The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1931-03-18
Hard to Escape

CHICAGO NEW YORK BOSTON
Hard to Escape
Whatever troubles the Democratic party may have In
patching up its differences on the prohibition question,
it is apparent at this writing that they will have more
than an outside chance Of success at the polls in the
election of 1892 unless business and economic conditions
take a decided turn for the better.
The promises which put Hoover into office with an
overwhelming majority In 1928 will not make good am
munition for the Republicans in 1882. Regardless Of
whether Hoover Is to blame for the condition which the
nation finds itself in, the namhoyant statements and
optimistic forecasts of three years ago viii prove al
boomerang a year hence.
1t is far easier to criticize and condemn the president
than it is to point out where he has erred and what
might have been done by him to prevent or alleviate the
slump which hit the country within a year after he took
office. Business experts disagree Is to whether the
economic system has touched bottom, but it is apparent
that if we have not reached that stage we are so close
to it that the difference Is negligible. There are q good
many indications that the next noticeable movement in
business will be an upward trend. II 1t develops fast
enough it may hold the country in line for the Repub-
lican party, despite the now ominous Democratic threat
But regardless Of any immediate upward trend In the
commercial indices Of the nation, 1t Is apparent that both
parties, Republican as well as Democratic, will have to-
deal with the platform advocated by John J. Raskob,
Democratic chairman, at the recent meeting Of the
party,s national committee.
The prohibition plank, Of course, is so controversial as
to bar even temperate discussion unless one wishes to-
take a chance on criticism from partsans on one or both
sides. But it is the least important suggestion contained
in the recommendation.
Over and above his prohibition theories, stands MI.
Raskobs declaration for a six-hour day and a five-day
week. 1t has all the ear-narks of a vote-getting argu-
ment which his opponents can meet only by using the
same ammunition. In other words, if the question Of
boJ,rc IF 1ahOr iS Ynoda q nn1ifjro1 ma ord thu ovao%
party machines are forced to take a stand on it
the movement for a shorter working day and a shorter
working week is going to have a lot Of support.
If the Democrats do not adopt it, as MI. Raskob de-
mands, they are going to encounter trouble. II the
Democrats adopt it and the Republicans do not, 1t sim
ply means an additional handicap on the Hoover can
didacy of 1882, already overloaded with handcaps.
There are a good many questions to be answered rela-
tive to the prospective relations between government
and business under such a platform, before the Raskob
program will be wholly convincing. Granting that a
president is elected and a party comes to power on such
a promise, it is still q question as to how the end sought
will be accomplished. Government cannot say to bust
ness do thus and so" and force obedience to the order.
The leadership of the government, however, would be
an important factor in inducing industry to adopt the
principle of a shorter working day. The idea already has
the support Of economists who tell us that the nation has
given more attention to developing its powers of produc-
ton than to its powers OF consumption. This lack Of
balance, they say, causes the economic situation which
prevails today, when farmers get almost nothing for their
produce and thousands in the cities go hungry; when
textile workers have no jobs and millions need more
clothes: when carpenters, lumber workers and other
building tradesmen lack employment and thousands live
in novels or crowded tenements.
It is the contention of the economists that BY reduc-
ing the amount Of production per individual and increas-
Ing the rate of consumption for the same individual, the
producing and consuming processes would be brought into
balance. Then, it is to be presumed, everyone would
have a job with plenty to eat and plenty of clothes to
wear. More persons would be able to buy homes and
automobiles and send their children to college.
The picture which may be conjured by carrying out
the theory OF these economists Is 50 alluring that even
the most gloomy is tempted to look ut it more than once.
To all Of us it appears worth investigation.
Added color is lent to its plausibility by the fact that
many industrial leaders Of the country are advocating II.
It has been endorsed by persons Of means and financial
position other than Mr.. Raskob.
Were a long-haired radical to sponsor such an idea 1t
would be much less respectable to discuss it in reason
able terms, for the auspices under which such ideas are
presented do make a difference. In the past We have
had only the labor unions and those interested directly
in the worker to advocate such revolutionary theories.
Now that business leadership has taken a and-and
presumably in its own interest-the proposal seems much
less fantastic than the eight-hour day did within the
memories Of most Of us.
Mr.. Raskob is well tailored and well barbared. He
can write his check Tor millions. He Is credited with
having made two hundred odd millionares by his leader
ship Of the General Motors corporation. Less success
full men can hardly expect to be taken seriously when.
and If, they hurl charges Of socialism" at a man Of
Raskob,s status and achievements.
And since It cannot be brushed aside. the politicians
will have to meet the idea contained In his pronuncia-
mento to the Democrats.
Out here in North Dakota, not yet highly Industrial
49, - - 9~~ xAn- - %h> Ho1k q. 49, hi0I
manufacturing centers. We are interested, nevertheless
for the Utopia which Industrialist Raskob suggests will
appeal to the farmer also. It may be that the agricul-
turists 81 America have been working too hard.
Certainly, II the working hours Of the nation are to-
shortened, the farmer should be included In the new
Arranaaaant ab0