the drought) in temporarily raising thefarmer's purchasing power, without, however,leaving the farmer one bit better off than he wasbefore, when and if the AAA is invalidated by theSupreme Court .

And I should say that this temporary relief forthe farmer was acquired at the expense of all ourcitizens, without reference to "ability to pay," andat the cost to our farmers of their Americanbirthright of freedom .

So much for the Roosevelt policies that mightbe called temporarily effective but whose tem-porary effectiveness has been purchased at whatto me at least would seem too great a cost . Inthis category I should place most of the so-calledrecovery measures-the spending program, theNRA, the AAA, and all the countless federalagencies by which Mr . Roosevelt has sought toimpose a planned economy upon this nation.

The New Dealers would answer this statementby raising a cry of "Laissez-faire ." Anyone whosays what I have said-or in fact anyone who dis-

ARE MR. ROOSEVELT'S ACTIONS EFFECTIVE? 55agrees with them-is instantly accused of threethings : ignorance, self-interest, and a desire to donothing .

The charge of ignorance or self-interest doesnot trouble me. We are all ignorant, and we areall to a certain extent self-interested . The onlydifference is that some of us do not realize it .

As to the charge of laissez-faire my answer isthisA do-nothing policy would be less harmful

than a policy of muddle-headed meddling, but Ido not advocate a do-nothing policy . I advocatea policy for the federal government of doingwhat it is intended to do under the Constitution,and of leaving to the states and smaller units ofsociety down to and including the individual, thefunctions that properly belong to them-includingthe function of making their own mistakes .

I advocate-if I can understand plain English-exactly what Mr . Roosevelt advocated beforehe moved from the Executive Mansion at Albanyto the White House .

And now let me give you one example of an-other kind of Roosevelt thinking, for which itcannot even be said that it is temporarily effective .

On June i9, 1935, Mr. Roosevelt sent a sur-prise message to Congress demanding that a newprogram of taxation be enacted. In this message

56


he endorsed the principle that taxes should notonly be levied to produce revenue but that theyshould carry out the social objective of prevent-ing the accumulation of great wealth in the handsof the few. "Our present revenue laws," he said,"have done little to prevent an unjust concentra-tion of wealth and economic power ."

Whether we agree with this principle is not thepoint at issue here (for my own part I agree thatexcessive concentration of wealth and power is anevil, but I am inclined to think that the cure isto be sought in the enlightenment of self-interestby a gradual process of education rather than inan attempt to legislate a higher morality and agreater social consciousness. Nevertheless, thereare some things that can be done-such as theelimination of tax-exempt securities-which Ihave advocated elsewhere) .

We are concerned here with the effectivenessof the actions suggested by Mr. Roosevelt to ac-complish the stated objective .

His three major recommendations werei. Heavy inheritance taxes on "very large

amounts."2. An increase in the income taxes on "very

great individual incomes ."3 . A graduated income tax on corporations .I am not concerned here with the fact that this

ARE MR. ROOSEVELT'S ACTIONS EFFECTIVE? 57

whole proposal was so vague and nebulous as toarouse doubt as to its sincerity. The thing that Ifind interesting is the third proposal .

The President recommended "the substitutionof a corporation income tax graduated accordingto the size of corporation income in place of thepresent uniform corporation income tax of 13 4per cent. The rate for smaller corporations mightwell be reduced to io4 per cent, and the ratesgraduated upwards to a rate of 16Y4 per cent onnet income in the case of the largest corpora-tions. . . ."

Do you see what this means?It means that a corporation such as the Amer-

ican Tel. & Tel. Company would pay a tax oft 6Y4 per cent of its income, merely because it isone of the largest corporations, whereas theX Company, which is small, would pay onlyioj4 per cent .But the American Tel . & Tel. Company is

owned by some 675,000* stockholders, with aver-age holdings of 28 shares, whereas the X Com-pany may be owned entirely by a rich man and hisimmediate family.

The result of the President's proposal would

*Of these 675,000 stockholders, 379,000 are women, and morethan xoo,ooo are Bell System employees, according to the com-pany's x934. Annual Report.

