The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1934-10-11
Liberal Viewpoint
by DIR. HARRY ELMER BARNES

ATOW that General johnson has retired as
Y the administrator Of the national recov-
cry act. Donald Richberg becomes the outstand-
ing personality in handling this important item
of New Deal legislation. In an article on the
future Of the NRA in the current number Of
Fortune Mr.. Richberg proceeds to expound and
defend the act.
He is extremely effective in answering the
business men and the reactionary newspaper
columnists who accuse the NRA of being
bureaucratic instrument for the fatal regimen
tation of American business. He shows how the
recovery act originally was designed to increase
employment and mass purchasing power. thus
producing notable stimulation of the PROSTATE
business life of America.
From the standpoint of regulation of bust
ness, the act was very largely designed to en-
courage industrial self-government and end the
intoerable practices associated with unfair COM
petition.
MOT only did it follow the suggestion of the
' leading American business men, but its en-
forcement was left mainly in their hands.
This is the process Of industrial self-gov-
eminent that was devised for the wholly desir-
able purposes which have been summarized. And
this is the process that has been strangely char
acterized by an opposition, sometimes purely
political and sometimes simply ignorant, as
destruction of liberty Sitting of private ini
tiatve,' and a 'dictatorial invasion OF constitu-
tional rights"
Mr. Richberg inserts deadly reminder that
most of the so-called interference with business
in the NRA was inserted at the behest of the
very groups who are criticiSing the alleged
RECOMMENDATION produced by the act
ut must be remembered that the NRA was
seeking to give trade and industry a genuine
opportunity for self-government; and it should
be recognized that practically every error and
interference with private initiative was written
into a code at the demand of SOME truly rep
resentative' association of induStralStS, and fire.
quently over the protests of alleged govern
ment bureaucracy of theorists who are now be-
ing criticised for the mistakes and economic
heresies of the acknowledged leaders Of indus
try"
Mr.. Richberg also points, out that immedi-
ately after the NRA was put into application
considerable part of the business world was so
enthusiastic that it almost seemed as though it
had "got religion" incidentally, Mr. Richberg
does not remind his readers that at the time
he appeared to believe in the reality of this
conversion.
TT certainly may be conceded that Mr.. Rich
berg makes a sorry spectacle out of reac-
tionary critics Of the New Deal. But he is far
less successful in meeting the objections of pro-
gressive critics. Indeed he seems to fear even
to mention their arguments.
This accounts for his failure to make it at
all clear just why business turned against the
NRA. From his article one would CLEAN the
impression that business went sour on the NRA
because of its interference" with the freedom of
business. Mr.. Richberg knows as well as anybody
possibly could that the one thing which bust
ness resents in the NRA is clause IA which guar
antees collective bargaining.
The record of the government in this phase
of NRA administration is nothing for Mr.. Rich
berg to be proud of and we need not be sur
prised to see him shy off from it.
John T. Flynn has presented cogent evidence
to indicate that when the act was being forrnu-
lated Mr.. Richberg was willing to betray labor
by winking at the company union hoax. Next,
the government allowed the steel trust to bluff
it on any enforcement of collective bargaining.
Next, the administrator of the NRA himself said
the word that led to the breaking up of the
San Francisco strike. The government has
failed to keep its word with labor and in doing
this has also undermined its basic effort to in
crease mass purchasing power.
Mr. Richberg scarcely needs to waste his en-
ergy in defending the recovery act against the
Bourbons. All sensible men are with him in
this controversy. What we should like to see
him do would be to meet honestly and head-on
such sincere and forceful criticism from pro-
greSsives as that contained in the serious and
impressive symposium edited by Alfred Bingham
and Selden Rodman, challenge to the New
Deal" (Falcon PressO