The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1924-11-13
LAFOLLETTE AND KADlCALISM
New York Times).

tNeW ORR llmeS).
A LaFollette popular vote Of four
millions would be u fair enough start
toward the building up Of Third
Party, provided there were a coher-
ent body of principles TO guarantee
that the four million votes would
stay put and attract other votes.
No such guarantee is dcducible from
Tuesdays poll. LaFoilette's show
ing in the Northwest has demon
stratcd that the sentiment upon
which he built is not convinced
and permanent radicaIism but large
ly a temporary discomfort. He sought
to capitalize the spirit Of agrarian
unrest. The speed with which that
discomfort subsidies is familiar. La
Toilette himself, with mere hand
full of electoral votes, and Brook
hart and Magnus Johnson, either
their political lives, are sufficient
proof of the unstable farmer foun
dation upon which the Third Party
was to rest
The Labor vote for LaFollette in
the East and Middle West also Of
fcrs no permanent guarantees. As
concerns New York, the most i'm
portant Of the industrial States, it
is established that the Labor vote
is not transferable by labor leaders.
LaFollette's vote of 287 600 in Great
er New York invites analysis. Four
years ago Debs polled 1871 900 Social
list votes in the city. Subtract
these from LaFollette's total, and
subtract further the considerable
German vote which his stand on the
Treaty of Versailles attracted, and
| 100000 would be a generous allow
ance for the Labor votes which Mr..
Gomper's endorsement brought him.
This would be ne-seventh of the
reputed membership Of the American
Federation of Labor in New York
City. In the State as whole La
Toilette may have received 100000
votes, against Dcb's vote Of 100000
four years ago. With the same de-
auctions We gather that LaFOllette
exercised no stronger pull OH the
industrial population upstate than
he did in New York City.
Speculation favorable to Il Third
Party has drawn heavily upon the
British example. But the parallel is
vitated by two fundamental consid-
erations. In the first place, the Brit
ish Labor Party is what it calls it.
self 1t is the party Of the indus
trial workers, whose relative num-
erical Importance is much greater
in Great Britain than in this coun-
try. The growth of the British La
Dor Party has been about a body of
principles independent Of personali'
ties. The Third Party envisaged by
LaFollette was to draw it's chief
strength from the farmers, who in
the long run and in all countries
are the opponents Of radicalism: A
common grievance against oval
Street" was deemed sufficient tt
cement the farmer and the cit!
worker into lasting union. But ;
single favorable crop year has beer
sufficient to show how tenuous i:
the bond. A rise Of SO cents il
wheat is apparently sufficient t.
reverse agrarian convictions abou
the iniquity Of the railroads ant
the interests.
The second vital difference be
tween conditions in this country ant
in Great Britain is in electoral sys
tenn. With Il popular vote Of -four
millions LaFollette is assured o
only l3 votes in the Electoral Col
legc. The Third Party offers war
ranty of Republican monopoly OF
the Presidency by splitting up thu
opposition. Carried all the wa!
down the line Of elective offices
this would hold true for Congress:
also. Realization Of this fact viii
explain why in the face Of the Cool
idge sweep there have been no gain:
in Republican Congressman in New
York City.
Against LaFollette's possible l;
percent Of the popular vote in thu
nation may be set up the percen
OF the popular vote secured by Wea
Yer and the Populists in 1892. Ii
that year Weaver won % electora
votes, against an indicated Is TO
LaFollette recently. But Populisn
disappeared within four years. y
Greenbackism appeared before that
The basic reason is that the per
manently radical farmer hardly ex
lists.