58


be that a tax of 16)/4 per cent would have to betaken out of the earnings available for the divi-dends to be paid to 6'75,000 small shareholders ofa large corporation, while only ioy4 per centwould be deducted from the earnings availablefor dividends to the few large shareholders inthe small corporation .

Was there ever a better example of putting thecart before the horse?

The President's avowed purpose is to preventthe rich man from getting too rich and to helpthe poor man get richer.

So what does he do ?He recommends a measure which, if enacted,

might tax the hundreds of thousands of small in-vestors one sixth of their possible dividends whiletaxing the few large owners of small corporationsonly one tenth of their possible dividends .

The obvious absurdity of this proposal wasrecognized by Congress which, under the pressureof the Democratic majority, enacted a face-savinggraduated corporation tax so as to avoid com-pletely repudiating the President .

Similarly the President is said to have insistedthat charitable contributions by corporationsshould not be tax-exempt, a proposal which wouldhave had the obvious effect of withdrawing themajor support from the nation's charitable in-

ARE MR. ROOSEVELT'S ACTIONS EFFECTIVE? 59stitutions at a time when it was needed as neverbefore. This proposal, fortunately, was notadopted by Congress .

Nor are these the only fallacies involved in thislatest vagary of the Roosevelt mind, but theysuffice to illustrate the point I am making here .

Another example of the same sort of unclearthinking was the much ballyhooed work reliefprogram, which was sprung upon the country inJanuary, 1935 . The President asked for an ap-propriation of $4,800,000,000 and announcedthat with this sum he would create useful jobs for3,Soo,ooo unemployed .

It does not take much of a mathematician tofigure out the ridiculousness of such a proposal.Divide your men into your dollars and you havesomething under $1,400 per man. Is it possiblethat that is what the President did? Is it possiblethat he did not realize that in even the most eco-nomical work relief program of useful work thecost of materials, transportation, and overheadwill take a very large part of the available funds?That the President did not have in mind the leaf-raking sort of jobs which he tried in the CWAexperiment was amply clear from his message ofJanuary 4. What he had in mind were the sort ofjobs that require expensive planning, skilled labor,

6o


expensive machinery and tools, and plenty ofbuilding materials .

The proof of the pudding is in the eating of it .There has been no miracle .The President has found no bright young man

capable of creating the sort of useful jobs thatcan be done by the unemployed without incurringtremendous costs other than wages for unskilledlabor, and so, after all the blaring of trumpets,we are back again to the old CWA expedient ofmakeshift jobs .

"But," you may say, "don't you agree with thePresident that work relief is much better for themorale of the unemployed than a dole or make-shift jobs?"

Of course I do. Much better-if it can be donewithout bankrupting the nation or establishinga central bureaucratic dictatorship . But my plainordinary common sense tells me that it cannot bedone by any of the methods that have been, or arelikely to be, devised by Mr. Roosevelt's brightyoung men, no matter how many rabbits theircombined hats may contain .

It is interesting to note that in this type ofineffectiveness Mr. Roosevelt suffers not onlyfrom the malady of excessive planning-as in theNRA and AAA examples-but from a combina-tion of too much "planning" in the basic concept

ARE MR. ROOSEVELT'S ACTIONS EFFECTIVE? 6iof the scheme and too little planning in its execu-tion .

In the early days of the administration I wasshocked by the slapdash slipshod methods bywhich the administration sought to solve problemsthat had baffled the wisest minds for years . I wasshocked then by Mr . Roosevelt's blithe and care-free manner of dealing with matters whichaffected the lives of not only 125,000,000 Amer-icans, but also the lives of countless millionsthroughout the world . In those days I used to con-sole myself by saying, "After all, this is an emer-gency. What do you expect the man to do? Hecannot suddenly become a profound student ofeconomics, and he must meet the situation thatconfronts him ."

I even used to try to make myself believe, asmost of the others around the President believed,that he had some sort of mysterious sixth sense-some sort of instinctive inspiration-which madeknowledge of facts and careful study of ideas un-necessary.

But as time went on I came to realize more andmore that Mr . Roosevelt's offhand methods hadnothing whatsoever to do with the emergency ;and that his alleged sixth sense was mostly arather pronounced flair for the dramatic

It is not pleasant to come to the conclusion

62


that there is no excuse for the heedless haste andcasual disregard of realities which have char-acterized so many of Mr . Roosevelt's actions.And yet that is the conclusion to which I mustcome in answering our third question.

