Evening star., 1934-07-01
BY MARK SULLIVAN.


rnent of the number of news
papers (Which are the ordinary me-
diums for the expression of free
opinion) is inherent in certain aspects
of the new deal. refrain, at this
time, from asserting that particular
individuals have this outcome in
mind. that they consciously wish it
or deliberately promote it. confine
myself here to showing that limita-
ton of the medium for the expression
of free opinion is inherent in the phil
osophy underlying some parts OF the
new deal and in some of the mechan-
isms already in operation. To show
why this is so is not an easy writing
task. but it is very necessary to make
the attempt
Persons who believe that, regard
less of the good in some parts of the
new deal nevertheless unfortunate
tendencies are inherent in the new
deal as a whole. or persons who for
any reason whatever disapprove of
parts of the new deal-all such per-
sons are under handicap. 1t is not
enough, and it is not desirable, that
they merely hurl epithets-what Gen.
johnson calls dead cats"-at what
they disapprove.
That does no good. 1t convinces
no one. And it is peculiarly neces-
sary to be convincing. for great
masses of Americans tend to take it
for granted that the new deal is good,
wholly good, all good. To them the
new deal is much as the League of
uo fret llyo NJ
about. The League of Nations was
advocated by a popular President,
woodrow Wilson, who had from the
country the loyalty that a wartime
President ought to have. The League
of Nations was a fine aspiration. it
promised altruistic results. It was
not understood. but it must be all
right. President Wilson said we
ought to join it-and therefore we
ought.
A Talisman of Good.
Many persons, probably a majority
OF Americans, now think the same
way about the new deal To some-a
good many-the new deal is a cabalis-
tic word, talisman, implying some
thing not understood but wholly be-
nevolent. These folks think of the
new deal as something Messiahlike.
To these the new DEAL has much the
same vague implication that tech
nocracy" had little over year ago;
or that new economic era" had at the
time before the depression, when most
Americans believed new economic
era" to mean permanent prosperity
perpetual good times" 'tain't goin' tC
rain no mo-"
We all know now that new eco-
nonic era" was an illusion. And there
are some now, among the disillusion.
ed, who in bitterness ask reproachfu
questions of the writers and prophets
why did you not warn US? Why die
you permit us to fall into unreal
dreams under the spell of thai
phrase?"
Well I suspect that a few years
ahead some who now expect more of
the new deal than it can possibly do,
will be asking similar questions.
The new economic era" of 1927
and 1928 and thereabouts did not
bring the economic bliss which, in
the popular mind, was associated with
that phrase. Neither did tech
nocracy." But many Americans are
incorrigible believers in fairies, fairies
that take the form of words and slo-
gans imputing magic. We ought ia
get over that proneness to believe in
charm words, alphabetical abraca-
dabras. But we do not get over it
Should Not Wait.
Faced with this condition, this
taken-for- granted faith in the new
deal, what should those thoughtful
ones do who feel that some parts OF
the new deal, some tendencies of it.
some future implications of it, are
destructive of what America in the
past has most priced, destructive OF
what America would not willingly lose
If we knew we were losing it? 1t will
not do merely to wait for disillusion
to come, as it has come about tech
nocracy" and the new economic era. ,
To merely wait for disillusion is
cynical, and cynicism rarely serves
any constructive purpose. Moreover
If there are dangerous tendencies in
the new deal, it is necessary to
awaken the public to them before
irreparable damage has been done.
But to show the dangers inherent
In the new deal is difficult. The
policies which 90 by the name new
deal" and the institutions set UP
under it, such as A. A. A. are very
intricate. To explain, them, merely
to make them clear to the reader
calls for brain sweat. Yet this is
precisely the obligation resting upon
those who wish to lead the public tc
look closely at the new deal. and
understand it fully, and distinguish
between what may be good in 1t ano
what Is not.
With this introduction, I proceed
to show why I think certain portions
of the new deal, if carried to their
logical end, the end that seems tc
me inevitable. will result, among other
things, in material restriction Of the
free press-of any kind of press.
do not treat, in this article. Of
censorship, whether of the press o.
of the radio. I do not treat of direct
attempts to restrict freedom of opin.
ion, or to penalize it. I do not, ir
this article, accuse any one of having
the wish to restrict freedom of opin.
ion or penalize it. About that much
has been said and is being said by
others.
conflne myself, in this article. Il
thesis which I may put thus: Tht
new deal conception of society, wher
and if carried out to its ultimate end
must lead to a great reduction in tht
number of newspapers in America
Since newspapers are mediums
through which opinion is commonl!
expressed, which carry speeches ane
accounts of public events, it follow
that the new deal. when carried
somewhat beyond its present stage
must result in construction of freedom
OF opinion.
To explain this is an intricate
complex task. 1t may be that onl!
business men and accountants car
follow me. However, I will try t.
clarity the process by which the nev
deal philosophy when carried on Il