The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1949-09-16
BY E. L. FREEMAN, Missoula

The London Economist is one OF
the most respected magazines in the
world. 1t is steadily critical of the
Laobr government and is especially
critical right now of it's efforts to
establish further reform measures in
these hard times. The Daily Missou-
liam makes very unjustified use of
this general fact. 1t begins an edi-
torial on August Is as follows:
"The London Economist is in a
fine position from which to observe
the social-economic- political situa-
ton in Britain. The Economist also
is sufficiently courageous to attack
the welfare state established by the
dominant Labor party, despite the
popularity of notwithstanding
socialism. Many Americans
would do we'll to consider what the
London journal has to say of the
situation in its own backyard" The
editorial then goes on to quote some
dozen lines from a leading article in
the Economist of July 9th which are
severely critical of weaknesses that
the Economist thinks have been
growing in the national mind through
the last two decades and that have
been exaggerated by the Labor party
policy.
The Muscular editorial concludes
from this as follows:
"This comment by British publ
cation of high standing should aid us
in further study of the British situa-
ton. While the trend toward the
welfare state exists in this country,
has made considerable advance in re-
cent years, still it has not progressed
so far that it could not be stopped
before it had reduced the American
economy to the unfortunate status
of that of Britain. The British are
an about experiment in
socialism before our eyes and we
should learn the lesson it teaches so
obviously. :"
There are three things wrong
with this counsel to wisdom by the
Missoulian:
First: In its quotation from the
Economist about the weakness in the
present national habit of mind the
omits this fairly import
ant sentence: "And in the construc-
ton of that state of mind the Tories,
with the protection they lavished on
restrictive practices and the encour-
agement they gave to cartels, played |
fully as large a part as the Social
sts."
Second: The Economist is not OPP
posed to the welfare state. In its
ssue of August 10, 1949 it says edi-
Every modern state is
Welfare state; as Mr.. Bevin said the
,ther day, there are few clearer ex-
imples than the way American legis-
alton has protected the farmers of
he United States against the rigors
If the economic climate. What can
Justly be held against the British
Welfare state is only that it has
.hosen the wrong time to take such
ong strides forward. The welfare
tate is not controversial; it is ac
epted by everybody, including the
United States Senate. There is no
between the political
,arties in Britain on it-as the Con-
ervatives are at great pains to in
list. If a retreat is now obviously
Necessary in Britain, it is only re-
reat, and temporary one at that,
nd not an abandonment"
Third: The Economist does not
want its observations to be turned
nto a stick to beat the Labor gov
rnment as such. In the same issue
t writes: at is reported that the
rites of Britain sometimes use quo
atoms from the which
as certainly been critical enough of
lis Majesty's government to sup
ort their arguments. 1t is always
lattering to find oneself quoted
broad. But those who pay this
ournal the compliment of setting