And so my answer is thisMr. Roosevelt's actions have on the whole

been ineffective and are likely to continue to beineffective so long as he remains in the WhiteHouse .

He seeks to do too much-more than any manin any position could realistically hope to do-and certainly more than we can permit any manin the White House to do if we want to preservethe American scheme of life .

And in addition to attempting too much he doeswhat he attempts to do too thoughtlessly, toohastily, and without first acquiring sufficientknowledge.

And further, it is my considered opinion forwhat it may be worth that, as time goes on and asthe popular applause upon which Mr . Rooseveltis so dependent becomes less and less audible, hewill become more and more feverish in his activity,more and more grandiose in his schemes, and lessand less effective in putting them into action .

4PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S

INDIVIDUALITY

WE COME NOW to the last of our four yardsticks"Granted the importance under the American

system of government of the individuality of thechief executive, what do we think, in the light ofour experience so far, of Mr. Roosevelt's in-dividuality?"

This is by far the most difficult of the fourquestions, because we find ourselves here almostentirely in the realm of opinion. The first ques-tion was easy to answer, because Mr . Roosevelt'spreelection promises and post-election actions area matter of public record . The second question,while requiring a certain amount of analysis ofMr. Roosevelt's purposes, was also relativelyeasy, because all we had to do was to let Mr .Roosevelt's deeds define his purpose and hiswords condemn it . The third question, which wehave just answered, involved opinion to a certain

63

64


extent, but I think the reader will agree that thefacts alone present a pretty clear answer .

But, in discussing the individuality of a man-which is by rights the job of a trained psychologist-one is compelled to reach conclusions which areinfluenced by one's own interpretation of whatevidence is available .

I shall therefore confine myself in this chapterto the bare statement of the only hypothesiswhich seems to me to fit the facts .

I have heard many people question Mr . Roose-velt's sincerity, and I have heard many peoplequestion his intelligence .

The hypothesis which I wish to state is thatMr. Roosevelt is neither insincere nor unintelli-gent, but that his mind, and consequently hiswords and actions, are dominated by his emo-tional desires, likes, and dislikes to an unusualextent, and that this domination of the mind bythe emotions is what causes his inconsistenciesand accounts for all the extraordinary contradic-tions which we have noted in preceding chapters .

I believe that Mr. Roosevelt's primary desireis a desire to be agreeable, that is, to be liked andadmired by whomsoever he happens to be withat the moment.

I believe that Mr . Roosevelt wanted to becomePresident and wants to remain President pri-

PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S INDIVIDUALITY 65marily because being President expresses, morethan anything else could express it, the fact ofbeing liked and admired by the greatest possiblenumber of people .

If one accepts this hypothesis, it explains boththe words and actions which have caused his sin-cerity and intelligence to be questioned ; it ex-plains the extraordinary instability of Mr . Roose-velt's basic ideas as illustrated by his preelectionpromises and his post-election actions ; it explainshow he can agree with one man that the wind isfrom the east and with another that it is fromthe west ; it explains how he can adopt the Social-ist platform and deny its label .

You may say that the distinction I am drawingis a fine one ; and so it is ; but it is nevertheless tomy mind an important distinction.

When a man agrees that the wind is from theeast, knowing it is from the west, I would callsuch a man insincere, but when a man agrees thatthe wind is from the east because at the momenthe is honestly convinced that it is from the east, Iwould not call him insincere, even though I mightrecognize that his apparent conviction was not anintellectual conviction but an emotional domina-tion of his mind arising from the desire to agI e€with another man .

I am not saying that this is an admirable char-

66


acteristic. I am merely saying that it is differentfrom what I would call insincerity .

Similarly, if one accepts this hypothesis, it ex-plains the stupidity and superficiality of whichMr. Roosevelt is frequently accused .

From my own observation, I should say thatMr. Roosevelt's mind is quick, his memory excel-lent, and that he has an extraordinary capacityto grasp new material .

