Evening Post. MONDAY, JUNE 15, 1938. "MIRROR" OF NEW DEAL

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 140, 15 June 1936, Page 8

Evening Post. MONDAY, JUNE 15, 1938. "MIRROR" OF NEW DEAL

If the Republican platform i* open to I lie rcproacli that ii ' "mirrors tha New Deal,' ihe public were prepared for this by llie anticipations of constructive critics like the "Springfield Republican.' To a certain extent, imitation (said to be the sinccrest flattery) was unavoidable and the use of Democratic New Deal terms was inevitable. Before 1933 the United States Federal Legislature had hardly been troubled with labour and pension laws, with Government control of currency and business (apart from the old trust laws), and with a huge scheme of Federal relief and public works. When the Democrats began in 1933 to write a whole series of Government interferences with the existing order—some of litem paternalistic, and nearly all of litem outside the American Governmental tradition — the Democrats wrote a completely new chapter of United States history on a brand-new depression-produced slale. Any opponent seeking in 1936 to set up a rival programme must either move the direct negative to all the Democrats have done— which is politically impossible—or must attempt a mere amendment of their monumental work, necessarily adopting much of the language they have coined. Even if this means a "psychological disadvantage" for Mr. Landon and his fellowRepublicans, they are compelled to talk in terms of what Mr. Roosevelt and Congress have done since March, 1933. One of the most notable pieces of copying mentioned in the cablegrams is "the acknowledgment of Labour's right to collective bargaining 'by representatives of their own choosing,' which is' the language of section 7a of the Democrats' National Industrial Recovery Act." Clearly the Republicans could not be silent on Labour's claim to form its own unions in its own way for collective bargaining; they dared not deny that claim; what else could they do but stand for it? It is a genuine piece of 1933 Rooscveltism that no Republican campaign parly in 1936 dares to be without. In 1933 no political party in Britain could have discovered trade unionism as Mr. Roosevelt discovered it in the United States, and no opposing party would have had to steal the plank in 1936, because Britain has had for many years a fully-organised trade unionism that needed no discovering, and a political Labour Party. America's comparative backwardness in the former, and complete lack of the latter, constitute a fundamental.fact, which has two vital meanings. The first meaning is that Mr. Roosevelt and the Democrats were able to launch a Labour policy amounted to a radical departure in Federal pofitics, and one which the Republicans at Cleveland fearecf to question. The second and more important meaning is that, after the welter of poverty and • strikes and New Deal, United States politics will never again be able to insulate itself from the labour conflict. The day of individualism and of Congress's isolation from ameliorative and even paternalistic legislation is over. The day of trade unions dominating the Government of the day, or even supplying it through a political Labour Party, is no longer beyond the horizon of Americans' vision.

By imitation, the Republicans certify that political navigation in the United States lias now to consider not only the financial East, not only the farming West, but Labour both East and West. The Republicans say in effect: "We agree with the Democrats that hours and wages of women and children should be limited to avoid sweating, but this can be done by the State Legislatures, thus avoiding the constitutional trouble over Federal powers." But this attempt of Federal Republicans to wash their hands of sweating by leaving it to the States evidently does not meet with the approval of their chosen candidate, for Mr. Landon has broken his strong silence to say that he is not afraid to fight lor a constitutional amendment giving j the Federal Legislature power to protect the hours and wages of women and children. With all due deference lo the strategy of the, "hands off the Constitution party,", Mr. Landon .declines lo be put under the charge that when sweating of j women and children had been' thrown into the Federal ring by the Democrats, he as a Republican ran away. For that is how "leaving it to the Stales" would be interpreted. The point is one likely to register on the popular mentality, and surely Mr. Landon has shown keen common sense in picking the weakness. In several other directions the people who drafted the Republican platform show a strong leaning towards leaving reforms to State Legislatures. Thus they hope toj avoid conflict with the Constitution,! with the Supreme Court, or with J both. It is significant that, at the same time, Mr. Roosevelt at Rock "obliquely attacks" the 1 Supreme Court and calls for a' broader Constitution. At Cleveland the Republicans found that lliey simply could not oppose cither old age pensions or unemployment insurance; the latter they assign lo the States, but pensions (over 65 years) ihey would take from Federal taxa-J

lion. Still seeking to be '"the same, 'only different," tlic Republicans retain public works but insist thai lltey .*liall bo "meritorious." Su the Republicans will (if elected) continue to be Santa Claus, buL more in the way of Federal grants to relief and works iit Stales, instead of through direct Federal instrumentalities. A "national land use programme" is unexplained, but seems lc> parody the Roosevelt: A.A.A.; and the revolt against President Roosevelt's lower tariff concessions (limited to certain countries under the reciprocity machinery) reads strangely in company with the demand for collection of war debts. The difficulty of paying debts with goods, against high tariffs, is well known in debtor countries, but apparently not in Cleveland. In litis attempt to ride both horses—debtspayment and high tariff—at the .same lime and in the same race, (lie Republicans look rather uncomfortable, and their inconsistencies invite counter-fire.