The Washington times., 1934-06-27

LAA6I L4ulG L11c 5:*:$:$:$$$3;;$$
nation will con-
front q great
issue. This
issue lies in
the question, Lewis H"ney
Shall we 60 ahead on the way
to rugged collectivism, or shall
We return to a reasonable indi-
vidualisn?
It do not believe that it is
necessary or desirable to 60 back
to the extreme of So-called
rugged individualism." But I
do believe that the thoughtful
American is coming to see that
the other extreme of rugged
collectivism Is equally bad, and I
hope that the coming elections
will show such a handwriting on
the wall that the New Dealers
will be checked before it is too
late.
The issue is no longer between
Democrats and Republicans. 1t
is between ''New Deal'' COLLECTIVE
ism and q reasonable individual
ism with adequate Government
regulation. In fact, the Demo
cratic party is being split, and
no one Is more disturbed nova
days than your real old line
Democrat.
First, there is the common COM
plant that individualiSm is plan
less. On the other hand, the
New Dealers assert that their col
lectivism gives us an economic
plan.
Even in theory, this point is
meaningless. A fixed and I'M
changing plan" has the same
effect as a complete absence Of
planning. You see, conditions in
nature and in business are con-
tinually changing, so when any
set plan is adopted it soon is
Knocked galley west. Economic
life will not stay put"-plan or
no plan.
But in practice, the New Deal
ers claim to be playing a game
under the direction Of a quarter
back who calls each play as he
sees things at the moment. This
Is what they mean by "the ex-
perimental approach, which Tug
well has said is the heart Of the
Rooseveltian philosophy.
Now, I ask you, is that a plan?
II so, what is the plan? I think it
is just waiting for a break.
This experimenting is, in prac-
&ice, just a determination to do
something all the time. And to be
always ready to do something, is
about the same as being willing
to do anything! That is complete
planlessness.
AZ . matter Of fact, there is
some sense in the planleSsnesS
Of individual initiative. AT least
we can count ON the Self-inter.
est of thousands of business
men who keenly desire to make
q profit by employing labor and
selling consumers the goods they
want. But the planleSsneSs Of
the New Deal depends on q
small group Of ''backs" - Mr..
Roosevelt At quarter" and Miss
Perkins, and Messrs. Tugwell
and Hopkins carrying the ball.
How can we know that they
know enough to run all the
banks, businesses, and farms of
the nation?
Second, we hear much about the
wastes of competition. But
doubt if the wastes Of competition
can hold a candle to the enor-
NOUS wastes that have gone on
under New Deal collectivism.
Even under rugged individual
ism we can count on the individ-
ual's counting the cost and trying
to do things that pay. But your
New Dealer just taxes or floats
bonds at the banks he controls.
Then he proceeds to pour out this
"eaSy money" regardless of cost
or earnings.
He builds up a huge MIRA organ
7Zatlon and then scraps 1t. He
pays farmers not to produce, or
actually to destroy crops. He
squanders millions in buying use
less gold and silver, much as a
millionaire might buy jewelry. He
'lends" billions of our resources
to inSolvent companies, most Of
which will never be repaid.
He blithely does things to money
and price fixing which cause the
worst sort of overproduction.
Then he makes loans to carry and
''freeZe" the surplus products.
The proof of the pudding is in
the eating, and the proof Of the
wastes of New Deal collectiviSm Is
in our growing deficit and debt.
Who is going to pay?
for one do not like rugged col
1ectivism any better than rugged
1ndividualism.