On the other hand, this excellent intellectualmachinery has often seemed to me to be impededby very strong emotional interference-by the in-terference, in other words, of conscious and sub-conscious desires, likes and dislikes .Mr. Roosevelt's mind is quick to the point of

nimbleness when he is interested or pleased . It isslow to the point of being stationary when he isnot.

When he is pleased he is animated, and thosewho have caused, or are sharing, his pleasureconclude-naturally enough-that he is "intelli-gent."

When he is displeased he is slow, stubborn,and those who have provoked his displeasure, orwho disagree with him, conclude-equally natu-rally-that he is "stupid ."

But this, to me, does not mean that he is notan-intelligent person ; it means that he is a person

PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S INDIVIDUALITY 67whose very excellent intellectual equipment wouldentitle him to be called intelligent, were it not forthe fact that he refuses to be intelligent when-ever his mind tells him something that runscounter to his emotional desires .

Again you may say that this is a subtle distinc-tion ; and again I would reply that to my mind itis an important one .

Finally, the same reasoning applies to Mr.Roosevelt's alleged superficiality. I am perfectlycertain that his mind is capable of delving deeplyinto a subject. I have seen him delve into sub-jects in which he was interested. Ask him some-thing about ships and see if you find him"superficial." Or ask him something about partypolitics .

On the other hand, he is undeniably and shock-ingly superficial about anything that relates toeconomics and particularly about anything thatrelates to finance . This is not, I think, because heis incapable of grasping these subjects, but becausehe does not like them and therefore refuses tomake any great effort to understand them .

Nor is all this, to my way of thinking, anythingvery extraordinary . We are all like that in greateror less degree . The extraordinary part about Mr .Roosevelt is the extent to which the whole pat-tern of his living and thinking is woven around

68


his emotional desires, predilections, and preju-dices .Mr. Roosevelt gives me the impression that he

can really believe what he wants to believe, reallythink what he wants to think, and really remem-ber what he wants to remember, to a greater ex-tent than anyone I have ever known .

It is always dangerous to attempt to interpretthe emotional motivation in another human be-ing; it is difficult enough to interpret one's own .Nevertheless, since Mr . Roosevelt is so largelygoverned by his emotions, it becomes highly im-portant to try to understand as much as possiblewhat sort of emotional drive supplies the motivepower behind his actions.

Knowing that I am here indulging not only inhypothesis but in a perfectly obvious oversimplifi-cation, I should say that Mr. Roosevelt is moti-vated primarily by two desires : the desire "to dogood," and the desire "to be liked and admired ."In Mr. Roosevelt there is, I think, a real

humanitarian desire to make life more pleasant,or at least more bearable, to the greatest possiblenumber of people . In Mr. Roosevelt there is like-wise, if I am not mistaken, an intellectual realiza-tion that neither he nor any other human beingcan do very much in this direction . The conflictof the desire which would like to do much, and

PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S INDIVIDUALITY 69the intellectual realization that there is but littlethat can be done, results, in Mr. Roosevelt, in afeverish assertion of the desire in the shape of anunfulfillable promise .

And the more his mind tells him that he ispromising the impossible, the more vehementlyMr. Roosevelt is driven by his desire to reaffirmand amplify the promise .

It is this inner conflict which, as I see it, makesa travesty of Mr. Roosevelt's attempts at leader-ship, and which renders him incapable of follow-ing any consistent course-except the course ofseeking the maximum of popular approval.

The leader of a democracy such as ours must,to be sure, carry out the will of the people ; buthe cannot do this by trying to please all of thepeople all of the time any more than he can "foolall of the people all of the time ." Mr. Roosevelt'sdesire to be liked and admired has led him-andwill, I fear, continue to lead him to try to pleaseall of the people all of the time by compromisingwhere oftentimes he should dig in and fight .Mr. Roosevelt, because he wants to be pleas-

ant and agreeable to everyone, does not realizethat there are some things on which no compro .mise is possible .

The sanctity of a promise, for example, canonly be preserved intact or destroyed .

70


One is either a person whose word can be reliedon-or one is not.

Before stating my conclusion in answer to ourfourth and last question, there is one other pointwhich seems to me worth touching upon .

