Evening star., 1940-09-21
The Dividing Line

President Roosevelt and Wendell
Willkie, in their most recent formal
addresses, have directed attention to
what is perhaps the most essential
difference between their PHILOSOPHERS
of government. In appraising the
remarks of Mr.. Willkie at Los Angeles
and those of the President at Phila-
delphia, 1t is necessary to take into
account the fact that the two candi-
dates were not addressing themselves
to precisely the same topic, and for
that reason detailed comparisons
cannot be made. But each man was
stating his philosophy of government,
and in a broad sense the dividing line
between their respective concepts of
the proper role of government in
modern society has been made clear.
Mr.. WILKES address served to
clarity and to emphasize convictions
he has already stated. In a word,
he has committed himself to the
proposition that, fundamentally the
future of America lies in a healthy
growth of industry, large and small,
new and old. The Republican can
didate recognizes that government
cannot remain aloof from this
process, that a certain amount of
regulation and supervision is neces-
sary to prevent abuses. Likewise,
he understands that government
must assume certain social obliga-
tions-the extension of aid to the
unemployed. to the aged and to those
whose physical indrmities bar them
from the labor market. But Mr..
Willkie would not have government
place primary emphasis on these
policing and paternalistic functions.
AS he analyzes our problem, the prime
necessity is to encourage and stimu-
late the constant growth of estab-
lished industry and the steady de-
velopment of new industries. 1t is
upon this effort, in his judgment,
that government should place major
emphasis, for it is to this source, and
this alone, that the Nation must look
for real jobs and real wealth.
From all available evidence, the
President adheres to different view.
This is not to say that Mr.. Roosevelt
is opposed to industrial growth. 1t
is preposterous to assume that he
would prefer an unhealthy to a
healthy industrial establishment, but,
on the basis of the record he has
made, it is not unreasonable to be-
lieve that industrial stimulation is
accorded subordinate position in
Mr. Roosevelt's philosophy. Through
out his career as President, he has
placed major emphasis on the New
Deals program of social reform, the
policing of industry being a COM
ponent part. That he has made
progress in this direction is beyond
dispute, but it is equally clear that
the social gains of the New Deal rest
upon an unhealthy economy and
that they are therefore insecure.
The impression is gained from Mr..
Roosevelt's public statements that he
believes social advances to be more
important than industrial growth,
that the former can be maintained
without the latter. And it is here
that he and Mr.. Willkie basically
disagree.
AS this campaign progresses, it is
to be expected that this fundamental
difference between the two candi-
dates will be brought more clearly
to public notice. Certainly, this
should be one of Mr. WILKES main
objectives. The real question for the
voters to decide in November is
whether the primary purpose of our
Government should be to encourage
private industry and business to pro-
duce the means of national progress,
or whether government, as such, can
successfully undertake that role. Mr.
WILKES chances of election will be
largely dependent upon his success
In demonstrating the futility of
attempting to move in the second of
these two directions.