Evening star., 1934-09-02
BY RExFORD G TUGwELL.
United States Undersecretary of
Agriculture.

S1ncat1on. Having SCeeped
4 themselves in secondary ac-
counts of economic history,
and having accepted without much
question the categories of more orig
inal analysts, they are tormented by
the unrepentant originality Of events.
The new deal has been consigned
to certain failure times enough be-
cause 1t is not this or that. I am
nevertheless disposed to start the lit
erary chase on q new tack. Suppose
the new nationalism which Is at
tributed to the administration should
be extended to the prevention Of one
more import-books, and suppose
some kind of purge should suppress
European ideas; we should then be
forced to turn to our own history for
the beginnings of the contemporary
movement.
This is the trouble, really. What
is being done is an indigenous de-
velopment; the confusion arises be-
cause our literary folk know every
thing except American history. The
clue they are looking for exists in
our own rural past. Let me suggest,
therefore, that they try to visualize
the homestead and the village of q
generation or two ago right here in
the Eastern States. And let me give
them a word to elnbroider and elab-
crate to see whether more cannot be
made Of 1t than Of Communism,
Fascism. capitalism, or any other of
the terms which are being so over
worked. The word Is neighborlinesS.
Word Seems Accurate.
AS I think Of what has been done
up to now and Of what the commit
ments are, there seems to me to be
a rather plain If undeclared effort to
extend the impulse of neighborline
to regions made wider by new facili-
ties of communication, transport and
mass production. am willing to ad-
NIT that it may not succeed; ! am
even willing to admit that there were
divisive forces in the original social
complex, so that for success to be
had certain elements have to DOM
mate others and suppress them.
Nevertheless the word seems more
accurate to me than any other and
the struggles more understandable If
they are traced back to that beginning.
For there were both the impulse to
exploit and that to succor. And the
battle Of policies now centers funda-
mentally In that difference. Are we
to have village common, to share
our gains with the less fortunate, to
tend the sick, to exchange work in
f1r tzw
stay in the character Of Shrewd
traders, doing as we like with our
own regardless Of public opinion,
wringing the last penny from our
debtors because the contract calls for
1t. guarding our business secrets
zealously and refusing to contribute
to community progress because taxes
viii be higher?
think no one needs to have the
contemporary analogieS pointed OUT
that is, no one who knows our history.
But, also, no one can possibly doubt
the kind Of neighbor President Roose-
velt would have been, the role he
would have played in community life,
the counsel he would have given in
local discussion. And no one needs
to be confused now that he Is Presi-
dent. Farmsteads and villages do not
have dictators; they do have leading
citizens. They do not bother about
formulas; they settle things in prac-
tical ways. With this general clue to
what kind Of policy may develop, I
am inclined to confine the rest of
this discussion to one Of them. It Is
important enough, and sufaciently
typical to serve for illustrative pur-
poses at least.
Fight on Social Insurance.
The commitment for the future
about which there is likely to be most
discussion in the coming months is
that which President Roosevelt has
made concerning social insurance.
He sent special message to Congress
about it and has reiterated his posi-
ton several times since. His aim is
the protection Of each individual
against the risks which are outside
his control. The controversies will
arise not about the idea of social in
surance, because that is by now gen.
orally accepted, but about the kinds
and amounts of protection to be given,
and about the ability Of our economic
system to sustain them.
Theoretically, any amount Of pro-
lection can be given UP TO the limit of
our national income. Practically,
even the EXTREMIST advocates of high
protection argue only for minimum,
"tiding over" allowance. But even
that runs into larger share of the
national income than Is usually sus-
pected, though this is perhaps q poor
way to put it. because insurance itself
may create income. This is difficult
to understand at first, but becomes
clear by reference to the difficulties of
recent years and the part In them
which was played by the failure Of
purchasing power.
Insurance is usually argued for on
the ground that the prevention of
suffering is a worthy enterprise and
one which Government is obligated
to undertake. This is true enough
and it is certainly the surest appeal.
But it is also true that the continuous
distribution of even a national mini
mum of income will also insure a con-
slant minimum Of industrial activity
and therefore Of employment. In this
sense the guarantee of payment viii
make payment unnecessary.
This argument, however, does not
allow for some inevitable changes
which make gaps in the best-planned
continuity. Even If purchasing power
Is, In any case, assured, there cannot
ever be perfect prediction Of the goods
and services for which it viii be spent.
Industries viii rise and fall and en-
ployment viii therefore be discon-
tinuous. Only, If there is system of
insurance, this discontinuity viii be
greatly reduced.
Easiest Risks Are Simplest.
The easiest risks to handle are
those which are simplest In the act
uarial sense; such as old age, the
loss Of parents, illness and the like.
Illness may be complicated by an
occasional epidemic which throws out
all calculations; but nothing of this
sort compares with the difficulties en-
countered In insuring against un-