You will remember Mr . Lippmann said of thePresident that "his mind is not very clear, hispurposes are not simple, and his methods are notdirect ."

We have discussed the reasons why his mind is"not very clear" ; we have seen why his "purposesare not simple"-because both his mind and hispurposes are dominated by his necessarily evershifting concept of what will make him popularand what will make him feel that he is "doinggood."

But we have not yet considered why his"methods are not direct."

I am not sure that I know. I think it is partlybecause of the absence of any clear goal or plan,but also I think it is more than that : 1 think Mr.Roosevelt has a definite liking for the devious asopposed to the direct, for the complicated asopposed to the simple, and for the masked flankattack as opposed to the direct frontal assault.

He has this liking, I think, because it makeshim feel superior to make everyone think he is go-

PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S INDIVIDUALITY 71

ing to do one thing, and then do another . Thatis being "smart" or "clever ."

To feint at the center and then launch an attackupon the enemy's unsuspecting flank is of coursewhat every good general will do. It is good tactics .

The trouble is that Mr . Roosevelt-as I see it-is not a good general. He is an excellent tacti-cian ; he can and does frequently conceal his realmovement under a most convincing sham attack ;but the trouble is that he conceals it, not onlyfrom the enemy, but from his own corps com-manders and general staff . Sometimes, I think, heeven conceals it from himself .

An excellent example of this was furnished byMr. Roosevelt's hectic maneuvers in regard tothe recent tax proposals, which left no one morehopelessly confused than Senators Harrison andRobinson, his own leaders in the Senate, whoseactions he repudiated .

All this is simply saying in another way whatI have said before. Since Mr. Roosevelt as a gen-eral has no definite plan of campaign and nodefinite objective-except the desire to be ac-claimed a great general-he tends to lead histroops in a series of brilliant tactical maneuvers,which would certainly often "outwit" the enemy,if there were a definite enemy, and which would

72


enable him probably to gain his objective-if hehad an objective .

Thus it seems to me that "the desire to beclever" is a fault in Mr . Roosevelt, whereas, in aman less dominated by the passive desire forpopularity and more activated by a definite striv-ing toward an objective goal, it might be a greatasset.

I am afraid that it is "the desire to be clever"that has led Mr. Roosevelt into some of his worsterrors.

He thought he was being "clever" when hetried to satisfy the inflationists by letting thempass the "permissive" Thomas Amendment to theoriginal Agricultural Act, rather than taking afirm stand against greenbacks.

He thought he was being "clever" when hemade the first of his many compromises with theso-called "Silver Bloc."

He thought he was being "clever" when hetried to steal Huey Long's thunder by suddenlycoming out with his "soak the rich" tax message .

None of these, and countless similar actions,were really "clever" or "smart," because theywere all ineffective in satisfying the "radical"groups or individuals whom they were supposedto satisfy, and, on the other hand, definitely ledMr. Roosevelt to go much further in the various

PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S INDIVIDUALITY 73directions desired by the "radicals" than heoriginally had any idea or intention of going .

And so my answer to our fourth and last ques-tion is this

I think Mr. Roosevelt's nature is such as tomake him, in the sense of party politics, an idealpopular candidate for office, but an ineffective anddangerous incumbent, once he is elected .

And further, I think that those qualities ofshowmanship rather than statesmanship, whichMr. Roosevelt possesses and which may havebeen useful in the winter of 1932-1933, are cer-tainly not the qualities which will be needed inthe White House from here on .

5CONCLUSION

AT THE BEGINNING of this book I defined thebasis of appraisal upon which I was going to tryto tell you as simply and as convincingly as pos-sible why I for one do not think Mr . Rooseveltshould be reelected President of the UnitedStates.

In the preceding chapters I have set forth myreasons for thinking

i . That Mr. Roosevelt, as President, carriedout a few of the less important promises he madewhen a candidate for that office ; that he failed tocarry out a far greater number of the more im-portant ; and that he fulfilled in very large meas-ure the promises that had been made by theSocialist candidate Mr. Norman Thomas.

