The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1933-11-09
(COatinasod from Page y

hNNHNNFHN~~
Socialist Patty candidates defeated
their Democratic and Republican OPP
ponents.
We should not underestimate the
moods behind the masses who went
to the polls and voted against Tam
many in New York and the Ware
machine in Philadelphia. 1t was not
merely a vote against graft and cor
ruption. It was not merely vote
for good government" 1t was not
merely a vote for economy" 1t was
a vote OF the oppressed and the starv-
ing masses who desire bread, who sui
fer under the increasing burdens Of
the deepening crisis FiOrelio La
Guardia, who won the election in
New York City, made pledges Of ade-
auate relief to the unemployed. He
campaigned on his record in Con-
KresS as a progressive. He received
the blessings of the outstanding New
York socialists as a progressive,
though they begrudged him the label
Of Socialist" which Mckee tried to
tag on to him.
In Philadelphia the Democratic
Fusion group had the support of the
Pinchot group, which Of late has in
creased its denagogic appeals to the
masses. This was also the case in
Pittsburgh, where the Democratic
candidate told the voters that the
issue of the election was the control
bv the MELONS of the city govern
ment.
waning Roosevelt Popularity
The second outstanding feature Of
the elections is the waning popularity
of the Roosevelt administration. Al
though the reports from throughout
the country are still only meager,
this is already evident. The two out
standing cases that forcefully bring
this out are New York and Cleveland.
In New York City, the Roosevelt
supported candidate Mckee, who ran
with a label borrowed from the very
blue eagle itself, namely, the Recovery
Party, met with defeat at the hands
of the demagogue progressive La
Guardia
Mckee had the open support OF the
Roosevelt national chairman Farley,
of the head of the Roosevelt brain
trust Moley and numerous other
Roosevelt national and local satellites.
In Cleveland the present administra-
ton headed by Mayor Miller, who
campaigned as a Roosevelt Democrat
and who made the NR.A. the central
issue of the campaign, was defeated.
These important defeats Of the
Roosevelt administration are directly
linked up with the growing realiza-
ton of the masses that the NR.A.
is not getting the country out OF the
crisis, and that it is an attack OF the
workers. This waning prestige OF
Roosevelt is also linked up with the
failure of the Roosevelt measures for
the solutions of the farm question
and the present strikes of the farm
ers.
The growing dissatisfaction Of the
masses was further expressed in the
election victory of the Socialist Par
ty in the city elections in the I'M
por5ant industrial city of Bridgeport.
The defeat of the Democratic Party
In Bridgeport was also an expression
of the waning popularity of the par
ty of Roosevelt. Here the majority
of the voters already designated their
disillusionment with both Of the two
old parties. The Socialists were able
to utilize this dissatisfaction. The
campaign of the Socialist Party in
Bridgeport was, Of course, not along
class lines. 1t appealed to the voters
pretty much the same way as did
La Guardia in the city Of New York.
1t campaigned for honest, efficient,
and economic government, but, of
course, fooling the workers by dema-
gogic talk of Socialism. 1t made its
model the Milwaukee Socialist ad-
ministration which, as the readers
know arrested and dubbed unem-
pIoyed workers and anti-Fascist de-
monstrators.
In New York City the Socialist
Party suffered a major defeat. Its
candidate for Mayor, Charles Solo
mon, received only $1,000 votes as
compared with the vote for same Of
flee Of Thomas, 175,00o in the year
1929, and $50, 600 received by Morris
Hillquit last year Yet we can not
say that there was any contradiction
between the election of McLevy in
-