Milford chronicle., 1952-09-19
PRESSURE GROUPS ARE NOT
TOO POWERFUL

of.
Governor Stevenson did it before the
American Legion Convention in New York
when he said he would submit to no demands
ne thought were excessive or in conflict with
the public interest"
General Eisenhower said it before the
Veterans of Foreign Wars. One of his major
efforts if elected, he said, would be directed
toward serving "the worthy interests of ev-
cry group of our people, yet make the test of
every pOlicy-is it good for American"
1t is a heartening sign to see both Gov
ernOr Stevenson and General Eisenhower
put such a turn to the campaign. For if both
refuse to yield to excessive demands, the
bargaining power of such groups and Or
ganizations will eventually become known
for what it really is: A fiction under the bed
and nothing more.
1t is only human nature that every pres
sure group should claim that it can deliver
the votes of it's members in toto, and that the
candidates must go along with its views or
else. And it is probably only human nature
that good many politicians should decide
to play it that way and break their necks
trying to please all factions and ALLEVIATE
none. But the fact is that there is nothing
in our recent political history to prove that
any group no matter how large and power
full, can make all or even the larger part of
it's membership do what it wishes once they
enter the polling booth.
In late years. the most vigorous pressure
groups have been the major labor unions.
The CIO has been the most aggressive Of all.
It. and to a lesser extent the AFOfII, have
been potent voices in the Roosevelt and Tru-
man Administrations. The leaders of these
unions have done everything conceivable to
induce the rank-and-file to follow their rec
concentrations, and they have spent very
large sums of money on behalf of favored
candidates. They have been helped in this
by laws which prevent the employer from
directly trying to influence the vote of the
employee.
But the figures show that the unions have
failed to control their membership. The most
signal example was Senator Taft'S last vic
tory in Ohio. The heads of organized labor
waged as tough campaign against Taft as
their StrategiStS could conceive. They did
their best to make him appear the implacable
foe of the working man and the bosom friend
of the explOiter of labor. Yet Taft carried
the state OVerwhelmingly-by close to 500,-I
900 votes. He carried almost all of the labor
centers. The statistics speak for themselves
Taft could not have won so decisive a vic
tory had not very large percentage of union
men voted for him. And in the 1948 Presi-
Dental race, Governor Dewey, despite un-
equiVOcal CIO and AFOfL endorsement of
President Truman, ran very well in many
highly industriaized areas where organized
labor represents a heavy majority of the
population. CuriOusly enough, an analysis
of the 1913 returns shows that it was the
farm vote, not the labor vote, which elected
Mr.. Truman.
Any group can tell its members what to
do but it can't follow them into the polling
booth and see that it's orders are obeyed. The
American voter seems to be an independent
cusS, who makes his beside the name of
his chOice-nOt somebody elSes choice.
HOW'RE YOU DOING?
A married couple with two children
needs an income of 81, ,189 today to live as
we'll as they did on $4,000 in 1889.
High taxes and initiation have caught the
family bread-winner in a terrific squeeze.
Investigating the ''yOu never had it so
good theory, Representative Byrnes of Wis
cOnsin had the Joint Committee on Internal
Revenue Taxation furnish statistics on how
much it would take for various income fam
lilies to have the same purchasing power to-
day that they had in 1882
The comparison is startling. Making al
lOwances for higher tax rates and imitation,
following are the figures for an average fam
lily with two children:.
1889 1852