2 . That Mr. Roosevelt's present purpose is togive the nation a "more abundant life" by firstvesting in a central federal bureaucracy headedby himself complete dictatorial powers over allthe factors that affect the economic and social life

74

CONCLUSION

75of the nation, and, second, using these powers toproduce, by executive management, the "moreabundant life ."

That this is a purpose to which we cannot sub-scribe, because

a) To accomplish this purpose means to sub-stitute for the American form of government acentral "authoritarian" state, along the lines ofthe various European experiments in Socialismand dictatorship, and because,

b) The hope that, by thus sacrificing ourtraditional freedom, we shall attain a "moreabundant life," is a vain and foolish hope, as noone has more cogently pointed out than Mr .Roosevelt himself, at the time when he was Gov-ernor of New York.

3 . That Mr. Roosevelt's actions taken to ac-complish his avowed purposes have been largely in-effective ; and that, where they have been tem-porarily effective, their temporary usefulness hasbeen outweighed by their disproportionate cost .

4. That Mr. Roosevelt's individuality is suchas to make him an ineffective and dangerous manto have in the White House, because his actionsand intellectual processes are too greatly domi-nated by his emotions, and because his emotionaldrive is primarily an inordinate desire for popu-larity.

76


That is my story . Those are my convictions .The reader must take them, modify them, orleave them, to suit her or himself .

If you agree with me in whole or in largemeasure, you may or may not agree with my con-clusion that, barring an extreme radical or anextreme reactionary, almost any citizen of in-tegrity would be better to have in the WhiteHouse than Mr. Roosevelt .

But, whether you agree or not, this much, Ithink, is clearMr. Roosevelt has definitely determined the

issue on which he must go to the country nextyear. He has definitely determined that the issueshall be whether or not we want to abandon thehome rule principle, states' rights, and the funda-mental concept of our Constitutional democracyin order to make a try for the "more abundantlife" by setting up a bureaucratic dictatorship of"master minds" in Washington .

He has definitely asked us to decide whetherwe agree with Governor Roosevelt, who in 1930condemned such an attempt, or with PresidentRoosevelt, who in 1935 recommends it .

Whether or not Mr. Roosevelt admits this tobe the issue matters not in the least. His actionsand his recent utterances can leave not the slight-est room for doubt .

CONCLUSION

77Bear in mind that highly significant speech

about the farmer "being a lord on his own farm ."Bear . in mind the "horse-and-buggy" attack

upon the NRA decision.Bear in mind the unconstitutional removal with-

out cause of Commissioner Humphrey from theFederal Trade Commission, because, "You will,I know, realize that your mind and my mind donot go along together on either the policies or theadministering of the Federal Trade Commission,and, frankly, I think it is best for the people ofthis country that I should have a full confidence ."(The Supreme Court unanimously declared thisremoval of Commissioner Humphrey uncon-stitutional .)

Bear in mind the administration-sponsored billto withdraw from citizens the right to obtainthrough the courts whatever damages they maysuffer through the devaluation of the dollar .

Bear in mind the administration-sponsoredeffort to have Congress pass a law making it im-possible for citizens to recover moneys paid undera tax, in the event that such tax should later beheld unconstitutional .

And don't ever forget that remarkably frankletter to Chairman Hill, in which the Presidentexpressed the hope that Congress would not let"any doubts as to the constitutionality, however

78


reasonable," stand in the way of the proposedlegislation .

If Mr. Roosevelt says that this is not the issue,that he is only trying to save the American orderfrom itself, that reelecting him is the only way toprevent revolution, and so forth and so on, I forone shall only smile .

Not because I shall not think he believes whathe is saying.

Not because I shall doubt his much discussed"sincerity."

But because I know that Mr. Roosevelt canmake himself believe what he wants to believe,think what he wants to think, and remember whathe wants to remember .

Because I know that in talking to a conserva-tive he wants-really wants-to be a conserva-tive ; and that in talking to a radical he wants toshow him that he knows more about redistrib-uting wealth than the late Senator Long .

Because I know, in other words, that there isonly one real driving force in Mr . Roosevelt, andthat is the desire to be liked and admired by thegreatest possible number of people .

That is why I have given this book the some-what flippant title"HELL BENT FOR ELECTION."

Education

Hell bent for_election-james_p_warburg-1936-90pgs-pol