Evening star., 1939-12-09


be renominated. David Lawrence.
that there is nobody else in America
ready to take over the presidency
and that it would take two years to
educate anybody else.
Aside from the improperly OF a
diplomatic officer home on leave en-
tering into a political discussion, the
question will be asked why Mr.. Ken :
nedy selects one of his superior Off
GERS and ignores the other. Cordell
Hull, the Secretary of State, is just
as familiar with the critical problems
of foreign policy as Is anybody IN
the Government. Mr.. Kennedy theo-
retically reports to the Secretary OF
State on what happens abroad. To
imply that Mr.. Hull is not compe-
tent to take the presidency, after
he has been widely mentioned by
Democrats throughout the country,
is to argue that the Democratic
party and the country must concede
that the Secretary of State has not
learned the details of the job he
holds, when the truth is he has been
for seven years the maker of Amer
ica's foreign policy.
What Wilson Said.
In 1912 Woodrow Wilson, then the
Democratic nominee for the presi-
dency, told his audiences that there
was in America mo indispensable
man" He was referring to the
third-term candidacy of Theodore
Roosevelt, who, incidentally, had
been out of Office for four years be-
fore he made his effort to win a
third term in the White House. Mr..
Kennedy tells the world that no
body else in America can really be
a good President after 1941 except
Mr.. Roosevelt.
There are many admirers of the
President who will feel he has
learned so much about the White
House job that it would be a mis-
take to replace him with new man.
But the argument would be as
logical four years hence if Mr..
Roosevelt were reelected, for it
could then be contended that in II
years he had learned so much more
than new man could that it would
be folly to have any one else in
the presidency.
The idea of educating" a man
in the presidency and the notion
that "experience" in the White
House is more important than any
other consideration is fallacy held
by Republicans as well as Demo-
Gratis. The friends of Herbert
Hoover held tenaciously to the idea
in the winter of 1882 that he should
place at the disposal of the Presi-
dent-elect all the information he
had about the then critical eco
nomic conditions of the country,
but, as revealed in Raymond Moley S
memoirs of those stirring days, Mr..
Roosevelt refused to participate in
such "co-operation" conferences. In
other words, he preferred to plunge
into the presidency without even
the benefit of intimate talks with
his predecessor.
Seen as Costly.
There are many people today who
feel that billions Of dollars of flnan-
cial assets were needlessly sacri-
feed by the bank holiday that re-
suited from the refusal of the in
coming and outgoing Presidents to
confer frequently and in nom
political way during the four months
between election day and March 4.
There can be no doubt from the
excellent record of many banks
which have since paid out 100 per
cent to their depositors that America
might have been spared some of the
enforced liquidation of that sensa-
tional closing of the banks.
But. on the other hand, the Roose-
veltian contention is that 1t was
necessary to make new approach
The Hoover regime and its leader
ship had been repudiated at the
polls and hence their experience
was not essential to an understand
ing of new policies. The same will
be said now by the Republicans
that a new approach and house
cleaning are needed and that all
the "education" and "experience" a
new President needs is how to keep
from making decisions based on
political expediency or party whim.
AS a matter of fact, there is con-
siderable exaggeration about the "ex-
perience" idea in government. II
one man knows SO much about the
government that he cannot be re-
placed, it is more of sign OF one
man rule than of consultative or de-
Lucrative government. The British
cabinet system of government pre-
cludes the possibility of one-man
domination.
Advisability Another Matter.
The only question raised by Mr.
Kennedy which will acquire more
and more significance in 1910 is
whether such a crisis is on as to
make it inadvisable for America to
change Presidents. This is differ
ent argument from insisting at this
time, when the skies are relatively
clear so far as American participa-
ton in the war is concerned, that
there should be no change in the
national administration.
When diplomatic representatives
Of the United States Government
come home and issue interviews on
the third term question, it casts sus-
picion on the whole theory of non
partisanship in foreign policy. Re-
publicans who have been accusing
the administration of foisting war
scares on the public or creating
crises from which political benefit
might be derived are not so con-
vincingly denounced now as mere
partisans as they were before the
Kennedy interview was published.
Reproduction Rights Reserved)