Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-04-13
SHOUSE is GIVEN PRAISE
AS ABLE PARTY LEADER
Chairman of Democratic Executive Com.
mittee of National Group Lauded
for Management.

Senate this year, namely coalition gov
ernment-lf you call 1t goveruycsx:.
AS respects the House, the situation
Is more simple, but will amount to the
same in the end.
In the House at present the Republic
cans have 263. The Democrats have
1854 (There is a fringe of Farmer
Labor and vacancies That is, in the
present House the Republicans have a
majority of 100. A majority of 100 is
a very large margin in total of ABS.
Because the Republican majority is
large it is also solid. Herein is in
volved a political axiom Because the
Republican majority is large there is
no temptation for an insurgent group.
There are in the House some 30 or
40 Republicans who come from the
same Midwestern States and have the
same political philoSophy-or the lack
of it-as the Senate insurgents. But
the House insurgents don't insurge.
enough of them to make, when COM
bined with the Democrats, coalition
majority.
But let us now see what is likely to
happen as result of this years cleo
tions.
In the Lower House the Republicans
now have 1853, against the Democrats
l64. In the coming elections the Re-
publicans will lose, let us say, 80 seats.
Then the relative strength will be 233
Republicans and 1874 Democrats.
That looks all right for the Repub-
licans-a comfortable majority of 80.
But remember those 80 or 40 potential
insurgent Republicans coming from
Wisconsin and elsewhere in the Mid
west. This year they don't inSurge,
but next year they will. They will see
under the conditions of next year that
by combining with the Democrats the
two can make coalition majority.
That is what we are likely to see in
the House next year-a coalition ma
jority made up of Democrats and in
Surgent Republicans
In other words. We seem likely to
have in both houses next year the same
kind of coalition control that We have
had in the Senate this year.
Is it happy prospect from the point
of view of the country? The answer to
that is another question: Was the
coalition control of the Senate this year
good thing?
Coalition Never Good.
The true answer in all seriousness is
that a coalition majority is never good
thing A coalition can't govern; it can't
act. 1t can only prevent action. When
a coalition tries to accomplish an af'
firmatiVe action, as the recent Senate
coalition tried to write a tariff, it fails
1t fails because failure is in its very
nature. 1t can't hold together. Thu
period during which the recent coalis
ton kept control of the tariff making
was about the longest duration of coalla
ton control we have ever had in AmeD
lea In the end it flew to pieces.
Almost any average American who
likes to see things managed senSibly
and orderly would say A Republican
majority. all right; Democratic ma"
jority. all right; but coalition major.
ity, never.
If the Republican party management
was shrewd and able-as the present
Republican party management is not
it could take advantage of this. The
Republicans could state TO the public
and the Democrats could not deny
something like this:
The Democrats cannot possibly win
enough seats this year to have a ma
jority. There ore the only result of
the Democrats winning any considerable
number of seats will be a coalition ma
jority. If you don't like coalition gov
eminent. return as many Republican
Senators and members as possible"
That would be good deal like the
compa'gn slogan the Republicans had in
1924, under circumstances somewhat
analogous. with La Toilette running as
a formidable third party candidate. The
Republicans devised a slogan--was it
the late Col Harvey who invented it?-
Coolidge or chaos!" That was good
slogan, because. among other reasons,
it was apt to the conditions The Re-
publicans need something like that this
year.