Evening star., 1934-04-15
How Old Is the New Deal?

flourish, but those who are hardy
enough to cling 70 the old American
tradition of personal liberty (now dis
credited by the epithet rugged in
dividualism') would suffer-unless we
are to have a nation of bootleggers
dealing in every kind of goods. The
believers in our old system would find
themselves fighting for a lost cause.
for by control of the economic life of
the nation-and of the individual
the paternalists would readily control
the political machine. In fact, the
control Of the political machine is
implicit in the enforcement of q
planned economy.
The present trend of the new deal is
to centralize more and more powers in
the hands of the Federal Government
in Washington. This in itself runs
counter to one of the wisest provisions
of our form Of government-the Fed
eral system whereby large measure of
local autonomy has been left in the
hands of the States. This has made 1t
possible to develop administrative
units based on local needs. One of
the handicaps of the new deal, as al
ready put into effect, has been the at
tempt to decree for the Nation, regard
less of the widely different local tradi-
tions and customs. This tendency is
increasing.
Handicap in Size.
New dealers, economic planners and
even reactionary business men are
alike failing to see the handicaps Of
mere size (Which Is another form Of
overcentraliZation). The excessive size
of great corporations and banks has
made it almost impossible for an ex-
ecutive, no matter how intelligent, to
grasp adequately the details Of his
business. This may be one of the rea-
sons why, when the depression came
upon us, the heads of some of the Big
eest businesses and banks (and there
fore supposedly the wisesO were as
completely mistaken as was the aver
age man. In fact, the success Of many
of our big executives" was due more
to good luck and to rising prices than
to innate ability
This handicap Of size. although
acknowledged by some Of the new
dealers when applied to industry and
banking, they seem to forget in their
dream of a planned economy. Their
ideal is to enlarge. to unite under one
control. to make the central govern
ment in Washington omnipotent. The
result is that while under a planned
economy we shall maintain govern
ment for the people, it will not be by
the people, but by a small group for
the people.
And why not, hear my radical
friends say? Is this not better than
the old system when we had gov
ernment by Wall Street for Wall
Street? To which I reply, "Doubly
no." The first no is denial of the
hackneyed political charge that we
ever had a government by Wall Street.
Business has in many instances inter-
fered improperly With government.
Many men made unrighteous profits.
There was corruption in high places.
But their crime appears, in the public
eye. to have lain in the size of their
gains rather than in their corruption.
Small fry ought to emulate them.
When the great speculation Of 1921
1929 collapsed the country eagerly
pointed the finger Of reprobation at
Wall Street. thus passing on to others
blame which belonged on the shoul-
ders of all spectators throughout the
country. We are-though we pretend
to ignore it-a nation Of gamblers
Bv 1929 the speculative mania was
Nationwide.
Autocracy VS.. Democracy.
My second no is a denial that the
new system is better than the old. My
reason is that planned economy runs
counter to the fundamental principles