Evening star., 1954-02-21
Labor Bosses Dictate
Democratic Policies
Writer Says Union Leaders
Control Eisenhower Opposition
By Frank R. Kent

Control Eisenhower Opposition
By Fronk R. Kent
There seems to be growing number
Of propagandists and politicians In
Washington whose settled policy is
to deal with the American people on
the theory that they have very little
sense. less memory and no humor. Or
perhaps. it is the propagandists them
selves who are devoid Of these quail
ties. At any rate the present output
over the air, in the press and by way
Of the so-called party literature" is
Of a Stiffness that has hardly been
exceeded in our political history.
Reference Is to the current effort
to scare the President by picturing
the professional labor bosses as "dis.
pleased" opposed" "dissatified," "dis.
turbed," angry" hostile" and resent
full" because of the administration
proposed amendments to the Taft
Hartley law. AS result of these emo
tional upheavals in the stalwart bosomS
OF the labor bosses, we are told that the
Eisenhower effort to "appease" them
has failed. that the prospects are that
both next fall and in 1856 the forces Of
union labor" will be lined up against
the President. The preparations of
both C1O and AFL to do this are given
in detail with particular emphasis upon
the amount Of money each intends to
raise to overthrow the enemies of
labor" and elect for President next time
friend Of labor" by which they seem
to mean Adlai Stevenson.
In brief, we are Solemnly warned that
General Ikes inability Ito appease"
Walter Reuther, George Meany, James
Carey, David Dubinsky, David Beck,
Michael Quill and others of the widely
advertised labor bosses. means that the
Republicans in the 1854 elections not
only will lose what little control of Con-
greSS they now have but that Mr..
Eisenhower ANONYMOUSLY will be de-
feated in 1856. That is the only possi-
BILE deduction that can be made and it
Is. Of course. an unfounded deduction.
involving total disregard of the fact that
all these labor bosses were unitedly
and vociferously opposed to Mr. Eisen-
hover in 1852 and were so overwhelmed
that no one was able to point to any
section where their influence was potent
enough to count in the result
In the light of their complete politi-
cal impotence at that time it is almost
incredible that they should be able to
repeat the same threats and denuncia-
tlons time after time and time with
expectation of being taken seriously.
Nor does 1t reflect credit either
upon the radio and newspaper
commentators who seriously treat these
oenunclatlonS as news. In fact, it does
not reflect much credit upon the in.
telllgence of the reading public that
these repetitionS can be made year after
year and year after year without SEEM
ing ridiculous. Certainly, it should be
unnecessary again to recall that in ad.
dltlon to their general defeat in 1852.
the late Senator Taft took them all on
in his last Ohio campaign and showed
them up as powerless to deliver the
rank and file of the unions.
The fundamental fact to remember
when these labor-boss outbursts occur
is that practically without exception
they are-and have been-an import
ant segment of the Democratic Party
since the late Mr.. Roosevelt first lent
his name and position to the recruiting
of the CIO back before the 1886 elec-
ton. They are today-and have been
for nearly 20 years-part and par
Gel OF the Democratic Party, able to
veto or dictate national nominations
and secure party adoption of whatever
legislation they want. In brief, the
Democratic Party is their party and
they are not very far from being the
actual Democratic leaders.
IT they had good word to say Of
Mr.. Eisenhower, it would be little
more surprising than if one came from
Senator Humphrey of Minnesota, Sem
ator Sparkman of Alabama or Chair
man Mitchell of the Democratic Ma
tional Committee. They know - these
labor bosses-that General Ike is a
real friend of labor and wants it to
be treated fairly. But that isn't enough.
They want more than that - much
more. They want to run both parties
and the country. They came pretty
close to doing exactly that under Roose-
velt and Truman. When the noble Mr..
Stevenson caved in to labor-boss pres
sure soon after his nomination and
echoed the labor bosses demand for
repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act, thus
accepting their view that it was a
"slave labor" law. it was equivalent to
stating that the Roosevelt Truman
policy of complete subserviency would
be continued if he were elected.
The election of General Ike put an
end to that kind of White House favor.
But, of course, there is no end to
the desire of the labor bosses to see
it restored. What they are disturbed"
"angry" and hostile" about is not
that they can't get a fair deal under
General Ike, but that they can't get
the servility they were accustomed to
from Presidents. But that is one of
the things the American people voted
against in 1882.