The New Zealand Herald AUCKLAND, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1944 ROOSEVELT'S FOURTH TERM

New Zealand Herald, Volume 81, Issue 25046, 9 November 1944, Page 4

The New Zealand Herald AUCKLAND, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1944 ROOSEVELT'S FOURTH TERM

The great majority of the peoples of the United Nations will rejoice at Mr Roosevelt's return to the White Houso for a fourth term. His new lease of office will extend until January, 1949—time enough to win final victory and to make a good peace. The world feels sure of what to expect from Mr Roosevelt as Commander-in-Chief in war and as architect of security in peace. Indeed Berlin and Tokyo feel so sure that his re-election will increase alarm and despondency in both capitals. It is as dismaying to the enemy as it is reassuring to the Allies. That is because Mr Roosevelt has proved his capacity for war leadership and because ho has established cordial and sound relations with the chief Allied leaders, Mr Churchill, Marshal Stalin and Marshal Chiang. On the other hand the capacities of Mr Dewey as national leader or in the conduct of foreign affairs are unproved. The majority of Americans decided that the midst of a life-and-death struggle was no time to be making experiments. They preferred to be sure than sorry. No doubt that was the decisive argument in the contest. The normal political trend would have brought home a Republican. By postponing it, by refusing to subject their Commander-in-Chief to defeat, American electors have reaffirmed their determination to follow their present course to a victorious end. Not that Mr Dewey's return would have meant irresolution. The nation is united on winning the war. But a Republican victory must have involved changes that could have been misconstrued. As it has turned out, Mr Roosevelt has won an overwhelming majority in the. electoral college. His popular majority seems, unfortunately, to have been again reduced. In 1932, he defeated Mr Hoover by 7,000,000 votes; in 1936, Mr Landon by 11,000,000 votes; and in 1940, Mr Willkie, by 5,000,000 votes. So far as the domestic scene is concerned, especially in his dealings with Congress, Mr Roosevelt would have been strengthened by a larger popular majority. It may prove, however, that his difficulties with Congress w r ill be less than was expected. The forecasts were mostly agreed that a Democrat President would be returned with a Republican Congress, producing a pull-devil pullbaker situation as between Executive and Legislature, a situation fatal to clear-cut policy and good government. But this last distraction for an over-burdened President should be averted after all. On the available figures, still far from complete, Mr Roosevelt is expected to have the support of a Democrat majority, not only in the Senate, where it was almost certain, but also in the House of Representatives, where the Democrats had lost control since 1942. The mistake of the forecasters has been in presuming that the Republican gains of 1942 would be continued this year. Yet it is a normal American political phenomenon for the opposition to win seats in the "off" election year that are not held in the presidential election year. The reason is that a strong presidential candidate, like Mr Roosevelt, carries his party's Congressmen to victory with him. The fact that many a Democrat owes his success to his leader is important. Many of Mr Roosevelt's party, especially those drawn from the South, arc as conservative as the most hard-bitten Republican. A Democrat majority in Senate and House does not, therefore, mean a constant majority for Mr Roosevelt's policies. But all the members of the House and one-third of the Senators must face the electors again in 1946 and those who are Democrats have just been reminded how vital to them is the endorsement of their leader. The victory of Mr Roosevelt and his party is also a verdict against isolationism and for international co-operation in guaranteeing peace and security. It is true that Mr Dewey was as forthright on this subject as Mr Roosevelt and that the Republicans followed his lead, if somewhat haltingly. Nevertheless it is a fact that the Republican Party is much more deeply divided on foreign policy than the Democrats. The possibility of its backsliding was more real. So the electors have made as certain as anything can be in politics by installing Democrats in both White House and Capitol. Mr Roosevelt in his fourth term, therefore, gets away to a good start. That is well for the United States and the world. A divided house in Washington would have injured both. But it would be wrong not to recognise that a rocky road lies ahead. The bitter opposition that Mr Roosevelt has broken for the time being at the polls will gather anew to bear down heavily on a President and Cabinet that have been worn by nearly 12 years of office and whose responsibilities in the years ahead promise to be even more exacting.

POST-WAR INDUSTRIES Some of the important psychological aspects of the future of New Zealand's manufacturing industries were dealt with, in a manner which should compel attention, by Mr Matheson in his presidential address to the Manufacturers' Federation annual meeting. Taking the broad view, Mr Matheson sees an association of private and State enterprise in some things, but properly urges that the greater part of the work must be left to private undertakings, which he challenged to be ready to do all they claimed they could do better than the State.. There is need of the challenge, for there have been too many declamations on the virtues of private enterprise, with at the same time a great readiness to run to the Government. Mr Matheson struck another good note when he urged that lasting prosperity could be built only on the production of goods desired by the people. Prosperity founded on Government and municipal works undertaken simply for the sake of creating jobs would be synthetic. On academic grounds it might be argued that Mr Matliesou was over emphatic on the value

of industries as a means of creating jobs, as if industry had no greater reason for existence than creating work. But he was on firm ground when he discussed employer-em-ployee relations, and the necessity for both to realise their common interests. Every man who considers he should be paid the worth of his labour would do well to study Mr Matheson's remarks. Another point of interest was his demand that the Government should make a start in handing back to industry the functions it assumed at the height of the war. All through, the speech had a broadness of vision, making it a substantial contribution to the discussions on post-war reconstruction.

DANGER TO DEMOCRACY One of the dangers to democracy is the fact that war is fought so often by methods alien to liberty. Those who clamour for swift and decisive action in politics and industrial relations may betray the very freedom for which we are fighting. In this country government by regulation and Order-in-Council is the customary procedure. There is a place for regulations, and in complex and modern societies some regulations are indeed inevitable. But it is another thing when they largely replace Parliamentary legislation. The Legislature is relegated to the background, and methods smacking of dictatorship are introduced. The Speaker of the House of Representatives is otic of the chief guardians of the privileges of democracy and of democratic process. Mr Schramm did well yesterday when he spoke of the dangers of rule by regulation and Orders-in-Council. What would he say of the clause in the far-reaching Milk Bill empowering the Government by Order-in-Council to make such provision as it thinks fit when sufficient provision is not made by the Statute itself? Under our system, the one for which the war is being waged, Governments should obtain a mandate from the people for far-reach-ing laws, or the amendment of old ones in important cases at a general election, and in all cases after a free and frank discussion in Parliament. Any other system is a negation of democracy. The Labour Government was elected to uphold these principles. It, and its adherents, should heed the advice of Mr Schramm, who has been one of its most stalwart advocates, but who can see a weakness and draw attention to it with the same impartiality as he performs his duties as Speaker.