Mr Roosevelt and a Third Term

Southland Times, Issue 24237, 21 September 1940, Page 4

Mr Roosevelt and a Third Term

THE DECISION of The New York Times to support Mr Wendell Willkie in the Presidential campaign, reported yesterday in a cable message from New York, will be received with surprise in British countries. It is difficult to imagine a more inopportune time for a Democratic newspaper to announce a change of policy. An editorial statement explained that support will be given to Mr Willkie “because he is more able to carry out the defence programme and stimulate economic and industrial activity.” It added that “a third term for Mr Roosevelt would mean the shattering of the Democratic tradition.” This last objection sounds much less convincing today than it might have done a year ago. If the present war teaches anything, it surely underlines the need for bold and unorthodox methods. The gravest crisis in modern history is not a time to place tradition before expediency. Mr Roosevelt is unquestionably the most impressive figure in American politics. His personal fitness for war-time responsibility should be obvious to everyone who has watched his control of foreign policy. Americans who formerly attacked his “alarmist” statements between the crises of 1938 and 1939 now admit that he judged the world situation with unerring insight." Although he was handicapped by the strength of isolationist sentiment, and by the apathy of the general public, he worked hard to restrain the dictators. It ■has been suggested that his famous questionnaire of April 1939 addressed to Hitler and Mussolini, delayed the outbreak of war, which even then seemed to be imminent. Mr Willkie may be a man of outstanding ability, and he can probably count upon the support of the big industrialists, who have not all shown a willingness to co-operate

whole-heartedly in defence preparations. Eiut he lacks the wide experience of affairs, the deep understanding of events and the sensitive response to new developments which belong to the equipment of a man who has been closely in touch with world politics during the recent years of tragic deterioration. It may be true, as The New York Times pointed out, that Mr Willkie and Mr Roosevelt are both aware of America’s danger, and that both are anxious to help Britain. But similarity of attitude is not enough: the fundamental test is the capacity for translating it into an effective national policy. Mr Willkie’s recent speeches have shown that he is not uninfluenced by isolationist views, and although the influence might disappear after the electipn it is at least a hint that the Republican candidate might not unreservedly endorse the present White House policy.. When all is said, however, the final argument seems to rest with the importance of personality. Mr Roosevelt is the type of leader who seldom appears more than once in a generation. His prestige, which showed signs of waning a year ago, has now revived noticeably. The people of America must surely hesitate to dismiss him from office at a time when good leadership brings the promise of salvation.