Evening star., 1935-05-19
BY MARK SULLIVAN.

standing leaders and the like. AS an
expression of political vitality this is
wholesome. To many, however, it
seems not enough. 1t is hardly COM
plete facing of the extraordinary sit
uation now existing in America.
1t is inadequate, literally and indis-
putably inadequate, to think of Ameri-
can politics today in ordinary terms
of Republican VS.. Democratic. I am
aware of the advantages of our pres
ent system. am aware of the diff
Guilty, the almost impossibility, OF
changing this system for the purpose
of any one campaign. am aware that
in ordinary circumstances there is ad-
vantage in not having one party
wholly conservative, the other wholly
radical. But the present circum-
stances are not ordinary; they are
extremely unordinary.
Next Years Set-up.
The set-up of next years presiden-
tial campaign can best be expressed,
can only be adequately expressed, in
terms which dismiss the familiar use
of the words Republican" and Dem
ocratic."
The country is divided between New
Dealers and anti-New Dealers. Ger
tainly that is simple enough state
ment Of the political situation-no one
can possibly deny it.
To the New Dealers-thoSe who un-
derstand and favor the New Deal or
are benef1ciaries of it-Mr. Roosevelt
is apparently going to add all the dis
contented, all the radicals. That is a
fair observation, based on Postmaster
General Farley's recent statement that
Mr.. Roosevelt is going to have all the
left wingers with him. If that is the
program, it means that Mr.. Roosevelt
will go so far to the left that there
will be no reason for anybody on the
extreme left to have a third ticket
under Senator Huey Long or anybody
else. That program will leave no op-
portunity for the Socialist type of
leader, such as Upton Sinclair, or the
Socialist type of voter to try to cap
ture the Democratic party organiza-
ton, as Mr.. Sinclair did in California
last August. That program, in short,
would consolidate, as the New Deal
pal Gyt Oil IL1C 4CAG Oil I4lOoO WAAO o4 z
opposed to conservatism.
Early Assumption Wrong.
If this is the program, it is new
development. Until some two weeks
ago it was widely assumed that Huey
Long would have third party, and
that this third party would subtract
some 100000 votes or so from Mr..
Roosevelt. In short, up to the time
of Mr.. Roosevelt's action about the
business leaders in the Chamber of
Commerce, and Postmaster General
Farley'S comment in connection with
that episode-up to that time most
of us thought it was the New Dealers
who were going to be divided. We
thought that Mr.. Roosevelt's follow
ing would be divided in the election
next year between New Dealers in the
ordinary sense and radicals to whom
the New Deal is not enough. 1t now
appears that this earlier assumption
was wrong. Apparently, now the New
Dealers and the radicals are going to
be consolidated and present a united
front.
Turn now to the anti-New Dealers,
the conservatives. There we find
cleavage. The ants have no common
leadership such as the New Dealers
and radicals have in Mr.. Roosevelt.
As respects rank and file of the voters,
the anti-New Dealers are divided be-
tween Republicans and Democrats.
There are some 13,500,000 who
voted the Republican ticket in the
congressional election of November
last year. Those are anti-New Deal
ers, dependable anti-New Dealers
They voted anti-New Deal at a time
when New Deal prestige, Roosevelt
prestige, was still high. Those 49,
strength for next years election.
Ants Among Democrats.
In addition there are a large num-
Der of Democrats who are as anti
New Deal as any Republican is. There
is an immense number of Democrats
who, on straight issue, New Deal
versus anti-New Deal, would vote
anti-New Deal. How many there are
Of these anti-New Deal Democrats /
cannot estimate. Among Democratic
leaders, the number who, in their
hearts and consciences, are anti-New
Deal is great majority of the whole.
1t seems probable that Mr.. Frank
Kent is right in his estimate that, out
OF SO Democrats in the Senate, fully
60 are, in their hearts, anti-NeW Deal,
many of them profoundly anti-New
Deal, some of them heart-sick and
soul-sick at the seizure of the Demo-
cratic party by the school of thought
which goes by the name New Deal.
Well-informed Washington believes
that the foremost leaders of the Dem
ocratic party in the Senate are, in
their hearts, opposed to the New
Deal; that the very men who pilot
New Deal measures through Congress
are dismayed by man. of the mea-
sures they sponsor; that these men,
in living up to their titular party
responsibility as leaders and chair
men of committees, are doing violence
to their private convictions.
Apparently this distaste for the New
Deal goes straight up toward the top
OF the Democratic hierarchy. The
other day a particularly well informed
commentator wrote that "Vice Presi-
dent Garner is swallowing hard these
days: he doesn't like good deal of
the administration legislative program,
but he Is swallowing it. ="
And so we have the anti-New Deal
ers, those opposed to the New Deal di-
vided between Republicans and Dem
ocrats. The anti-New Dealers consist
Of substantially all the Republicans
and many Democrats. Is there any
reason why the anti-New Dealers
should be thus divided? Is it whole
some for the country that they should
be divided?
How can they achieve unity?
Opposition Is Divided.
In the lineup as it stands, with the
New Dealers united and the anti-New
Dealers divided, the New Dealers are
likely to win the election next year.
The New Dealers are likely to win, not
because there are more of them, but
mainly because the opposition to them
is divided. And if the New Dealers
win next war what will folloW2 Mr.