Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1944-09-22

veloped over the years a social
viewpoint which will not tolerate
any solution to the economic cycle
which rest upon the grinding down
Of the wages of working men and
women.
Farmer Has Suffered
So here again we recognize that
our economy has become more sub
ject to government action. The saw
age old cut-throat adjustments are
gone for good. We simply will not
tolerate them.
Now, consider agriculture. The
farmer, too, has lived under the iron
law Of supply and demand. In war
time or when crops were normal
and demand was good, the farmer
prospered. When crops were big
and demand was small, thesfarmer
watched his produce go begging
while his children were in need.
But the farmer had no control
over either supply or demand. He
might work his head off all sum-
mer long, and then lose everything.
He had no protection from the
economic cycle, which swept him
alternately from good times to dis
treSS.
All that is also in the past. As a
Nation. we are committed to the
proposition that the farmer must
be protected against extreme fluc-
tuations of prices. We are COM
mitted to the proposition that the
prices of major farm crops must be
supported against the menace of
disastrous collapse.
Free Market Same
We have undertaken that COM
nfitment for the sake of the entire
Nation. We know that depression
on the farm leads to depression in
the Nation, just as unemployment
and misery in the city leads to
misery on the farm.
In agriculture, in labor and in
money, we are committed to some
degree of government Intervention
IN the free workings of our eco
nomic system. In many directions
the free market which old-time
economists talked about is gone.
Now, in all this there exists an
obvious danger to our fundamental
freedoms. The danger is that in
accepting the support of government
in certain broad aspects of our
economy we may slip by stages into
complete government control of our
lives. In other words, in our search
for economic security we NAV lose
forever, our personal and political
freedoms.
Pretended to Be Generous.
Not once in all the past IL years
has the New Deal faced this situa-
ton frankly and courageously. In
stead, 1t has sousht to buy the favor
of one group and then of another.
1t has pretended to be the generous
uncle for each group, meanwhile
playing one against the other for
political profit. 1t has built up a
towering bureaucracy which today
reaches into the smallest village in
the country and directly affects the
lives of all our citizens. Not con-
tent to deal with major economic
factors, or possibly because it was
not competent to deal with them. 1t
has sought to fasten upon the in
dividual citizen, the deadening hand
OF bureaucratic control.
The result is that today we con-
front two dangerous alternatives
Under one, we may slip by gradual
stages into complete government
regulation of every aspect of our
lives. Under the other, we may be-
come so intolerant of the restraints
and interferences in our lives as to
take refuge in complete reaction
Either of these courses would be
tragic. Neither is necessary.
We have reached a point where
We must make a crucial decision
We must decide this year whether
we shall reject both of these courses
and choose new leadership pledged
to attain maximum Of security
without loss Of our essential free
doms, and with neither malice nor
favor toward any group or class.
Confident Of Goal.
For myself, l am utterly confident
that America can achieve stability
and lasting prosperity without the
loss OF any part of its political free
dom.
Facing the world ahead and rec
oSnlzing the necessity of Govern
ment active in promoting the best
interests OF individuals and of in
olvidual enterprise, we should estab-
ilSn three principles at the base of
SUCH action. All three of these
principles are the exact opposite of
the New Deal.
Inc tirst is that government ac-
ton must be of a character con-
slstent with the American system of
opportunity for all. Its objective
mist ho not ~ roet,;a&