Evening star., 1949-06-23
Our Coming Struggle

1
The speech which James r Byrnes made
few days ago at Warrington and Lee
University, and the subsequent debate
which it provoked In the Senate, have not
received the attention they deserve.
Some of Mr.. Byrnes' remarks were re-
ported In the press. Unfortunately, how
ever, although 1t Is understandable enough,
attention was centered on those of his
remarks which seemed to be directed in
criticism to certain aspects of the Truman
legislative program. But Mr.. Byrnes was
talking about something more important
and more fundamental than particular
items of a particular program of legisla-
ton. And 1t Is this which really deserves
attention.
Here is a man whose thinking has been
Influenced by rich experience in all phases
! of American public life. Mr.. Byrnes was an
influential figure In both House and Senate.
| II not New Dealer in the extreme sense,
he had much to do with the implementa-
ton of what we call the New Deal He
| served on the Supreme Court. He was at
/ the very center of the war mobilization
| effort Finally, he entered the Cabinet as
Secretary Of State and was close adviser
to the President.
Now the public phase of his career is
closed. When Mr. Byrnes spoke at Wash
ington and Lee he spoke as private citi-
zen, without partisan interests to serve.
But he also spoke from fullness of expe-
rience which commands respect for his
appraisal of this country's basic political
issue and its underlying causes.
1t would be an exaggeration, perhaps, to
say that Mr.. Byrnes is frightened by the
political dangers which he envisions. But
certainly he is deeply disturbed. He be-
lieves that the philosophy Of life and the
attitude toward government OF our fore
fathers, the men who laid the foundations
Of this country's greatness, have been for
gotten. Their concept of a self-reliant
people is dying out In its place, as he
sees it, there is growing up society bent
upon securing special privileges, mount
ing clamor for Federal aid in furtherance
of one special project or another. He
describes the term Federal aid as an opiate
an opiate which blinds the people to the
fact that there can be no Federal aid
except as it comes from their own pockets,
and which renders them Indifferent to the
curtailment Of liberty which is apt to ac-
company the expanding proposals put for
ward in the name of the public welfare.
This philosophical break with the past,
this new public attitude, is cited by Mr..
Byrnes as one of the basic dangers con-
fronting us.
The other danger concerns the reaction
of politicians to the public mood. "Un-
fortunately" says Mr.. Byrnes, leach politi-
cal party tries to outpromise the other"
That is true, all too true. But it is one
thing to diagnose political ailment; an
other to prescribe remedy. = Our recent
political history seems to indicate that the
people want more and more from the
Government. And 1t also seems to indicate
thatthe way TO win elections Is to promise
the people wfi&t they want. II thatsis so,
what prospect is there that any major
political party will campaign on program
of seH-denial, or, II 1t, should do so, that
It could hope to win an election?
The debate in the Senate came after
Senator Robertson of Virginia put the
Byrnes speech In the Congressional Record.
Some of the Republicans suddenly dis
covered in Mr.. Byrnes qualities of states
manShip which heretofore had escaped
their notice. So Senator Pepper of Florida
took the floor in behalf of the administra-
ton.
In contrast to some Of his oratorical
efforts, the Florida Senator, on this occa-
sion, did an admirable job. He was both
restrained and persuasive. It may be
doubted that any one in the Senate could
have done better in defending what has
been undertaken in the public welfare field
and the good intentions underlying this
effort. But he did not really get down to
the basic question-the question of where
this kind of Government activity, once set
in motion, can be stopped short of the
kind of statism which every one wants to
avoid.
Senator Capehart of Indiana made an
interesting point at this juncture. He re-
called that when the Senate was debating
the first Federal income tax the issue was
whether it should be nxed at or per
cent. Some one suggested that 1t might be
well to prescribe by law limitation Of 10
per cent. President Wilson urged that this
not be done because, he said, that will be
an invitation Immediately to go to 10 per
cent" The intentions of the Senate in 1918
were moderate and good, but the Federal
income tax now goes up to 81 per cent
It Is essentially the same problem with
which we are faced today. How and where
is this trend Of the people toward reliance
on the Government. instead of relying on
themselves, to be stopped? Will not the
assumption by the Government of ever
increasing responsibility for the welfare
of the people lead necessarily to an ever
growing demand for power to regulate the
lives of the people?
This was what Mr. Byrnes had In mind
when he spoke of coming struggle be-
tween those who believe In individual free
dom and those who subordinate the in
dividual to the dictates of government. It